being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
in the not imputing thereof but also in h Cap. 6.6 destroying the body of sinne and restoring in vs the image of God i Ephe. 4.24 in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth he hauing giuen himselfe k Tit. 2.14 to purge vs to be a peculiar people vnto himselfe and l Ephe. 5.27 to make vnto himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing And all this Christ will effect vnto vs but he will do it according to his owne will not according to Popish fancie All this is now in fieri non in facto esse it is begun and in doing but it is not yet finished and done it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead In the meane time he bringeth vs not to perfect righteousnesse in our selues nor giueth vnto vs a full immunitie from sinne that he may take away from vs all occasion of reioycing in our selues that as Saint Austine noteth m August de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 13. Vt dum non iustificatur in coÌ„spectu erâ—s viuens actionem gratiarum semper in dulgentiâ—e ipsius debeamus siâ— ab illa primâ— caâ—sa omniuÌ„ vâ—ticrum id est ae tumore superbâ—e sancta humilitate scruemur whilest no man liuing is found iust in the sight of God we may alwaies owe thankesgiuing vnto his mercie and by humilitie may be healed from swelling pride and n Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Vt scâ—amus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit that we may know as Saint Bernard saith at that day that not for the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Now therefore we doe no wrong to Gods goodnesse wisedome iustice in our iustification as Maister Bishop fondly chargeth vs because we teach iustification in the same sort as God himselfe hath taught it vs inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessarie effect but not conteining it as an essentiall part We hold sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in this sence that the one cannot be without the other and that no man is iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ but we denie sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in Maister Bishops meaning as to be any cause or matter of it As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him the true purpose of it onely is to shew the worke of Gods grace to be irreuocable in them vpon whom he hath set the marke of his election and hath iustified them by faith in Christ to whom as Saint Austine saith o August Soli. loq cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonuÌ„ etiam peccata ipsa euen their very sinnes doe worke for good and thereof is made as it were a triacle and preseruatiue against sinne so that as Bernard saith p Bernard de triplici cohaer clauor vincul glutin Of Certaintie of Saluation Sect. 9. though Dauid be branded with the blot of horrible sinnes and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Maister yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God who because he will preserue them therefore preserueth their faith and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification and though by occasion they fall yet they neuer so fall but that q 1. Iohn 3.9 his seede remaineth in them and r Psal 37.24 his hand is vnder to lift them vp againe Now because we affirme the inward sanctifying of the heart to be alwaies an infallible consequent of iustification there is no place for that obiection of his that we make the righteous man like to sepulchers whited without with an imputed Iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder The imputation of righteousnesse both outwardly and inwardly is our iustification before God and by sanctification the iustified man both outwardly and inwardly becommeth other in quality then he was before so that although sinne in part be still remaining to lust and rebell yet it is brought into subiection that it raigneth not and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit a man is not by it reputed full of iniquitie and disorder But of this sufficient hath bene said Å¿ Sect. 17. before by occasion of the same cauill in his epistle to the Ring Here as he giueth further occasion we tell him that that remainder of sinne in the regenerate is couered with the mantle of the righteousnesse of Christ and so S. Austine as we haue seene before calleth it t August de nupt concup lib. 2. ca. 34. peccatum tectum sinne couered or hidden But saith he it is madnesse to thinke that any thing can be hid from the sight of God We answer him that God seeth it well enough with the eye of his knowledge but by reason of that couerture u August in Ps â—1 Noluit aduertire Tecta quare vt non videâ—â—tur Quid erat Dei videre peccata aâ—si puâ—ire peccata will not see it with the eye of his iudgement he seeth it with a discerning but seeth it not with a reuenging eye euen as it is said x Numb 23.21 He seeth no iniquitie in Iacob nor beholdeth transgression in Israel But he demaundeth Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away and adorne the soule with grace c. He hath his answer before I will here quit him onely with Saint Austins words y Augus â—â—nat Câ—â—grat cap. 27. riot agit Deus vt â—aâ—ct onâ—â—a sed agit tuâ—licio suo nec ordinem sanaâ—di accipit ab aegreto God is in hand to heale all but he doth it at his owne discretion and receiueth not of the sicke man an order for his cure Againe he asketh Hath not Christ deserued it We tell him ye Christ hath deserued it and for his merits sake it shall be done but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it Christ hath deserued for vs to be wholly freed from mortalitie corruption and death as before was sayd but mortalitie corruption and death yet continue still When mortalitie corruption and death shall be abolished then shall sinne also wholly and for euer be taken away Last of all he demaundeth Is it because God cannot make such iustice in a pure man I answer him out of Tertullian z Tertul. aduers Praxeâ—in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac senteÌ„tia vtamuâ— quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volanduÌ„ instruxâ—sse non tamen quia potuit statim fecit c. Probare apertè debebis ex Scripturâ—s If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceiue opinion we may faine what we list of God as if he had
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
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
him to be that vnto vs which God hath promised surely in beleeuing him to be our righteousnesse he is our righteousnesse and ſ 2. Cor. 5.21 we are made the righteousnesse of God in him And this is indeede not by receiuing Christes righteousnesse really into vs but by hauing righteousnesse imputed vnto vs for his sake For we receiue the righteousnesse of Christ euen as we receiue himselfe who so becommeth ours as that t Iohn 6.56 we abide in him and he in vs u Ephe. 5.30 we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones we are really and truly by the power of his spirit one with him and he with vs and yet he is not personally bodily brought vnto vs. Faith seeketh Christ and findeth him and holdeth him in the virgins wombe in the maunger in the garden vpon the crosse in the graue in his resurrection and ascension vnto heauen and in his now sitting at the right hand of God to make intercession for vs. Euery where faith imbraceth him and in euery of these seeth him to be ours as hauing vndertaken and atchieued all these things for our sakes Euen so the righteousnesse merit of Christ is spiritually but really ours within and without in spirit soule and body to clense and sanctifie vs vnto God But saith he if it be ours by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it A foolish and idle question as if he should say If I giue food to a hungry man what neede hath he either of a hand to take it or a mouth to eate it He himselfe saw that the answer is ready euen the same that Ambrose deliuereth x Ambros in Rom ca. 4. Sic decretum a Deo hoc sāxit Deus Et in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutū est c. God hath so decreed it is thus appointed of God God requireth faith to which he will impute the righteousnesse of Christ Where we may wonder at the absurd boldnesse of this blind baiard who telleth vs hereupon that he will be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs. What M. Bishop wil you be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper to apply Christ vnto vs as that which God himselfe hath appointed for that vse Is not the will and ordinance of God sufficient to restraine your presumption and boldnesse to shut your mouth from running ouer in this sort He saith that there is no other aptnesse requisite in the cōdition it selfe but only the wil and ordinance of God But shal we be so impious as to think that the wil ordinance of God without cause appointeth one cōdition whē as wel it might appoint another or appointeth anything to be don which is not more fitly done that way that he appointeth then any other way The Apostle telleth vs y Rom. 4.16 Therfore it is by faith that it may be of grace importing that faith is appointed as the fittest meanes wherby to set forth the grace of God Again he addeth for another reason z Ibid. That the promise might be sure to all the seed For no otherwise can we rest assured of the promise of God but as it is of grace who in our works can find nothing whereupon to assure our selues By faith therfore we beleeue it to be of grace that with cōfortable assurāce we may firmly expect the blessing which God hath promised vnto vs. Another reasō with S. Paul why faith is specially appointed is a Cap. 3.27 to exclude boasting So saith Ambrose b Ambros in Psal 43. Maluit Deus vt salus homini fide potius quà m operib quaereretur nequis gloriaretur in suis factis God hath made choise that saluation should be gotten rather by faith then by workes that no man should glory in his owne doings It is therefore for the speciall aptnesse of faith that God hath appointed it to be the instrument for applying vnto vs the whole benefit of Christ Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that true diuine reason teacheth him that both hope and charity do much more apply Christes merits vnto vs then faith doth But it is indeede a dreaming and vnreasonable fancie and not anie true diuine reason that hath taught him so For whereas he saith that hope applieth in particular what faith beleeueth in generall it hath bene before shewed that the office of true faith is to make this particular applicatiō And indeed there can be no true hope in any man where there is not first a faith to apply the benefit of Christ particularly to himselfe For though I beleeue that Iesus is a Sauiour yet what ground haue I thereby to hope for saluation vnlesse I beleeue that he hath saued me that c Gal. 2.20 he hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Surely vnlesse I beleeue for my selfe I cannot hope for any thing for my selfe saue onely at vncertaine aduenture and without ground Now M. Bishops hope being no other how can he be said thereby to apply that to himselfe whereof he is still to stand in feare whether it be his or not But to come neerer to the point the question here is of applying the merits of Christ vnto vs. Now the merit of Christ is that that Christ hath already done for vs. But hope respecteth that onely that is futurely to be done Hope therefore can in no sort be the instrument to apply vnto vs the merit of Christ Neither can charitie serue vs for that vse because I cannot presume of that that is anothers vpon any conscience of my loue towards him but vpon confidence onely of his loue towards me Howsoeuer I seeme to employ my selfe to the seruice of God yet it giueth me nothing whereof to presume with him vnlesse I beleeue that of his loue he doth accept my seruice and will reward the same Be it as Maister Bishop saith that all things are common amongst friends but before we can build thereupon wee must haue it resolued vnto vs that God taketh vs for his friends which can be no otherwise but by faith onely d Rom. 3.25 God hauing set foorth Christ to be an attonement to make vs friends with God through faith in his bloud Faith then must first applie vnto vs the merite of the bloud of Christ before there can be anie friendshippe betwixt God and as And although being now in friendship with Christ our loue may giue vs encouragement and comfort to make vse to our selues of that that is his yet it is not by our loue that we take it to make vse therof For the art of loue is done only extramittendo by issue and passage from vs to Christ and therefore it must be somwhat else whereby we receiue and apply from Christ to vs. To be short we wonder what application M. Bishop can make by charity who e Chap. 3. Sect.
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
loued them What merits had Abraham when God called him from l Iosuah 24.2 seruìng other gods and euen at the first gaue him m Gen. 12.1.2 an absolute promise of all that mercy and goodnesse that he shewed him afterwards It was therefore that which the same Moses also saith n Deut. 7 7 8 He set his loue vpon you because he loued you there was nothing to moue him to loue but onely loue To which purpose he saith by the Prophet Malachy o Mal. â— 2 Was not Esau Iacobs brother yet I loued Iacob and hated Esau signifying that there was no cause in Iacob himselfe why God should loue him more then Esau and yet of meere grace and fauour he vouchsafed so to do Here is nothing then to serue M. Bishops turne that one mans merits may steed another because these had no merits to steed themselues but whatsoeuer they were they were of mercie and it was onely mercie whereby God bound himselfe to shew mercie to others for their sakes And well we may wonder but that these are impudent and shamelesse men that they should dare so farre to aduance the righteousnesse of man as to make him able not only to merit and deserue at Gods hands for himselfe but also for other men Wherein their peruersnesse and iniquitie is so much the greater for that they attribute and yeeld that to the spotted and vnperfect workes and righteousnesse of man which they wickedly deny to the immaculate and most perfect merits and righteousnesse of the Sonne of God For they hold it absurd that the righteousnesse and merits of Christ should be imputed and accounted vnto vs and yet they blush not to say that a man may haue merits of his owne sufficient for himselfe and an ouerplus beside to be reckened and imputed vnto others to supply their want The Popes dispensation can apply the merits of one man to another but the faith of Christ cannot apply to vs the merits of Christ The Scripture teacheth the imputation of Christs merits and that they deny it denyeth the imputing of other mens merits and that they affirme against the Scripture Which beside that it teacheth an vnsufficiencie and imperfection in all the workes of men and therefore bereaueth them of all power and abilitie of merit doth also giue vs to vnderstand that p Ezech. 18.20 the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be vpon himselfe and therefore shall not be reckened to another that q Rom. 14.12 euery man shall giue account of himselfe vnto God and therefore shall haue nothing to do with other mens accounts that r Gal 6.5 euery man shall beare his owne burthen and therefore shall not haue his burthen borne by others that the Å¿ Mat. 25.9 wise virgins haue no superfluitie of oyle which they may impart to them that want t Tertull de pudicit Quâ—â— aâ—â—nam mortem suâ soluit â—â—solus Dei filiusâ— sipeccatores quomodo oleum faculae tuae sufficere tiâ—â— miâ—â— poteriâ— Who hath by his death released another mans death saith Tertullian but onely the Sonne of God If thou be a sinner how should the oyle of thy little candle be sufficient both for thee and me He spake it truly in the proposition though he misapplyed it to a wrong conclusion and therefore Leo bishop of Rome saith in like sort that u Leo Epist 81. Acceperunt quipâ—â—â—â—ustâ— non dâ—derunt coronas defâ—râ—â—â—dine fiâ—â—lium exempla 〈…〉 iustâ—â—â—â— c. nec alterâ—â— quisquaÌ„ de◠〈…〉 Domiâ—â—â—â—â—ster Iesus Christus 〈◊〉 in quo oâ—nes crucifixi c. the iust haue receiued crownes they haue giuen none and of the fortitude of the faithfull are growne examples of patience not gifts of righteousnesse neither hath any man by his end payed the debt of another man seeing it is onely our Lord Iesus Christ amongst the sonnes of men in whom all haue bene crucified dead buried and raised againe Farre was he from that blasphemous doctrine which now preuaileth in the Church of Rome that some men haue merits and gifts of righteousnesse whereby to be helpefull to other men But yet M. Bishop telleth vs that they that receiue this helpe must be such as want but some of their owne For we must vnderstand belike that heauen is merited by peecemeale Some merit it quarter part and some the one halfe and some all and some more then all By which meanes it must come to passe that some who haue merits to keepe them from hell and yet not enough to bring them to heauen must hang betwixt heauen and hell vnlesse the Vicar of Rome will do them a fauour out of his treasurie to endow them with the merits of some of the Saints or some of the Saints themselues will vndertake out of their superfluities to make vp that that is wanting vnto them This secret the Diuines of Rhemes vttered that x Rhem. Testam Annot. Mat. 25.8 if we haue not our owne merits we shall not be holpen by other mens deserts at the day of iudgement leauing it to be vnderstood that if we haue merits of our owne we may then looke for the supply thereof in other mens merits Wretched hypocrites impostors and deluders of ignorant men who y Hieron in Esa lib. 6 cap. 14. Cum dies iudâ— cij veâ—dormitionis aduenerit dissoluentur omnes manus quia nullum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur non iustificabitur c. when all hands shall faile as Hierome saith because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God and no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God yet make men beleeue that some shall haue that superabundance of righteousnesse and merits as that they shall be able to relieue them that want merits of their owne Is this the honor that they do to Christ to thrust him out of place when we haue greatest need of him and to make men trust to the imaginarie merits of sinfull men And what shall not Christ be as ready then to succour vs as the Saints or shall his merits be found vnsufficient to deliuer vs or what should be the cause that we should thus be put ouer one to be helped by another rather then by him that is the helper and Sauiour of vs all But this is the horrible apostasie and darknesse of the Romish Sinagogue which hath made no end of multiplying her fornications wherewith she hath bewitched men and made them to doate vpon strange and monstrous fancies and hidden from them the true knowledge of Iesus Christ by which they should be saued As touching the third instance it shall not here bee neede to say much We affirme that they derogate from the merit of Christs passion and do make him but a Parti-christ in that they denie him to haue made a full and perfect satisfaction for our sins and say that he hath left vs in part to satisfie for the same M. Bishop saith that in
mother commaund him there Who can sufficiently maruell at their vnnaturall grosse pates who take it for a disgrace to the Sonne to aduance his owne good Mother or else who well in his wits considering Christs bountie to strangers and his enemies will not be perswaded that on his best beloued mother he did bestow his most speciall fauours For hauing taken flesh of her hauing suckt her breasts and receiued his nuriture and education of her in his tender yeares and being aswell followed of her as of any other Is it possible that he should not be as good to her as to others vnto whom he was not at all beholding Againe the very place of a mother requiring preheminence before all seruants and subiects of what dignitie soeuer doth not the right-rule of reason leade vs to thinke that Christ the fountaine of all wisedome replenished the blessed Virgin Marie his deare Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place it lying in his hands and free choise to do it And therefore is she truely tearmed of holy and learned Antiquity Our Lady and Queene exalted aboue all quiers of Angels That which you impute vnto vs farther that she must in the right of a mother commaund her Sonne it no doctrine of the Romish Church nor sayd in all her seruice We say Shew thy selfe to be a mother but it is not added by commanding thy Sonne that is your glosse which is accursed because it corrupteth the text for it followeth in that place Sumat per te preces c. Present our prayers to him that vouchsafed to be borne of thee for vs. If any priuat person by meditation piercing more profoundly into the mutuall loue and affection of such a Sonne towards so worthie a Mother doe deeme her prayers as forcible in kindnesse as if they were commandements and in that sence call them Commandements according to the French phrase Vos priers me sont des commandements that may be done without derogation to Christs supreme dignitie and with high commendation of his tender affection vnto his reuerent and best beloued mother Wherefore to conclude this Epistle if there bee no waightier cause then this by you here produced why you and your adherents do not reconcile your selues vnto the Church of Rome you may shortly by Gods grace become new men For we are so farre off from making our Sauiour Christ a Pseudochrist or from drawing one iote of excellencie from his soueraigne power merits or dignitie that we in the very points by you put downe do much more magnifie him then you do For in maintaining the authoritie by him imparted vnto his deputies our spirituall Magistrates and of their merits and satisfaction We first say that these his seruants prorogatiues be his free gifts of meere grace bestowed on whom he pleaseth which is no small praise of his great liberalitie And withall affirme that there is an infinite difference betweene his owne power merits and satisfaction and ours wherein his Soueraigne honour is preserued entire to himselfe without any comparison Now you make Christs authoritie so base his merits and satisfaction so meane that if he impart any degree of them vnto his seruants he looseth the honour of all from himselfe Whereupon it followeth inuincibly if you vnfainedly seeke Christ Iesus his true honour and will esteeme of his diuine gifts worthily you must hold out no longer but vnite your selues in these necessarie heads of Religion vnto the Catholike Church of Rome which so highly exalteth him both in his owne excellencie and in his singular gifts to his subiects R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop telleth vs a goodly and a faire tale out of their old wiues deuotions and sheweth himselfe more absurdly and grossely superstitious then were almost to be imagined in a learned man It is strange to vs that the Euangelists and Apostles were not acquainted with this high point of religion or if they were acquainted with it that none of them should haue regard to recommend it to the Church Surely if they had bene of the Romish religion that now is they would neuer haue done the Virgin Mary that exceeding great wrong but because they were not so because their care was that God onely should be aduanced according to his word therefore M. Bishop thinketh them vnnaturall grosse pates in taking it to be a disgrace to the Sonne to aduance his owne good Mother As for vs we honour the blessed Virgin so farre as God hath giuen vs warrant so to do We acknowledge her a most excellent instrument of the grace of God and most highly blessed aboue all other in that God by her would bring him into the world that should be a blessing to all other But yet we say that this was a blessing onely according to the flesh it was no spirituall and heauenly blessing and because spirituall blessings are greater then carnall we hold the Virgin Mary to haue bene greater by that that she had according to the spirit then by the honour that was done her according to the flesh Therefore S. Austin saith that a August de saâ—ct Virg. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 Mari◠〈…〉 fiâ—â— Christi quâ—â— c◠〈…〉 c. 〈…〉 Mary was more blessed by receiuing the faith of Christ then by conceiuing the flesh of Christ Her neernesse to Christ in being his mother had nothing booted her had she not more happily borne him in her heart then in her wombe This our Sauiour himselfe confirmeth in the Gospell when being told as he was preaching that his mother and brethren were desirous to speake with him answered as with indignation b Who is my mother and who are my brethren He that doth the will of my Father which is in heauen he is my brother and sister and mother c My mother and brethren are these which heare the word of God and keepe it d Tertul◠〈…〉 He maketh these other of the greater woorth saith Tertullian and sheweth that the hearing of Gods word is a thing to be preferred aboue being the mother and brethren of Christ e J◠〈…〉 c. Non vt vâ—â—â—â—res suâ—stituit sed vt digâ—â—â—â—res He transferreth the names of kindred to them whom he rather iudgeth to be most neare vnto him because of faith whom he putteth in place of the other not as more truly his mother and his brethren but as being of greater woorth So againe when a woman amidst the companie cryed out f Lâ—k 1â— 28 Blessed is the wombe that bare thee and the pappes that gaue thee sucke to withdraw the minds of men from carnall fancies he answereth Yea rather blessed are they that heare the word of God and keepe it g Tertul. de carâ—â— Christi Non maâ—â—â—â— vâ—â—rum v◠〈…〉 Not denying the wombe and pappes of his mother saith Tertullian againe but signifying them to be more happie that do heare the word of God This happinesse and heauenly bountie Mary was also partaker of
workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renewed or as we speake iustified there is libertie of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing Pag. â—0 he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the difference of our opinions he saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a little before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace R. ABBOT M. Bishop vnderstandeth not the principall point in controuersie and therefore thinketh that M. Perkins yeeldeth to the principall point in controuersie when he doth nothing lesse It was neuer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of corruption haue freedome of will in ciuill or morall workes for none of vs euer hath denyed it Neither was it euer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of grace haue freedome of will to good workes for there is not one of vs but alwaies hath affirmed it so that M. Bishop knoweth not indeed what he disputeth of As for that libertie of grace he expoundeth it also out of his owne blind fancie and not out of our doctrine For we do not meane thereby that grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall works as God requireth at his hands but that grace worketh in the will of man to please to do such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands For he doth not hang his worke vpon the suspended if of our will but a Phil. 2.13 worketh in vs to will and b Ezech 36.27 August de Praedest sanct cap. 10 Ipse facit vti illi faciant quae praecepit Et cap. 11. Promissit facturum se vt faciaÌ„â— quae â—ulci vt fiant causeth vs to do the things that he commaundeth vs to do But M. Bishop here imagineth that M. Perkins contradicteth in one leafe that which he yeeldeth in another He saith one where that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue But let M. Bishop learne of S. Austine that c August quaest veâ— Test 14. Qui verba suppronit quaestionis aut imperituâ— est aut tergiuersator qui calumniae magis studeat quam doctrinae he that concealeth the words of the point in question is either an vnlearned ideot or a wrangling crauen that studieth more to cauill then either to teach or learne The words of M. Perkins are these The Papists say Will hath a naturall cooperation we deny it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue willing well onely as it is moued by grace whereby it must first be acted and moued before it can act or will Where he very plainely affirmeth the cooperation of mans will in his conuersion but saith truly that it is of grace it selfe that it doth cooperate with grace He saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue but though in it selfe it be onely passiue yet he acknowledgeth that it becommeth actiue also by being acted or moued by grace Now how is this contrarie to that which he saith in the fift conclusion that mans Free will concurres with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect In some sort saith he it is a co-worker with grace and is not passiue in all and euery respect How is that Mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe How can M. Bishop deuise to haue a man speake more agreably to himselfe But he playeth the lewd cousiner and whereas the whole point of the controuersie lieth in these words by it selfe or in it selfe he guilefully omitteth the same and maketh M. Perkins absolutely to say that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue when he saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue declaring that by grace it is made actiue So in the other place where it is said that mans will is a co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect he leaueth out those termes of restraint as if M. Perkins had made the will simply and of it selfe a co worker with grace and not passiue in any respect The contradiction therefore was not in M. Perkins his words but in M. Bishops head or rather in his malicious and wicked heart which blind-foldeth him to make him seeme not to see that which he seeth well enough 5. W. BISHOP The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainely man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to do or not to do the acts of wisedome Iustice Temperance c. and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did yet in his first reason Pag. 19. he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the eight of Genesis that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall dutie See how vncertaine the steps be of men that walke in darknesse or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknesse For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of Free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church for he putting down the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs onely in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in granting this libertie of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that mans will worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully for we say that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that mans will by his owne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of man but we farther say that this actioÌ„ proceedeth principally of grace wherby the wil was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring foorth such spirituall fruite And this I
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
before we may so obtaine grace that God may incline our heart whither he will And this is also the very selfe same dotage that now possesseth the Church of Rome For if M. Bishop will except that they do not affirme their workes of preparations to be without any helpe of grace onely of Free will I answer him that no more did Pelagius who accursed them as hath bene said who held not the grace of God to be necessarie to euery act But yet in that meaning wherein S. Austine speaketh of z See after in Sect 15. the helpe of God as whereby the thing it selfe is wrought in vs wherein we are said to be helped they say as S. Austine chargeth Pelagius to haue said that their preparations are without any helpe of grace and onely of Free will because there is for the time of this preparation no inhabitant or renuing grace no habitual qualitie or gift of grace that should be the worker thereof They onely teach as Pelagius did a grace though internall in respect of the man yet to the will onely externally assistant mouing and directing it for the doing of these things but meerely the will it selfe is the doer of them Which hereby also is apparant for that if they were properly the effects of they should by their doctrine be meritorio us ex condigno whereas now they are denyed so to be and therby are denied to be the proper effects of grace And hence M. Bishop thinketh to haue another difference betwixt the Pelagians and them because Pelagius affirmed merits before the grace of iustification and they do not so But this will not serue his turne because Bellarmine confesseth as the truth is that the Fathers in condemning Pelagius for affirming grace to be giuen in respect of merits did vnderstand merit a Bellar. de grati lib. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5 GratiaÌ„ Dei secundum merita nostra dari intolligunt Patres cùm aliquid fit propriâ—s viribus ratione cuius datur gratia etiamsi non sit illud meritum de condigno when any thing is done by our owne power in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not merit ex condigno Such are their workes of preparation which are done by our owne power in that meaning as the Fathers spake as hath bene said because they are no proper effects of renewing grace and are defended by theÌ„ to be the cause for which God bestoweth his grace vpon vs. They defend therfore that which was condemned in the Pelagians that the grace of God is giuen according to our merits b August contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 6. Priores vtique dore quod libet ex libero arbitrio vt sit gratia retribuenda pro proemio that we first giue somewhat by Free will for which grace is to be rendred for reward They say as the Pelagians did c Ibid. Nos facimus vt mereamur cum quibus faciat Deus We worke to merit that God may worke with vs. Yea they professedly teach that their preparations are merits though not ex condigno yet ex congruo because by the rule of their schooles d Thom. Aquin. 1. 2. q 114. art 6. in Corp Congrutem est vt dum homo bene vtitur virtute sua Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentiùs operetur it is meete or standing with reason that whilest a man well vseth his owne power God according to his more excellent power do worke more excellently They thinke themselues well discharged for that they put no merits before the first grace as they call it whereas therein they say no more then Pelagius did He made the first grace e Aug. Epist 106. Haec intelligitur doctore ipso gratia Dei quae Paganis atque Christianis napüs pijs fidelibus atque infidelibus communis est a thing common both to the wicked and to the godly to Pagans and Christians to beleeuers and infidels consisting in motions and illuminations offered to all and left to euery mans Free will to accept or reiect them euen f Bellar. de grat lib. arbit lib. 2 cap. 3. Lumine gratiae nemo omnine priuatur so do they They say that before that first grace there are no merits at al precedent euen so said he affirming the calling of God whilest he findeth vs giuen to earthly lusts and like bruite beasts louing onely present things as his own words haue told vs. But the first grace or preuenting grace before which the Fathers say there are no merits is iustifying grace g Aug contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 6. Ille facis vt ambulemus vt obseruemus vt faciamus Haec est gratia bonos faciens nos haec miscricerdia praeueniens nos the grace whereby he maketh vs to walke to obserue to do what he commaundeth whereby he himselfe worketh the effect of that which either by outward instruction or inward motion and illumination he doth commend vnto vs. Before this grace they place their merits or workes of preparation thereby to obtaine it contrarie to the words of the Apostle as S. Austin witnesseth h Contr. Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 23. Not of workes lest any man should boast and againe If it be of grace it is not of workes And herein their iniquitie is the greater in that they borrow the termes of a distinction of i Enchir. cap. 32 grace preuenient and subsequent from S. Austin and apply it otherwise then he meant it to the maintenance of an heresie which he oppugned by it Thus M. Bishop for his life cannot imagine a better accord then there is betwixt Pelagius the Heretike and their Councell of Trent both auouching and by fraudulent deuices maintaining the power of nature and Free will against the truth of the grace of God And to assure vs that they attribute thereto as much as Pelagius did k August dena grit cap. 39 Poâ—â—â—at item humoâ—ae naturae ita â—â—stâ—dis vt homo per Liberum arâ—â—erium etiam sine Christi nomine salu a esse posse credatur who so defended the power of nature as that a man without the name of Christ might be saued by Free will Andradius telleth vs out of the secrets of that Councell that they also hold l Andrad Ortho. expli aedi 3. Sine lege Mosâ— Euangelit vnobis per Christura data sola lige naturae permâ—iltos puisse Dei gratia iustificatos saluatos prius vmeum Deum religioâ—è venerati sunt in ipso spes suas omnes collocarum illi perpetuo placere studuerunt ab illo virtutum remunerationem sperarunt that heathen Philosophers hauing no knowledge of the law or of the Gospel of Christ were iustified and saued onely by the law of nature that they religiously worshipped one God put all their trust in him hoped for reward of their vertues from him yet all this by
conuerted Gratia Dei erat sola it was onely the grace of God Which words M. Bishop hath fraudulently concealed as being expresly against him and cleering this whole point most manifestly on our part Our conuersion is onely by the grace of God as Austin saith S. Pauls was Free vvill hath no part therein We say as he saith that the will of man being conuerted and renewed by grace doth afterwards apply it selfe to worke with grace and so there is not onely the grace of God nor onely the will of man but the grace of God accompanied with the will of man not as by any proper worke of the will it selfe but by the worke of grace by which it was first conuerted Therefore the same S. Austin elsewhere mentioning those words By the grace of God I am that I am saith thereupon m De praedest grat cap. 11. Haec est prima misericordia quam liberae voluntatis opera consequuntur Sed vt Pauli vocationem bona opera sequerentur quid ait Et gratia eius c. This is the first mercie after which do follow the workes of Free will But that good vvorkes might follow after the calling of the Apostle vvhat doth he say himselfe And his grace vvas not in me in vaine There is no Free vvill then to righteousnesse before a man can say By the grace of God I am that I am Thereby the will is made free and thereby it worketh with grace to bring forth the fruits of all good workes So that Saint Austin leaueth vs this place very strong to prooue that both our conuersion and our working with grace when we are conuerted is altogether and wholy to be attributed vnto grace Hereby the other place is cleered if it were ought worth 8. W. BISHOP The second text is It is God that worketh in vs Phil. 2. v. 13. both to will and to accomplish We grant that it is God but not he alone vvithout vs for in the next vvords before Saint Paul saith Worke your saluation with feare and trembling So that God worketh principally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping forward our will to accomplish the worke but so sweetly and conformably to our nature that his vvorking taketh not away but helpeth forward our vvill to concurre vvith him Againe the vvhole may be attributed vnto God considering that the habits of grace infused be from him as sole efficient cause of them our actions indued also vvith grace being onely dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of schoole Diuinitie verie true but not easily to be conceiued of the vnlearned R. ABBOT S. Austin in expresse termes contradicteth M. Bishop saying a August de grat li. arbit cap 17. vt velimus sine nobis operatur without vs he worketh in vs to will And so S. Bernard also saith that b Bernard de grat lib arbit Creatio in libertatem voluÌ„tatis facta est sine nobis the creating of vs to freedome of will is wrought without vs. Our will is the subiect wherein it is wrought but the efficient cause thereof is onely the grace of God This M. Bishop denieth because the Apostle in the words immediatly before saith Work out your saluation with feare and trembling But the Apostle when he biddeth them to worke biddeth them to do it with feare and trembling And why is that c Aug. in Psal 65. Subiecit causam Deus est enim c. Si ergo Deus operatur in te gratia Dei benè operaris non viribus tuis The Apostle addeth the cause saith S. Austine for it is God that worketh in you to will and to worke of his owne good will If then God worke in thee it is by the grace of God that thou workest well not by thine owne power How peruersly then doth M. Bishop deale that when the Apostle vseth the latter words to expound the former he will take the former words to crosse the latter Men are to be called vpon by exhortation to do good workes but yet they are to know that the effect of exhortation is the worke of grace True saith M. Bishop it is of grace but not of grace onely for Free will also hath a part But S. Austin telleth that d De bono perseueran cap. 6 Tutiores viuimus si totuÌ„ Deo damus non nos illi ex parte nobâ—â— ex parte commuttimus it is more safetie for vs to attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues and e Tertul. aduers Hermog Veritas sic vnum Deum exigit defendendo vt solius sit quicquid ipsins est ita enim ipsius erit si fuerit solius true faith requireth this in the defending of one God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it be accounted his if it be accounted onely his If God do worke in vs to will let vs acknowledge it to be his onely and none of ours God worketh principally saith M. Bishop by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping forward our will to accomplish the worke but so sweetly and conformably to our nature that his working taketh not away but helpeth forward our will to concur with him Here is stirring vp the wil and helping forward the will and no more but what the Pelagians confessed as I haue shewed before but why doth he make it so daintie to say as the Apostle saith that God worketh in vs to will He nameth grace which is but a grace if we will but we require the grace which the Apostle teacheth whereby God worketh in vs to will He saith that God doth not take away our will So did Pelagius say f August contr Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap 7. Dicimus eam sine voluntate nostra nequaquam in nobis perficere sanctitatem that God doth not worke holinesse in vs without our will We answer that our will is the subiect wherein God worketh as before was said but it is no part of the efficient cause whereby it is wrought in vs to will The Arausicane Councell determineth g Concil Arausican 2. cap 4 Si quis vt à peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit Non autem vt etiam purgari velimus per sancti Spiritus infu sionem operationem in nobis fieri confitetur resistit Apostolo c. that if any man do maintaine that God expecteth our will that we may be purged from sinne and doth not confesse that by the infusion and operation of the holy Ghost it is also wrought in vs to be willing to be purged he resisteth the Apostle in that he preacheth according to wholesome doctrine that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to worke of his good will This M. Bishop maintaineth he saith that God offereth grace to that
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
yeelded them grace for their conuersion it had followed infallibly that they had beene conuerted neither should the frowardnesse of their will haue defeated the purpose of his will k Esa 46.10 My counsell shall stand saith he and I will do whatsoeuer I will therefore of the children of Ierusalem whomsoeuer God would gather he certainly did gather His will was to gather l Rom 11.5 a remnant according to the election of grace Ierusalem would not but resisted the will of God and hindered so much as in it lay the gathering of this remnant of her children m August Euchirâ—â— cap. 97. Vbi est illa omnâ—potentia c. si colligere filios Hierusalem voluit non fâ—cit An potius illa quidem filios sis â—s ab ipso câ—lligi neluit sede quoque relente filios eius câ—llegit ipse quos voluit quia in coelo in terra non quaedam vâ—luit fecit quaedam vero veluit non fecit sedomnia quaecunque volâ—â—t fecit But though Ierusalem would not yet God gathered whom he would and to them he yeelded his infallible sauing grace whereby he worketh to will and to do and giueth the gifts before mentioned of repentance faith knowledge and such like without which there is no conuersion and the giuing whereof is our conuersion vnto God Which seeing God gaue not to Ierusalem saue only to his remnant it is absurdly sayd by M. Bishop that there was no want of Gods helpe inwardly for their conuersion Their refusing and withstanding was the fruit of Free will which howsoeuer God do otherwise offer grace hath nothing in it selfe wherof to do otherwise 13. W. BISHOP Cap. 3. The last testimonie is in the Reuel where it is sayd in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates I will enter in to him and will sup with him and he with me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the doore of our hearts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop doth somewhat plainly shew himselfe and assureth vs that it is not without cause that we haue hitherto accused him of the Pelagian heresie The grace which for fashion sake he speaketh of is no other but such as whereby God knocketh at the doore of our hearts but worketh nothing in our hearts till we first of our selues assent to let him in He attendeth till we open him the gates and then he with his heauenly gifts will enter in which was the damnable errour of the Pelagians that Gods grace and gifts are bestowed vpon the precedence of our will and workes But we haue heard before out of the Arausicane councell that a Arausican Concil 2. cap 4. Supra sect 8. if any man say that God exspecteth or attendeth our will and doth not confesse that God worketh in vs to will he gainsayth the doctrine of the Apostle Which is the same as to say If any man say that God attendeth for our opening the gates vnto him and doth not confesse that God himselfe openeth the gates vnto himselfe he is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle b August cont duas epist Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6 Aditus diuinae vocationis ipsa Dei gratia procuratur The entrance of Gods calling is wrought or procured by the grace of God himselfe he knocketh with one hand openeth with another c Psal 107.16 breaking the gates of brasse and smiting the barres of iron in sunder and howsoeuer mightily he knocke we neuer heare we neuer open till he open and make entrance for himselfe It is he that d Act. 16.14 openeth the heart he e Luk. 24.45 openeth the vnderstanding he f Psal 119.18 openeth the eyes he openeth g Iob. 33.16 the eares he openeth h Psal 50.15 the lips he openeth i Act. 14.27 the doore of faith and why then doth M. Bishop say that he attendeth till we open He doth not attend our assenting to his call but k August de praedest sanct cap. 19 Deus operatur in cordibus hominum vocatione illa secundum proposiâ—um vt non inarater audâ—â—nt Euangelium sed eo audâ—to contâ—er taÌ„tur credant exerpientes non vt verbuâ—a hominum sed sicum est verò verbum Dei by his calling which is according to his purpose he worketh in the harts of meÌ„ that they heare not the Gospel in vaine but do conuert and turne receiue it not as the word of man but as it is indeed the word of God And whereas he saith that God doth not break open the doores it is not alwaies true For God somtimes with great violence assaulteth the hart l Iude vers 23. by terror feare pulleth men out of the fire as with a mighty hammer breaketh the pride rebellioÌ„ of the wil fighting stirring against him When men are in the height of their insolencie madly raging against him he striketh them to the ground as he did the Apostle m Act. 9.4 S. Paule and by astonishment ouercometh and subdueth them vnto himselfe thus n August contr duas Epist Pelâ— lib. 1 cap. 19. Non ait duxerit vt illic ali quo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem Quis trahâ—tur c vt supra Sect 10 not leading them as vpon their precedent will but drawing them not to beleeue against their wils which is vnpossible but of vnwilling to become willing In a word when God knocketh o Idem de Praedest sanct ca. 20. Ostrum ergo apertum est in â—is quibus datuÌ„ est aduersarij autem multi ex eis quibus non est datuÌ„ the doore is opened in them onely to whom it is giuen but they to whom it is not giuen are still aduerse and they neuer open and therefore M. Bishop saith amisse that God attendeth that we open him the gates or otherwise leaueth vs. Neither do the words alledged serue for confirmation of the freedome of mans will telling vs onely what must be done that God may enter but not importing that we do it by any power of Free will 14. W. BISHOP To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by Free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes and follow those that be faire and good he were without fault as not being cause of such
perseuerantèr proficiat siue vt ad bonuÌ„ sempiternum peruentat The sound Catholike faith saith he neither denieth Free will vvhether to euill life or to good neither attributeth so much to it as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace either to be conuerted from euill to good or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good or to attaine to the euerlasting good Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme according to the true meaning of S. Austin that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will and if he be willingly that that he is it is by Free vvill because the vvill is alwayes Free and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill to that that is good q Retract lib. 1. cap 15. IntantuÌ„ lâ—bera est 1 quatum liberata est it is so farre onely Free as it is made Free r Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept grat cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus neither can any man in this respect be free vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free We say therefore that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace that is in S. Austins construction auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it either for conuerting vnto God or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh Å¿ Epist 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntateÌ„ per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire ante Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coeâ—iâ— est doâ—uit esse poscenda ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good and to preserue the same when it hath so made them and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell least presuming of Free vvill vve fall away from the grace of God If all things then are we to begge of him to open to yeeld to assent to receiue his grace and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin as if he had meant that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse but that this power is not sufficient is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace whatsoeuer the will of man doth so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do t De verb Apos ser 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliquâ—d sumus si tameÌ„ in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus â—ihâ—l nobis arrogemus ne quod accepimus perdamus sed in eo quod accepimus illi gloriam demus Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ how much soeuer it be we may take nothing to our selues but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill and detest also Pelagians and Papists for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace I haue before shewed that he saith vntruly and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd Free vvill and grace are not the one excluded by the other neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other if we make the one the cause of the other as Austin doth and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace For u De corrept grat ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate coÌ„sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill and though it be in the will and by the will that we receiue grace yet x Prosper de vocat gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God 16. W. BISHOP Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names But misapplyeth them First obiection That man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice speake the truth c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it And his answer here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the vvorke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure heart and a faith vnfained and also in the end which is not the glorie of God Answer It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the heart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie God his Creator and Maister is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto R. ABBOT It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians a Prosper de lib. arbit Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctoruÌ„ merita referamus vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemuâ— naturae that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill This caution
such as hindereth iustice so that by reason thereof no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God M. Perkins therefore rightly alledged this place to proue that concupiscence is sinne and M. Bishop in answering it sheweth himselfe a man of wretched and euil conscience who being so shut in with the truth as that he knew not which way to resist yet wold rather by falshood and collusion shift it off then renounce the errors to the maintenance whereof he hath wickedly sold himselfe 9. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose in steede of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne but expounds him to meane that it is not sinne in that person but in it selfe which is alreadie confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person But if the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarch Iohn Caluin saith of it Lib. 3. Instit cap. 3. num 10. where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the old Writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turn who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certaintie of the iudgement of antiquitie Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmitie then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the act of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hold that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carieth the credit of all antiquity Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is flatly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we do consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such Masters who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe presuming that some would be so shallow-witted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them S. Chrisostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues Homil 11 in epist ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that I may for example sake touch one of them Concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlawfull riot of it S. Bernard whom M. Perkins often citeth against vs Serm. de seâ— tribul and therefore may sometimes be alledged for vs hath these words Sin is at the dore but if thou do not open it it will not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it it shall do thee no hurt withhold thy consent and it preuaileth not S. Aug. and S. Cirill haue bene cited already S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter who with the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had no better fortified his positions then M. Bishop doth his answers he should with vs haue bin holden for too weake a man to meddle in controuersies of diuinity But as Tertullian said that a Tertul. de praescript Nusquam facilius proficatur quâ—â—â— in castris reâ—ellium vbi ipsum esse illic proâ—â—reri est it is no where more easie thriuing then in the camp of rebels where to be only is to be in pay so may we say that it is no where more easie writing then amongst hereticks and rebels against the truth where to write onely is sufficient to commend a man it is no matter how or what he write Such a writer is M. Bishop a bad one God knowes but we can looke for no better of him then the matter will affoord him He saith that M. Perkins had but one sentence of S. Austine for the maintenance of his position and that nothing for his purpose but M. Perkins hath alledged more then he hath answered and it seemeth that that one sentence was to the purpose which he could no otherwise shift of but by lowd dissembling and concealing of that wherein S. Austine with maine streame doth runne against him Againe he telleth vs that M. Perkins confesseth ingenuously that S. Austine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne and we confesse as much and expound S. Austines meaning as he doth that it is not sinne to the person not that in it selfe it is not sinne But this he saith is already confuted and we say that his imagined confutation is already reconfuted But he giueth vs a reason why it cannot be so For sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person the sin of the same person And we answere him by S. Austine that it is sinne in the person and the sinne of the person by inherent quality and disposition but it is not the sinne of the person by account of guilt and imputation For the approouing whereof M. Perkins alledged two places out of Austine which M. Bishop honestly passeth ouer as if he had not seene them but they will meete with him againe anone In the meane time he bringeth vs in our Patriark as he calleth him Iohn Caluin referring his Readers to S. Austine to know by him the iudgement of antiquity concerning this matter of concupiscence Where I answere him that we honour Caluin indeede as a singular instrument of God for the restoring of the light of his truth and ouerthrowing of the throne of the purple whoore of Rome but we make him no Patriarch we follow him
BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towards God beleeuing those things to be true which God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus And when knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgements they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a new life and to keepe all Christs commandements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and mans owne Iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Iesus Passions the instrumental is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onely formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification Of the Iustification by faith and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is iustified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnesse for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnesse which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formal cause of Iustification is our iustice that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience whereas obedience if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hands R. ABBOT The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification is the very heresie of the Pelagians as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace b Coster Enchirid cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum motio spiritus s adhuc foris degentis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed mâ—uâ—nus adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem not any intrinsecall or infused but only outwardly assisting grace which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged they deriue faith hope loue repentance the feare of God the hatred of sinne and purpose of new life whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith hope charity and other gifts of the holy Ghost then to be powred into his soule Whereby though they will not seeme so to do yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that which if Pelagius had not denied condemned he had bene condemned himselfe c August epist 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits In which sort Bellarmine saith that d Bellarm. de Iustificat lib. 1. cap. 1â— Fides â—ustificat per moduÌ„ dispositioâ—is merin meretur remissionem peccateruÌ„ suo quodam modo faith iustifieth by way of merit that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes applying thereto some speâ—ches of Austine which to that purpose were neuer meant In seâ—â—ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell he committeth an absurd errour in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification as if it selfe could be the final cause of â—â—eâ—fe whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life Whereâ—â— he saith that they agree with vs in this point that Iustification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God through his in◠〈…〉 our Sauiours Passion he doth but sop◠〈…〉 For if Iustification be of the free grace of God then it is not of works according to that of the Apostle e Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace But he afterwards professedly disputeth that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God and therefore formally he nameth it but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith shall be proued vnto him God willing by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note in which he telleth vs that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience whereas obedience saith he if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hand Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle in that he saith f Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous For to him he might likewise say that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience that many by it are made righteous whereas by his obedience if it had bene without charity many could not haue bene made righteous But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie whereas charity is the very mother of obedience neither is there any true obedience but what issueth therefrom And therefore M. Perkins well noted though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes 2. W. BISHOP And whereas M. Perkins doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
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
darknesse and despaire As for vs we hold it a verie mad conclusion to say Except ye repent ye shall perish therefore we are iustified by repentance We rather see by repentance that we haue nothing in our selues whereby to be iustified and therefore learne to relye wholly vpon Christ that we may be iustified by faith in him The next place that he alledgeth is a most notable falsification We are translated saith he from death to life because we loue the brethren whereas the words of S. Iohn are k 1. Ioh. 3.14 We know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren making our loue of the brethren a signe whereby we know that we are translated from death to life not the cause for which we are translated froÌ„ death to life And in this sort doth S. Austin expouÌ„d it l Aug. in epist 1 Ioan. tract 5. Nos scimus Quid nos scimus Quia traÌ„siuimus de moâ—te ad vitam Vnde scimus Quiae dâ—ligimus fratres We know What do we know That we haue passed from death to life Whereby do we know it Because we loue the brethren Which is verie plaine also by comparing the teÌ„ses in which the Apostle expresseth the one the other For he nameth our translating from death to life in the m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. preterperfect tense as a thing before done but our loue towardes the brethren in the n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 present tense as a thing which now we do We know that we haue passed or God hath translated vs from death to life because we loue the brethren But our louing the brethren now cannot be the cause of that that God hath done before It is therfore a token onely whereby we are to know what God hath done and to take it as M. Bishop doth is the doctrine of Pelagius that the grace of God is giuen vnto vs according to our merits as before is shewed The next place is of Baptisme as he saith o Ioh. 3.5 Except a man be borne againe of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God But we can hardly yeeld that this place is precisely to be vnderstood of baptisme because it is not true that except a man be baptized he shall not enter into the kingdome of God but it is infallibly true which Christ saith that except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he shal not enter into the kingdom of God Verie wel is it obserued by Bernard that our Sauiour saith p Bernard epist 77. Vide ne fortè ob hoc saluator cùm diceret Qui crediâ—erit baptizâ—tus fuerit saluâ—s erit cautè vigâ—â—antèr noÌ„ repetâ—erit Qui verò baptizâ—tus non fuerit sed tantum qui verò inquit non crediderit câ—ndemnabitur He that beleeueth and is baptized shall be saued but doth not say he that is not baptized but onely he that beleeueth not shall be damned The thiefe was not baptized vpon the crosse but yet Christ saith q Luk. 23.43 This day shalt thou be with me in paradise Valentinian the Emperour was not baptized and yet Ambrose saith r Ambr. de â—bit Valentin Certè quia poposâ—it accepit because he desired it he receiued it S. Austin acknowledgeth as touching them that are of elder yeares and do beleeue Å¿ Aug. de bapt cont Donat. lib 4 cap. 22. Tunc impletur inuisibilitèr cùm mysteriuÌ„ baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articuluâ— necessitatis excludit that baptisme is inuisibly fulfilled in them when not any contempt of religion but a point of necessitie excludeth the mysterie of it Which dispensation we cannot coÌ„ceiue what warrant he had to giue to elder yeares that should not make the same good to infants also when the faith of the parents by which they are interested to baptisme craueth the same for them and only by preuention inuincible they are depriued of their desire it being deemed a thing t Bernard epist. 77. Dignum est et ad Dei spectat benignitatem vt quibus fideÌ„ aeâ—as denegat propriaÌ„ gratia prodesse concedat alienaÌ„ belonging to the mercifulnes of God that grace should yeeld that the faith of others should be auailable for them to whom years yet do not yeeld to beleeue themselues But hereby it appeareth that that speech of Christ is not simply to be vnderstood of baptisme because then baptisme should be simply necessarie to saluation both in old and yong Yet admitting it to be meant of baptisme we say his argument is verie vaine and to say baptisme is necessarie to saluation therefore we are not iustified by faith alone is all one as if he should say It is necessarie to saluation to be iustified by faith alone therefore we are not iustified by faith alone For baptisme as I said before is u Rom. 4 11. the seale of the righteousnesse of faith wherein God setteth before vs and by which he giueth and sealeth and assureth vnto vs the washing away of our sinnes and the accepting of vs for iust and righteous by the merit and bloudshedding of Iesus Christ onely by faith in him It is not then x 1. Pet. 3.21 the washing away of the filth of the flesh that is the outward ceremonie for which baptisme is necessarie to saluation but the spirituall grace which is iustification by faith alone This God offereth in baptisme and we by faith receiue the same but we shall do amisse to put baptisme it selfe in place of that that is offered thereby We eate the meate out of the dishes and vessels wherein it is set before vs but it is absurd thereupon to say that we are fed by the dishes also and not onely by the meate It is Christ onely who in the word and Sacraments is set forth vnto vs to be our righteousnesse and by faith only we therein receiue him to be our righteousnesse and euerlasting life but absurd it is hereupon to say that the Sacraments theÌ„selues are things wherein our righteousnesse doth consist Now therefore except a man in baptisme be borne againe becoming a member of Christ and the child of God through forgiuenesse of sinnes onely by faith in him by vertue therof receiuing the spirit of adoption and being thereby quickened to newnesse of life to walke therein he cannot as Christ saith enter into the kingdome of God And hereby it appeareth that his other place as touching walking in newnesse of life is impertinently alledged the words importing no more then what we teach that newnesse of life is alwayes and necessarily a consequent fruite of iustification though neuer any precedent cause thereof But the place of greatest moment for their part was that that M. Perkins propounded for his obiectioÌ„ We are saued by hope As touching this place M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins saith neither yea nor nay but
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
but somewhat at least to the free will of man Againe it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth but Å¿ Sest 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men as he hath before expressed Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice yet he maketh no exception but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heaueÌ„ vnto him as iustly deserued which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth that t Aug Hypog lib 3. Intellâ—ge in miseratione misericordiae non in factione meritorum animam coronari not for performance of merits but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned and to say with Hilary u Hilar in Psal 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus quòd erimus quòd non sumus causam â—â—am non habet nisi misericordiae Dei That we are what we were not that we shall be what we are not it hath no other cause at all but onely the mercie of God Againe he will not haue vs boast and say that God needed vs for our selues but we must needes say with Tertullian x Tertul. aduer Hermog Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur There is none but needeth him of whose he vseth any thing Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe but at our will It is in the power of our free will either to helpe it or hinder it either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise God must stand in neede of our will to consent to his worke or else it succeedeth not For the auoiding of which absurdity we must confesse that God vseth nothing in vs for the effecting of our saluation but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting our beleeuing our willing our working all is of God and nothing is there therein that we can call ours Now therefore it is plaine that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians y Ephe. 2.8 By grace ye are saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ taketh exception generally against works and giueth to vnderstand that they are effects not causes of saluation because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus vnto good workes M. Bishops exception is that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues before we be iustified But that his exception is very vaine appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith Not of workes least any man should boast addeth in the next words For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do For what sence were it to say we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification But the Apostles meaning is very euident we are not saued by any good workes that we do for our good workes are none of ours but they are his workmanship in vs by whom we are saued who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in to the same saluation It was not then M. Perkins ignorance to take two distinct manner of workes for the same but M. Bishops absurd shifting to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth that there is no difference at all But we would gladly know of him to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions To the latter he cannot because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus which we are not till we be iustified and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification If to the former then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification So in neither place doth he say any thing of them and because he knew them not he hath wholy left them out He was vndoubtedly to blame to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions as not to think them worth the speaking of But it is woorth the noting to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle Not by workes least any man should boast that is not by workes that are of our selues but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation which are partly of God and partly of our selues and yet as I haue before said they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation to be onely of our selues because as yet there is z Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriuÌ„ auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed moueÌ„tis adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem noÌ„ solum patiendo sed operando agendo no infused or inhabitant grace whence they should proceede and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle But see the singular impudencie of this man who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions who hath not in the place alledged by him so much as any seÌ„blance or shew for proofe thereof Note with S. Austin saith he that faith excludeth all merits of our works but no vertuous dispositions for preparatioÌ„ to grace Lewd Sophister where is that note found in S. Austine in what words is it set downe What still lye and nothing but lye S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but not all workes for there are workes of preparation which Doctor Bishop no simple man I warrant you defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes vnderstanding by merits any thing going before iustification that should be vnto God a motiue or cause
turne Because he had no great skill to answer he thought it wisedom to take heed what he did obiect But yet out of that sentence truly alledged we may take somewhat to this point The words are p Gal. 3.11 The iust shall liue by faith According to these words true faith is said alwayes to imply and containe eternall life Our Sauior Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had q Ioh. 3.36 He that beleeueth hath eternall life r Cap. 5.24 he is passed from death to life But without charitie there can be no state of eternall life because Å¿ 1. Ioh. 3 14. he that loueth not abideth in death If then wheresoeuer there be true faith there be eternall life and without charitie there can be no eternall life it must necessarily follow that wheresoeuer there is true faith there is also charitie and loue bringing forth the fruites of good workes and seeking to winne others by example of iust and holy life M. Bishops answer we see giueth checke to the holy Ghost The holy Ghost saith The iust shall liue by faith Not so saith M. Bishop he liueth by faith hope and charitie and not by faith alone Further I trouble not my selfe with his idle words which containe nothing but a begging of the matter in question and are applied onely to an argument of his owne deuice CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS 1. W. BISHOP OBserue that three things are necessary to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the work proceed from grace and be referred to the honour of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but wil purchase it by our owne works I wil here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning Merits Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that work wel and hope wel to the end both as grace of mercie promised to the sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good workes vnto the worker if he perseruere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignitie of the adopted sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme wherby they are made heires of the kingdom of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruite of it fall into the miserable state of death R. ABBOT M. Bishop setteth downe three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious but giueth vs no ground at all whereby we may rest perswaded that where those three things do concurre a man may be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands He leaueth vs still to wonder that a sinfull wretch offending and prouoking God from day to day should dare to talke of merite and desert with God but that we know that heresie and ignorance make men bold to frame the maiestie of God to their owne brainsicke and senslesse conceits The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned we alwayes teach and require in our doctrine of good workes but farre are we from finding merit in any of them For first the adopted sonne of God standeth bound by dutie to do all things to the honor of his Father and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by dutie is bound to do Secondly if the worke proceed from the grace of God the work is Gods and not mans and therfore man can therby merit nothing Thirdly if the reward depend vpon promise then it ariseth not of the merit or worth of workes especially there being by the frailtie of the worker and the bountie of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the worke and the reward as that it is meerly absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserued by the other These things God willing shall further appeare in the processe of this question In the meane time M. Bishop here challengeth vs for slaundering their doctrine with some matters of truth as that they trust not in Christs merits that they need not Gods mercy for their saluation but will purchase it by their owne workes Now we wote well that they vse speech of Christes merits and Gods mercie and of trusting therein because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof they would soone grow odious and hatefull to all men For the cuppe of poison of the whore of Babylon they must vse a couer of such good words least they make men loth to drinke thereof But let it be examined how they teach these things and their falshood will soone appeare By trust in Christs merits men conceiue the placing of the confidence of saluation immediatly therein as the proper cause for which God accepteth vs to eternall life who our selues are miserable sinners and altogether vnworthy thereof But their trust in Christs merits is that he hath purchased for vs grace if we list by free will to merite heauen for ourselues thereby to be iust before God in our selues and worthy of the kingdome of heauen as M. Bishop in the former question of a Sect. 2. Iustification hath declared So then the effect of Christs merits is tied onely to this life and thenceforth we are to depend vpon that which here we do for our selues by wel vsing that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for vs. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a booke of Granatensis as touching prayer and meditation giueth it one where for a marginall note that our Sauiour Christ is our Aduocate for the time of this life but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Aduocate but our Iudge for the time is past saith he of dealing with God by an Aduocate c. and we shall haue our definitiue sentence according to our workes Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercie of God which they also pen vp within the compasse of this life and denie it that place which the Apostle giueth it b 2. Tim. 1.18 at that day Yea so little vse is there with them of Gods mercie as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demaund
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
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
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
Be it so and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing we looke for nothing by desert but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God Let M. Bishop say Is there any man who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert If he cannot but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels Giue vs this day our dayly bread why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands as of his meere blessing and gift that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life But where hath he so appointed We find that God b 1. Ioh. 5.11 in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and that he hath c Ephes 2.10 prepared for vs good workes to walke in as the Apostle speaketh namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time haue taught that heauen may be merited we first tell him that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught and secondly that he falsly fathereth vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it was neuer imagined by the Fathers as partly hath appeared alreadie and shall God willing appeare further 13. W. BISHOP But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the ancient Church and then beginneth with S. Bernard who liued a thousand yeares after Christ he in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things which we call merits are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of raigning I answer that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine Manuâ—l cap. 22. Secondly he citeth S. Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sence that is by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes and so to merit In Psal 114. Thirdly Basil Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully not for the merite of their doing but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combat and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes but in a fuller measure according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits Psal 120. 4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal 120. where he saith as M. Perkins reporteth He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Answ S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits It had bene better said He crowneth thee not c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins When God crowneth thee he crowneth his gifts not thy merites De grat lib. arb cap. 6. Which is true being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crowne his owne gifts not thy merits if thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then we may as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose Psal 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainly now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie R. ABBOT The place of Bernard is in the very end of his booke De gratia libero arbitrio where hauing before deuided a Bernar. de grat et lib arbit Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit proemia the gifts of God into merits and rewards he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo merituÌ„ omne consistit ab ipso libero arbitrio sit c. Deus facit volenteÌ„ hoc est voluntati suae consentientem to consent to God which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth is not of our free will but of God himselfe So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose but what is c Totum ex illa wholly of the grace of God Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis inceÌ„tiua occuliae praedâ—stinationis iudiciâ— futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noÌ„ causa regnandi If properly we will terme those which we call our merites they are the seedgrounds of our hope incitements of our loue tokens of our secret predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our raigning or of our hauing the kingdome Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites is but vnproperly spoken that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life as a foretoken thereof and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and
giuen vnto vs and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs euen as Saint Augustine speaketh e August in Psalm 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum queÌ„ promisit the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard no question but he hath an answer readie though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place so notable a facultie haue these men to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him forsooth Bernards meaning is that merits are not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs out of which our merits proceed Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words Bernard saith they are not the cause Yes saith M. Bishop they are the cause though they be not the whole cause But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein for it is as much as if he should say The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth but the roote whence it proceedeth and the boughes whereupon it groweth whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree without which it is not a tree and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite So saith he Merits are not the whole cause of saluation but the grace and promise of God distinguishing merits as one part of the cause from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace and hath of God a promise of reward By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder but that merits are the whole cause of saluation fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith that merites which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Yet of that which he saith he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers In the meane time whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name though that booke indeed be none of his f August Manuâ—l ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum refugium meum salus vita resurrectio mea All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merite M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sence Where we see him to be an apt scholler and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius g Jndex Expur in castigat Bertram We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries But what is that good sence Marry by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence he must necessarily make the like of the rest The death of the Lord is my merite my refuge my saluation my life and resurrection If his meaning be the death of the Lord is my merite that is hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe then in the rest also shall be likewise said the death of the Lord is my refuge that is hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe the death of the Lord is my saluation life and resurrection that is hath purchased for me to be saluation life and resurrection to my selfe So likewise where he addeth h Meritum â—â—eâ—â— miseratio Domini noÌ„sum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit My merite is the mercie of the Lord so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile I shall not want merite the meaning shall likewise be the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe and so song as his mercie faileth not so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen Now these constructions are lewd and absurd and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ and the mercie of God as his onely succour and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon Which that the Reader may throughly vnderstand I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke euen out of the same spirit i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi ipsae anima et traÌ„seat se noÌ„ cogitaÌ„do se sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes fiducia mâ—a Est enim inte Deo meo Domino nostro Iesu Christo vniuscuiusque nostrum portio et sangâ— câ—ro Vbi ergo portio mea regnat ibi regnare me credo Vbi sanguis meus dominatur ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco Quamuis peccator sim tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt naturae communio non repellit c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea vitiae culpas infinitas negligentias meas quas egi quotidi è indesinenter ago corde ere opere omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret habitaret in nobis Sed desperare iam non audeo quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit mortem In ipso autem securus respiro c. Let my soule saith he be silent to it selfe and passe ouer it selfe not thinking of it selfe but of thee O my God because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ the portion and flesh and bloud of euery
Esuriuâ— c. Quid tam vile quid taÌ„ terrenum quà m frangere panem esueriente Tanti valet Regnum coelâ—ruÌ„ Si non habes facultateÌ„ frangendi paneÌ„ c. da calicem aquae frigidiae mitte duo miâ—uta in gazophylacium TaÌ„tuÌ„ emiâ— vidua duobâ—s minuus quantuÌ„â—mit Petrus relinquens reâ—â—a quantum emit Zachâ—us dando dimidium patrimonium Tanti valet quantum habueris for what thing He answereth I was hungry and ye gaue me to eate What is there so base saith he what so concerning the earth as to breake bread to the hungry At so much is the Kingdome of heauen valued vnto thee If thou haue no ability to breake bread to the hungry c. yet giue a cup of cold water cast two mites into the treasury The widow for two mites bought as much as Peter forsaking his nets as Zachee did in giuing halfe his goods It is valued vnto thee at so much as thou hast Thus the purpose of this iuditious Doctor is directly against Maister Bishops cause of receiuing the Kingdome of heauen shewing how base and of how little woorth the things are whereto God notwithstanding of his vouchsafing grace returneth the Kingdome of heauen that we may know that it is not for our merits sake that he bestoweth the same As for the imputation of Christes merits M. Bishop knoweth no vse of it because he yet knoweth not himselfe but he will then know the vse of the merits of Christ when he commeth to know how vainly and fondly he hath presumed of his own To the true Church of Christ it was neuer strange tidings that Christes merits should be imputed vnto them whose hope hath alwaies bene to finde fauour at Gods hands by vertue of that merit that he hath performed for them 16 W. BISHOP Here by the way M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that we take away a part of Christes mediation For saith he if Christes merits were sufficient what neede ours It hath bene told them but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it I will yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings which haue or shall be bestowed vpon all men from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it yet his diuine will and order is that all men of discretion hauing freely receiued grace from him do merit that crowne of glory which is prepared for them not to supply the want of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good works he best knew that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards vnto all them that would diligently endeuour to deserue them The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation I will therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life in the two first points we do for the most part agree to wit that our sinnes are freely pardoned through Christes passion and that we are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although we require other preparation then they do yet we as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause of either as they do Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen we differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christes righteousnesse and merits but we say that Christes righteousnesse and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth powre into euery true Christian a particular iustice whereby he is sanctified and made able to do good workes and to merit eternall life Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift through Christes merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits which he hath appointed to be the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeede vnder colour of magnifying Christes merits to vndermine and blow out all the vertue of them But saies Maister Perkins what should we talke of our merits who for one good worke we doe commit many bad which deface our merits if we had any True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may hap to do euil that is a faire perswasion and well worthy a wise man R. ABBOT To say that they take away a part of Christes mediation is no slaunder but truth as by M. Bishop himselfe appeareth in this very place To M. Perkins saying that if Christ did sufficiently merit eternall life for vs then he should do more then is needefull in making vs able to merit for our selues he answereth that though Christes merits be of infinite value and haue deserued of God all graces and blessings yet his diuine will and order is that we also merit that crowne of glory But to what end when he hath merited it already Marry not to supply the want of his merits but as being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting Thus we must thinke that M. Bishop is like vnto Christ in this point of meriting or rather we must think him an impious wretched man thus in meriting to consort himselfe and his with the Sonne of God and to bring in these prophane nouelties into the Church which neither Scripture nor councell nor father nor any antiquitie was euer acquainted with Where hath he euer read that Christ would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting What is this but to affirme him in a kinde of generality * Our conformity and likenesse to Christ wherin it standeth see of satisfaction Sect. 2. onely to be Iesus Christ but that otherwise he hath left it to euery man to be a Iesus Christ a Redeemer and Sauiour for himselfe because it is his will to haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting by which it is that he is become Iesus and a Sauiour vnto vs It is by meriting I say that Christ is vnto vs Iesus a Sauiour and therefore if we be like vnto him in meriting it cannot be auoided but that we also are Sauiours Yea and for this matter of meriting necessary it was that he that should be our Redeemer should be God because none
but God no Angell no Archangell no creature whatsoeuer could merit at the hands of God and yet this man sticketh not blasphemously to affirme that in this point of meriting we are like vnto the Sonne of God And all this meriting for ought he saith remaineth still needlesse and causelesse because for shame he dareth not deny that in words which indeed he doth deny that Christs merits are inestimable and haue deserued all graces and blessings for vs. Which being graunted to what end should we be like vnto Christ in meriting Nay we rightly conclude thereof because God doth nothing idlely that therefore he doth not appoint vs to merit that for our selues which Christ hath already merited in our behalfe Wheras he saith that God desirous to traine vs vp in all good workes best knew that there is no better spurre to pricke forward our dull nature then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards we acknowledge that so farre he saith truly but where he addeth that they are proposed to such as wil endeuour to deserue them I must remember him of the sentence of Marke the Hermite before alledged that a Marc. Herem Supra sect 14. some keeping the commandements expect the Kingdome of heauen as a wages deserued or due vnto them and that these faile of the Kingdome of heauen Now here M. Bishop in his brauery sitteth him downe in his chaire and taketh vpon him to teach M. Perkins as a man much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation but if M. Perkins had knowne it in no better sort then he teacheth him we might haue taken him indeede for a very simple and ignorant man True it is which he saith that the office of Christes mediation consisteth in reconciling man to God and that he performed this by paying the ransome of our sinnes by purchasing Gods fauour and ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life But he saith very vntruly that in the two first points for the most part we agree for they are farre from agreeing therein with vs or with the truth of the Gospell of Christ They do not hold that our sinnes are freely pardoned or that we are freely iustified albeit he is ashamed to confesse that they hold it otherwise For what is it to say freely but b Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end for nothing as his Rhemish Maisters haue expounded it and they do not hold that our sinnes are pardoned or we iustified for nothing but for works And that appeareth by that he addeth next although we require other preparation then they do For the workes of preparation they make to be the cause of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and iustification as he himselfe hath c Of Iustification Sect. 21. before disputed onely he thinketh the matter handsomly salued that workes are the cause of iustification but not the merit of works and with this iugling deuice he addeth that they as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause thereof as we do Wheras the Scripture saith nothing of the merit of workes but absolutely excludeth workes from being any part of the cause of our iustification before God neither opposeth each to other grace and merits but grace and workes not saying If it be of grace it is not of merits but d Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace were no grace Therefore these words of his are but words of hypocrisie and falshood and vsed onely to blinde the vnskilfull Reader and to conceale that venime and poison that would otherwise easily be espied Albeit his maister Bellarmine sticketh not to tell vs that e Bellarm. de iustificat lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustificat per modū meriti suo quodā modo meretur remissionē peccatorum faith which is one of their preparations doth iustifie by way of merit and doth in some sort merit forgiuenesse of sinnes that we may know that very vntruly and against his owne knowledge M. Bishop affirmeth that they as fully deny merit to be the cause of forgiuenesse of sinnes or iustification as we do About the meanes of attaining to heauen he saith we differ altogether For they say saith he that God requires no iustice in vs. Where as he hath sought to cleare his owne part with a lye so doth he with a lye seeke to disgrace ours We do not say that God requireth no iustice in vs we only deny that the iustice which God requireth in vs is the cause of our iustification before God or can yeeld vs any merit towards God and therefore in this respect we desire f Phil. 3.9 to be found in Christ and by faith to stand vnder the couerture of his merits and righteousnesse and in the imputation thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life Now against this he saith that Christes righteousnesse and merits are not communicable vnto anie meere creature But he saith he knoweth not what for what should hinder but that what Christ hath done for vs should be communicated and imputed vnto vs And is not Christ himselfe communicated vnto vs g Esa 9.6 borne vnto vs giuen vnto vs become h Iohn 17.23 one with vs Accordingly therefore he is i 1. Cor. 1.30 of God made righteousnesse vnto vs euen k Ierem. 23.6 the Lord our righteousnesse that we may say l Psal 71.14 I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God and will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely But he will haue it that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes and to merit eternall life One part whereof we acknowledge to be true that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes because good workes are the way wherein we are to walke to that eternall life which he hath merited and purchased for vs. But the other part thereof is false and we denie that he hath appointed vs by our good workes to merit for our selues eternall life It is a Romish fancie which we maruell they so busie themselues to cōmend to others when none of them dare presume of it in himselfe M. Perkins by sound argument hath confuted it and M. Bishop is content againe barely to affirme it without either proofe of his owne part or disproofe of that that is said against it In a word we do not finde in Scripture that Christ died for our good workes that they might merit but onely for our sinnes that they might be pardoned This is the auncient receiued faith of the Church of Christ but the other is a nouelty which antiquity neuer imagined but is lately deuised in the Church of Rome He saith that they by this doctrine of Merits do much more magnifie Gods grace and Christes merits then we do And why For the greater the gift is saith he the greater is the glory of the giuer But I answer him that the gift is greater in that Christ giueth himselfe to be
de proposito Dei firmior suppetit securiorque gloriandi ratio c. NoÌ„ est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam Non propter vos c. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita c. Merita habere cures habita data noueru fructum speraueris misericordiam Dei c. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est To what end is the Church carefull as touching merites which hath a more sure and secure ground of reioycing by reason of the purpose of God It is not for thee to aske by what merits we hope for good things seeing thou hearest by the Prophet Not for your sakes but for mine owne sake will I do it saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merite to know that merits are not sufficient Be carefull to haue merits when thou hast them know them to be giuen thee but for fruite thereof hope for the mercie of God The waâ—t of merits is a pernicious pouertie Thus vnder the name of merites he commendeth the hauing of good workes and our care to be rich therein shewing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof and to be men fruitlesse in the Church of God But yet when we haue them he teacheth vs to conceiue the vnsufficiency thereof and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof onely vpon Gods mercie who hath promised to performe it not for our sakes but for his owne sake and so fully bereaueth them of that nature of merite which M. Bishop doth assigne vnto them Thus doth he euery where giue vs to vnderstand his mind g Ibid. ser 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini My merit saith he is the mercie of the Lord. h Ibi. ser 73. Opus habent sancti pro peccatis exorare vt de misericordia salui fiant propriae iustitiae non fidentes Euen the Saints haue need to intreate for their sinnes that by thy mercie they may be saued not trusting to their owne righteousnesse And againe i In Psal Qui habitat ser 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu suiâ— sperant periculosa quia ruinosa Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous k Ibi. ser 16. Hoc totum hominiâ— meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluuÌ„ fecit This is the whole merite of man to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saued man Many other such like speeches of his might be alledged whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethinke himselfe whether he haue not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits which the Church of Rome now maintaineth Let him duly consider whether he haue done well to take a little aduantage of a scrap of a sermon and to vrge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place and his perpetuall doctrine other where For conclusion we are assaulted with a whole generall Councell that saith neuer a word against vs. The Arausican Councell saith l Concil Arausic cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant Reward is due for good works if they be done but grace which is no due goeth before that they may be done Euen so say we we also confesse that there is a reward due vnto good workes which God taketh vpon him to owe vnto vs but we say it with that limitation that before we haue heard out of S. Austin from whom that Councell boroweth almost all that they haue set downe that m Supra sect 17 God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs not for any thing that he hath receiued of vs but by promising all things vnto vs. It is due then to the worke not simply in respect of the worke it selfe or for the merite and worth thereof but by vertue of the promise that God hath made to them that so worke And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishops antiquitie which we may see doth pitifully faile him in that out of all antiquitie he could bring no stronger proofes then he hath done his doctrine of merits being expresly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it But as touching Antiquitie gentle Reader for thy further satisfaction and the better arming of thee if need require against the fraud of these vndermining Sophisters it shall not be amisse to aduertise thee thus much that as we do so did the auncient Fathers vpon diuers occasions speake diuersly of good workes and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our saluation they referre the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God and wholly to his gift they vilifie as we do the workes and worth of men and acknowledge that there is nothing in vs in the confidence whereof we may offer our selues to God nothing in strength whereof we can stand before God or whereby we should merite and deserue any thing at Gods hands Here workes are considered meerly as they are and as God instrict and precise iudgement findeth them to be and therefore are pronounced of accordingly But when occasion requireth to speake only of good works and of the end thereof and we look no further but to inforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called vs to walke to that saluation that he hath promised or when we haue in hand to commend any speciall point of godly and vertuous conuersation we presse the same with all instance as the Fathers do we shew how necessarily God requireth the workes of our obedience how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercie to accept them how he hath promised of his bountie to reward them We forbeare not to say that eternall life is the stipend of our warfare the hire and wages of our workes that God hath not appointed heauen for idle persons and loiterers but for such as labor for it that because God rendereth heauen we must haue that whereto it is to be rendered if we haue not there is no heauen for vs. We say it is a crowne or garland win it and weare it it is a haruest labor for it if thou wilt enioy it it is a field of treasure if thou wilt possesse it thou must purchase it Such kind of speeches euery man may obserue who is either a hearer of our sermons or a reader of our bookes Now if any man will hereof conclude that we teach the merit of workes it is his ignorance and mistaking and he doth vs wrong We teach what followeth of what we teach the dependance and consequence of good life and eternall life of the work and
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
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
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
most putide and shamefull and verie vnfitting indeed as as he saith to those things which he would seeme to answer Therefore in fine M. Bishops defence of his Image idolatrie is such as can giue no wise man any iust satisfaction for the approuing of it To Doctor Bishop Thus M. Bishop I haue taken paines to giue the Reader a tast of the marrow and a feeling of the pith of your many large volumes Wherein if my opinion deceiue me not he will finde by tast so little sweetnes and by feeling so little strength as that he will take you either for a silly and iniudicious man who are your self abused or for a wilfull and wicked cosiner that seeke to abuse others with such base and deceitful stuffe To touch the reputatioÌ„ of your iudgement and learning I know should be as the handling of a sore very greiuous to your selfe and offensiue to your fellowes and seduced followers whom you haue wonne I know not by what meanes so greatly to admire you Therefore I will not here question your learning let it be what it is thought to be it can be no preiudce to the truth onely I exhort you to take heed that you be not found with that learning that you haue to fight wilfully against God You haue giuen shrewd tokens in sundry places of your booke of a very malicious and wicked heart sometimes wittingly and purposely calumniating your aduersarie by false imputations of saying what he saith not sometimes guilefully concealing for your aduantage many things which he doth say dissembling allegations and authorities which you could not answer and answering other some without euer looking what the authors say I know the blind eateth many a fly and they who know nothing to the contrary haue takeÌ„ your arguments and answeres for pregnant and very sure and your booke hath gone for a great oracle amongst them But surely he that aduisedly weigheth the course and manner thereof will easily imagine that in very many places you had one within you to tell you that you did but patch and palter and shift and desperatly shut your eies against the light that most cleerely shined vnto you It may doubtlesse be said of you which S. Austine confesseth of himselfe whilst he was intangled with the heresie of the Manichees that you e August de duaeb animab coÌ„t Manich. Accidebat vt quicquid dicerent mirit quibusdam modis non quia sciâ—bam sed quia optabam verum esse pro vero approbarens approue the things which you haue bene taught for true not because you know but because you wish them so to be Beware M. Bishop of doing any thing presumptuously in this behalfe Remember him that said f Acts. 26.14 It is hard for thee to kicke against the prickes By beating your selfe against the rocke you do but harme your selfe the rocke shall neuer be remoued Giue glory to God by acknowledging the truth of God the breath whereof hath already blowne downe the towers of Babel the sound whereof as of the Lords trumpet hath cast downe the walles of Iericho and there is a curse laied vpon him that buildeth them vp againe g August de ciu dei lib. 6. cap. 1. Ea puâ—atur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere viribus veritatis It is the glory of vanity as S. Austine saith not to yeeld to any force of truth But the glory of vanity is but vaine glory and to take a pride in being constant or rather froward in errour is the high way to confusion and shame You may thinke it to be a blot of your credit being a Doctor of diuinity to yeeld that you haue bene deceiued all this while but it is no blot M. Bishop to confesse that degrees and learning are no priuiledge against errour You haue bene content though with some impeachment to yeeld to the Iesuites but it shal be no impeachment to you to yeeld to Iesus whose name you with others by your Proctours haue told vs that that hyprocritall vermine doth singularly abuse to the cloaking and colouring of much falsehood and villany Take experience thereof in your selfe Whilest you haue relied vpon Bellarmine the chiefe captaine of them you see how many lies and false tales you haue deliuered vpon his word both generally through your whole booke and specially in your Epistle to the king Will you be any longer led by them who thus grosly do abuse you Returne M. Bishop and be a meanes for others to returne out of the bondage of h 2. Thess 2. the man of sinne i 2. Tim. 2 out of the snare of the diuell of whom they are holden to do his will Submit your selfe to that truth which you see I say you see that you are not able to resist I speak not I confesse as vpon any opinion or hope that I haue to preuaile with you I know a dry sticke neuer bendeth till it breake and I feare you are more dry then that we may looke for any bending of you I pray God I may haue occasion to say that it was but a false feare but if not yet these words of mine shall serue hereafter for witnesse betwixt God and you and therefore for conclusion I say to you as Cyprian said to Florentius k Cyprian lib 4. epist 9 Habes tis literas meas et ego tuas in die tudicij vtruÌ„que ante tribunal Christi recitabitur You haue my writings and I haue yours at the day of iudgement both shal be recited before the tribunall seate of Christ FINIS Faults escaped Pag. 93. in marg lin 43. for voluntate reade necessitate pa. 121. after against them put in these words Now it should seeme that their diuinitie is very low where it is so high a point and not easie for the vnlearned to conceiue that God is the only efficient cause of all infused grace But c. pag. 126. l. 30 for bring forth the seed read bring forth fruit pag. 159. l. 10. for not knowing r knowing p. 275. l. 14. for proper to say r. proper to Dauid to say pag. 318. li. 4. for triall reade tiall pag 325. li. 34. for glorifieth reade glorieth pag. 355. l. 35 for thereof reade whereof pag. 36. â— l. 5. for willing reade willed pa. 459 l. 24. for only assiâ—ted r. only assisted p. 511. l. 5. for art r. act p. 547. l. 23. for health r faith p. 549. l. 27. for his opinion c. r. his ignorance p. 555 l. 23. for hope r. help p. 558. l. 29. after the commandements put in these words When say we the very prouocations themselues are a breach of the commaundements For c. p. 56. 1. l. 19 for vnpossible r. possible p. 567. l. 6. for vnto vs by reade vnto vs by p. 762 l. 38. put out and the vntimely fruits of a barren strumpet p. 770. l. 34. for not the imputing r. the not imputing p. 963. l. 25. for the righteousnes read but the righteousnes p. 997. l. 38. for not only reade only p. 1079. l. 14. for hauing reade not hauing p. 1104. l. 17. for the crosse reade the crosse of Christ pag. 1198. beginne the first line with these words If he can make that good he giueth vs some reason of falling
Yet we haue heard how Bellarmine maketh them u De iustificat lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo in some sort meritorious also and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be so that in this respect also they do but dally with the Apostle But tell vs M. Bishop are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace or onely of free will If they be of grace as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them what hindereth them from being meritorious seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes If they be of free will then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification which before you say the Apostle intendeth If he say that free will is helped by grace let him tell vs what he meaneth therein by grace and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike as before is said He goeth on further and saith that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith no more doth it exclude the rest How so Marry faith is as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest But that is false as we haue already seene and againe faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke as both faith hope and charity do with them but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby All the rest saith he are of grace as well as faith But being before iustification how should they be of grace seeing before iustification there is no infused grace and why are they not meritorious as hath bene said Againe he saith that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle who affirmeth that x Rom. 3.27 boasting is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith And the thing is plaine for he hath somewhat to boast of who doth any thing for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him but in faith there is nothing to boast of because the act of faith is to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake it is it selfe wholy the gift of God and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs but all wholy vnto God But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting in as much as he must confesse as hath bene before said that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God yea so farre as that man hath to glory that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect it being in his power either to accept or to refuse the same Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke y Luk. 8.50 onely beleeue as nothing to the purpose he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof Let S. Austine teach him that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod noÌ„ est transituruÌ„ neque in fine abituruÌ„ post Per ista teÌ„poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur all the miracles which Christ did corporally do serue for our instruction that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away nor go from vs in the end that by these temporall things which were seene he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life doth instruct vs that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace The man indeede was bid as M. Bishop saith to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life but therein he was bid also to beleeue that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle but I answer him that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith for the obtaining of bodily health doth also referre vs to faith for the obtaining of soules health Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said As for the places of Austin if his sight had not failed him I suppose he would not haue alledged them the one of them being nothing at all against vs and the other directly against himselfe We say a August de grat lib. â—â—bit cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill and haue no good workes Nay we say further God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill and haue no good workes We haue often enough said that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life and that faith that is without good workes is onelie called faith with men but indeede and with God it is not so In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle saying b De praedest sanct cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith that a man is iustified by his workes as well as by his faith By faith and not by works saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle both by faith and works saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines S. Austine giueth the reason c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetreÌ„tur caetera qua propriè opera nuÌ„ cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained which are properly called works in which a man liueth righteously Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen that thereby we may be iustified and thence follow good works in which we liue well according to his rules before deliuered d De fide et operib cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum non praecâ—dunt iustificandum They follow a man being iustified they go not before to iustification e Epist 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur noÌ„ quia praecesserunt iustificamur then they begin when we are iustified we are not iustified for them going before Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement that iustification is the beginning of good works and if iustification be the beginning of good workes then by no meanes can it be said that good workes are any cause of
iustification He excludeth not then good workes which proceede from Gods grace as M. Bishop saith but he denieth that there are any good workes before iustification because he knoweth no grace but iustifying grace and therefore directly crosseth Maister Bishops assertion of good workes before iustification which are the causes for which we are iustified 29. W. BISHOP Maister Perkins third argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this end of apprehending but faith onely Answer Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries must needes know little But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnesse according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours onely by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but onely the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them ours thē faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him But charity doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship A micorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertues we take such hold on Christes merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying De nat gra cap. vlt. That Charity beginning was Iustice beginning Charitie encreased was Iustice encreased great Charitie was great Iustice and perfect Charity was perfect Iustice R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledgeth that very reason may teach vs that faith onely iustifieth because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiuing but faith onely To this M. Bishop answereth that mans reason is a blind mistresse in matters of faith Wherein he saith truly and indeede is the cause why he himselfe writeth so blindly as he doth and measureth high mysteries by carnall and base conceipts And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blinde who gaue so blinde a reason against that which Maister Perkins saith being spoken not out of the reason of man but as the reason of a faithfull man may esteeme by direction of the word of God No man entreth into the possession of any thing saith he by beleeuing that he hath it for if a man beleeue that he is rich doth he thereby become rich I answer him no but though a man by beleeuing himselfe to be rich do not become rich yet if to a poore begger a great man say If thou wilt take my word and referre thy selfe to me and depend vpon my fauour and good will I will make thee rich doth he not by giuing credit to his word commit himselfe to him entertaine his fauour accept his offer and become owner of that that is promised vnto him What is it whereby we accept of promise but onely beliefe Now all that our question is of consisteth of promise in all the benefits of God we are a Gal. 4.28 the children of promise b Cap. 3 29. heires by promise c Heb. 6.17 heires of promise expecting all things by the gracious promise of God d 2. Pet. 1.4 by promise to be partakers of the diuine nature e Gal. 3.14.16 the blessing by promise f Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise g Gal. 3.18 the inheritance by promise h Tit. 1.2 life eternall by promise i 2. Pet. 3.13 by promise a new heauen and a new earth wherein righteousnesse dwelleth all which k 2. Cor. 1.20 promises in Christ are yea and in him Amen for his sake first made and for his sake to be performed also Now seeing God hath taught vs that l Heb. 11.33 by faith we obtaine the promises that m Gal. 3.14 we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith that n Ibid. ver 22. the promise of blessing is giuen by the faith of Iesus Christ to them that beleeue that o Mat. 8.13 as we beleeue so it shall be vnto vs that p Mat. 11.24 whatsoeuer we desire when we pray if we beleeue that we shall haue it it shall be accordingly vnto vs why is it strange to M. Bishop that in beleeuing according to the word and promise of God to be partakers of those things which he hath promised we should be said to become partakers thereof In those mad presumptions fondly alledged by him there is no beleeuing because there is no ground whereupon to beleeue but when God promiseth and tieth the effect of his promise to the beleeuing of it not to beleeue that in the beleeuing of it we are partakers of that which we beleeue is to make God a liar and to frustrate that which he hath promised Sith then God hath promised Christ vnto vs to be q Ierem. 23.6 our righteousnesse and that r Rom. 3.22 by the faith of Iesus Christ that is by beleeuing