soule for how can God haue all the soule so long as concupiscence hath any part therfore in the remainder of any matter of concupiscence there is sinne because c Ibid. Rat. 15. it is sinne when either there is not loue at all or it is lesse then it should be and it is lesse then it should be when it is not with all the soule Therefore doth S. Austin define sinne to be d Ad Simplâ—â— quaest 2. Est piccatuâ—a hominis mordinatio atque peruâ—rsita â—â—d est à prae â—amiore conditore auersio ad cond iâ—â—ife â—â—ra conuersio hominis inordinatio atque peruersitas a disordered and peruerted condition of man Of man he saith not only of the will of man and therefore if in man there be any disordered or mis-conditioned affection the same is sinne But concupiscence which is a rebellion of the law that is in the members against the law of the mind is a disorder in man and therefore necessarily must be holden to be truly sinne A second errour he committeth in that making concupiscence onely the materiall part of sinne he appropriateth it to the inferiour sensuall and brutish parts and faculties of the nature of man and to the resistance thereof against the superiour and more excellent powers of the will and reason and vnderstanding whereas concupiscence truly vnderstood importeth the vniuersall habite of auersion from God and a corruption spred ouer the whole man and defiling him in all parts and powers both of body and soule And therefore doth the Apostle expound the conuersation in or according to the lusts or concupiscences of the flesh to be e Ephes 2.3 the fulfilling of the will of the flesh and of the minde which he could not do but that concupiscence signifieth also the prauitie and corruption of the mind euen as the Apostle S. Peter also maketh it the fountaine of all f 2. Pet. 1.4 the corruption that reigneth in the world And thus amongst the workes of the flesh which are the fruits and effects and as it were the streame of that fountaine of corruption are reckoned those things which haue their proper seate and being in the highest parts of the soule as are g Gal 5 20.21 idolatrie heresie witchcraft enuie hatred pride which being acts of concupiscence and sinfull lust yet are so farre h August de cui Dei lib. 14. cap. 2 3. from being tied to the inferior parts of the soule which haue their occupation properly in the flesh as that some of them and that specially pride and enuie are noted to be the sinnes of the diuell who hath no communion or societie with the flesh and therefore in the name and nature of concupiscences are meerely the vices and corruptions of the mind Yea S. Austin acknowledgeth that i Idem Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Ipsae cupiditas nihil aliud est quam voluntas sed vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne and that the temptation of concupiscence is nothing else but k De bono perseuer ca. 6. Qui in tentationem suae mala voluntatis non insertur in nullam prorsus infertur Vnusquisque enim tentatur à concupiscentia sua c. the temptation of a mans owne euill will So saith S. Bernard l Bernard in Canâ— ser 81. Voluntate persisto agere contra legem Nam mea voluntas ipsa est lex in membris meis legi diuinae recalâ—itrans Mihi ipsi mea ipsius voluntas contraria inuenitur It is in my will that I continue to do against the law of God for mine owne will is the law in my members rebelling against the law of God mine owne will is found contrarie to my selfe Whereby it appeareth that concupiscence which is that rebelling law of sinne is a deprauation of the will also and not to be restrained to the brutish and sensuall affections of the inferiour part Nay Hierome noteth that it signifieth m Hieron ad Alagas quaest 8. Nos per concupiscentiam omnes perturbationes animae significatas putamus quibus maeremus gaudemus timemus concupiscimus all the passions or perturbations of the soule whereby we ioy or sorow feare or desire which are holden to be n August de ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 3. Origines omnium peccatorum atque vitiorum the originals and beginnings of all sinnes and vices which although Poets and Philosophers haue taken to arise of the flesh yet o Ibid. Non omnia vitae iniquae vitia tribuenda sunt carni ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum qui noâ— habet carnem Christian faith saith Austin teacheth otherwise that we are not to attribute these vices of euill life altogether to the flesh that is to the sensuall part least that of all the sinnes thereof we acquit the diuell because he is without flesh Another errour of his is that he maketh the priuation of Originall iustice and auersion of the will to be the principall matter of Originall sinne For the principall matter in Originall sinne is the p 1. Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Peccatum eos dicimus ex Adam originalitèr trahere id est eius reatu implicatos ob hoc poenae obnoxios deteneri guilt of Adams sinne q Bernard in aduent dom ser 1. Jn Adam omnes peccauimus in illo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes in whom we all haue sinned and in him haue all receiued the sentence of damnation For that must be accounted the principall which is the cause of all the rest and it is the guilt of the first sinne that is the cause of whatsoeuer further sinne originally cleaueth to vs which together with death it selfe is the punishment of that first sinne His fourth error is as touching the cure of Originall sinne which he maketh to be such as if Originall iustice were wholy restored and all auersion of the will from God wholy taken away Which is so palpably false as that we may wonder that he had so little feeling of conscience as that for shame he would write it to the world For if there be that cure that he speaketh of in the Baptized how is it that there is so little effect or token thereof How is it that after Baptisme there remaineth so great crookednesse peruersenesse of nature which we find commonly to be no lesse then from the beginning men haue complained of How is it that it is r Cyprian de Cardinal Christi operib in Prologo Ommno rarum est difficile fieri bonum facile pronum est esse malum haec sine magi stro sine exemplo doctrina statim à pubescentâ—bus annu imbuimur docemur so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodnes so easie and ready a matter to become naught that to the one we attaine with much difficulty albeit
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
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
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
things as were done But we Christians teach that mankind by free choice and Free will doth both do well and sinne To him we will ioyne that holy Bishop and valiant Martyr Irenaeus who of Free will writeth thus Lib. 4. cap. 72. Not onely in workes but in faith also our Lord reserued libertie and freedome of will vnto man saying Be it done vnto thee according to thy faith I will adde to that worthie companie S. Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauior Ioan. 6. Lib. 1. Epist 3. Wil you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inueigh against them which forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles will you also go your way and why so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by which man left vnto his libertie and put vnto his free choice might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their bloud in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of Free will specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Antiquitie excepting onely S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught Free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illiricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching Free will the testimonies of Iustine Irenaeus and others saith In like maner Clement Patriarch of Alex. doth euery where teach Free will Cont. 2. cap. 4. col 59. that it may appeare say these Lutherans not onely the Doctors of that age to haue bene in such darknesse but also that it did much increase in the ages following See the wilfull blindnesse of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught Free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bene blindly led by the Apostles and their best Schollers who were their Masters then to espie and amend his own error These principall pillars of Christs Church were in darknesse belike as Protestants must needes say and that proud Persian and most wicked Heretike Manes of whom the Manichees are named who first denied Free will began to broach the true light of the new Gospell R. ABBOT M. Bishop held it to be the best course for him clanum clauo pellere to driue out one naile with another not answering the places which M. Perkins alledged out of the Fathers but oâ—ely crossing them with other places Nay he so passed them ouer as that fraudulently and falsly he would make his Reader beleeue that they made all for him But marke I pray thee gentle Reader when M. Bishop driueth all to this that when God hath done his worke for mans conuersion it is left to mans free choice whether to will the same or not doth it make for him or is it not against him which M. Perkins citeth out of Austin that a Aug. de correp grat cap. 12. Iâ—â—o sic volunt quia Deus operatur vt veliâ—t man therefore willeth because God worketh in him to will Surely if man therefore will because God worketh in him to will then Gods worke doth not leaue man to the free choice of his owne will When M. Bishop saith that there is in man a naturall facultie of Free will which being stirred vp and fortified is able to do any act appertaining to saluation doth the same S. Austine agree with him when he affirmeth b Epist 107. Lâ—cerum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum prinâ—s peccati graâ— ditate perâ—â—emuâ— that man lost Free will to the loue of God by the greatnesse of Adams sinne When he attributed mans conuersion but onely principally to grace and blameth vs for that we attribute the whole worke to grace doth S. Bernard agree with him when he saith c Bernard de grat lib. arb Totum ex gratia that it is wholy of grace that we are new created healed saued By these it is easie to make application of the rest but we may looke for good answers at his hands herafter who in the beginning being so directly oppugned would seeke thus in a cloud to steale away But if M. Perkins were able to say nothing against him we must thinke he is able to say for himselfe exceeding much Yet his first authoritie out of Iustinus Martyr maketh nothing at all for him for being written to an heathen Emperour it toucheth onely morall and externall actions in which we deny not but that God hath left some freedome and liberty to mans will as before hath bene declared His very d Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Ne quis nostra dicta sic acciptat quasi Fati necessitateÌ„ asseramus quae fiunt ideò fieri quiae praedicta sunt expâ—ica bonus hoc quoque c drift there is to condemn the wicked fancies of Astrologers and Stoicke Philosophers who did hang all vpon e Aug. contra duas Epist Pela lib. 2. ap 6. in Psal 1â—0 de ciuit Dei lib. 5. cap. 1. destinies and constellations and fatall necessitie and thence sought excuse of their lewd and abominable actions And if we wil more largely extend the words yet are they nothing for M. Bishops turne f Hominem libero arbitrio liberaque voluntate peccare rectè agere docemus We Christians saith he do affirme that by free choice and Free will mankind doth both do well and sinne And so much we affirme also that man by free choice and Free will doth well for there g Prosper de vocâ—t Gent lib 2. cap. 9. Virius nolenuum nulla est is no vertue where a man hath no will to that he doth but we say still against M. Bishop that this is not that Free will that he requireth it is not a power of nature but wholy the effect of grace h Aug. Epi. 107. vt supra Sect. 1. It is the grace of God whereby mans will is made free both to eschue euil and do good and they that teach any other Free will they are i Idem de grat lib arbit cap. 14. Non defensores sed inflatores praecipitatores liberi arbit not the defenders but the puffers vp and break-neckes of Free wil. And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof as appeareth by these words in the same Apologie k Iustin vt supr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like sort as God created vs when we were not so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and being with him who willingly make choice to do those things that are pleasing vnto him But to haue being at the first it was not of our selues In like sort then to choose and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs it is by his perswading and mouing of vs
at Caluin when he in the mean time going like a stately Lion shaketh them off like curres and dasheth them against the walles If Caluin were so poore a man alas what shal we thinke of M. Bishop what shall we make of him but a begger outright Yet he taketh vpon him to proue and that out of those workes which S. Austin wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote that the same Austin taught Free will And we deny not but that he did so and in that meaning wherein he taught it we are readie to affirme it Yea let him remeÌ„ber that Caluin professeth that c Ibid. Sect. 8. if any man will vse the name of Free will without the corrupt meaning of it he will not gainesay him onely because it cannot be retained without danger of euill vnderstanding he wisheth it to be forborne and in that respect we for the most part do forbeare it But this Free will in true meaning is no facultie of nature as M. Bishop will needs haue it but d Aug de pecca mei remiss lib. 2 ca. 6 Ipsum liberum arbitriuÌ„ ad gratiam Dei hoc est ad dona Dei pertinere noÌ„ ambâ—go nec soluÌ„ vt sit sed etiam vt bonum sit hoc est ad facienda Domini mandata conuertatur it belongeth to the grace of God to the gifts of God not onely the being of it but the conuerting of it vnto God And very truly doth the same S. Austin argue that e Ibid cap. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo est quae adhuc potest esse vel bona vel mala bona verò voluntas ex nobis est melius est id quod à nobis quam quod ab illo est if we haue of God by nature a Free will which may be either good or euill and haue of our selues a good will by consenting or applying it when God calleth to that that is good then better is that that we haue of our selues then that that we haue of God Which because it is absurd we must needes acknowledge that a good will that is to say Free will to faith and righteousnesse is not of our selues but of God onely But M. Bishop alledgeth Austin affirming that f De spirit lit cap. 34. to consent to Gods calling or not to consent propriae voluntatis est belongeth to mans owne will But rather he should say propriè voluntatis est that is it concerneth properly the will the place by changing of a letter being vndoubtedly corrupted S. Austins purpose there being onely to note the will to be the subiect not the cause of this consenting To consent he meaneth is an act of the will which howsoeuer God worketh in the will to do yet the will it is that doth it but that the will consenteth by a power of it own he meaneth not yea he himselfe plainly euicteth the contrarie in the words immediatly going before For what is it to consent but velle credere to be willing to beleeue And g Ipsum velle credere Deus operatur in homine God it is saith he that worketh in vs to be willing to beleeue Therefore it must needes be that God worketh in man to giue consent Mans will consenteth it is true h Contra duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1 cap. 18 lib. 2. cap 8. de Praedest sanct ca. 5. sed praeparatur voluntas à Domino but the will is framed or prepared of the Lord. Faith is in the power of man i De spir lit cap. 31. sed nulla est potestas nisi à Deo but there is no power but of God It is in mans will when God hath giuen him to will it is in mans power when God hath giuen him power And more then this howsoeuer we reade the words S. Austin intended not For full and certaine assurance whereof M. Bishop should haue remembred that S. Austin himselfe reporteth it as an error which he had sometimes holden k De Praedest sanct cap. 3. Vt praedicato nobis Euangelio consentiremus nostruÌ„ esse nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar Quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicam ante Episcopatum meum scripta that to consent to the Gospell when it is preached is of our owne will and that we haue that of our selues From which error he professeth he was reclaimed by those words of the Apostle l 1. Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued For if it be of our own will that we consent then somwhat we haue of our selues which we haue not receiued He should further haue remembred that S. Austin noteth it as the error of the PelagiaÌ„s that m Epist 107 CoÌ„sentire vel non consentire ita nostrum est vt si velimus to consent or not to consent is in our selues and of our selues so that if we will we do so or if we will not we cause that the worke of God nought auaileth in vs. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Austin a patron of that opinion which he reformed as an error in himselfe and condemned as an error in other men The second place that he alledgeth in Austins true meaning is altogether against him n Contra Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap. 14 Quis noÌ„ videat venire quenquam noÌ„ venire arbitrio voluntatis sed hoc arbitrium potest esse solum si non venit non potest autem nisi aediutum esse si venit Who doth not see saith he that euery man cometh or cometh not arbitrio voluntatis by his will Let it be as M. Bishop saith by Free will But this will may be alone saith he if he come not but it caÌ„not be but helped if he do come Where shewing that our coming or not coming to Christ is acted by our will he giueth to vnderstand that our will is of it selfe free to refuse to come but that the Free will whereby we do come is the gift of God euen as our Sauiour Christ teacheth vs saying o Ioh. 6.65 No man can come vnto me except it be giuen him of my Father And therfore the same S. Austin elsewhere reasoneth with a man in this sort p August Quomodo venisti c Veni â—â—quis libero arbitrio voluntate propria venâ— Quid turgescu vâ— nosse quod hoc praestitum est tibi Ipsum audi vocantem Nemo venit ad me c. Thou sayest vnto me I am come to Christ by my Free will I am come by mine owne will Why art thou proud of this Wilt thou know that euen this also was giuen thee Heare him that called thee No man cometh vnto me except my Father draw him For q De Praedest sanct cap. 20. supra Sect 6. when God will haue a man do that which is not to be done but by the will he in
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
we will any thing by how much the more certainly we know how good it is and more earnestly are delighted therein Therefore ignorance and infirmitie the one in the vnderstanding and the other in the will it selfe being the p De nataet grat cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae ignorantia difficultas two penalties of euery soule of man are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good and eschewing of that that is euill So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity do remaine so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptisme Therefore baptisme doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will Of the former of these it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith q Ambros in Psal 118. ser 3. Omnes sanctem vmbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore non perfectè videns sed ex parte cognoscunt All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body they do not see perfectly but know in part onely He learned it of the Apostle saying r 1. Cor. 13.9 We know in part we prophecy in part we see through a glasse darkly And if it might be so said of the Apostles how much more is it to be vnderstood of the common condition and state of men We cannot but acknowledge much blindnesse much errour much imperfection of knowledge and therefore resolue that the vnderstanding cannot giue due information to the will And so long as we are thus weake in knowledge all other things must needs be vnperfect in vs because we cannot loue beyond that we know nor delight beyond our loue Therefore our loue is vnperfect our desire is vnperfect our delight is vnperfect and yet not onely because our knowledge is vnperfect but also because we haue yet receiued not the perfection but Å¿ Rom. 8.23 the first fruites onely of the spirit by whom all these things are effected in vs. For this cause S. Austine euery where acknowledgeth that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate and that there is not perfect newnesse in the mind and inner man as we haue seene before by reason whereof the will is distracted and diuided in it selfe and by one motion of it selfe fighteth against another whilest t August in Ioan. tract 81. supra sect 1. we will one way because we be in Christ and will another way because as yet we are in this world Now sith there is not by baptisme perfection of knowledge to direct the will and the will it selfe by corruption yet remaining is infirme and weake to the loue and delight of the law of God it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith that the will in baptisme is fully rectified and set in order againe towards the law of God Or if the meaning be that it is rectified and set in order but yet not fully and perfectly then he saith as we say that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part and because sinne consisteth in the deordination of the will therefore sinne by baptisme is not altogether and wholly done away Thus we see him very hardly bested that making choise himselfe yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safetie shrowd himselfe 13. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace they alledge that we in our Doctrine teach that Originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose roots remaine in the flesh growing and encreasing after they be cut as before His answer is that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the root neuer after to be recouered Conferre this last answer with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly wounded in the root there it remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this be comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots In deed they do him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Originall sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his works and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter R. ABBOT This obiection they haue borowed of the Pelagian heretikes who altogether denying Originall sinne and acknowledging onely sinnes actuall by voluntary imitation and custome defended that those being pardoned and forgiuen in baptisme a man was made fully and perfectly without sinne When therefore the Catholike Bishops and Pastours of the Church did teach that after baptisme there was concupiscence still remaining whence did grow euill motions and lusts tempting and entising to sinne and wickednesse they hereupon fell to cauilling in this sort that a August cont duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect 9. sinnes then were not wholly remitted and that baptisme did not take away sinnes but onely pare them and shaue them so as that the rootes did still stick whence other sinnes should grow againe in like sort to be cut off Now this Saint Austine denieth and teacheth that baptisme giueth to the regenerate b Dicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum auferre crimina non radere vt omnium peccatorum raâ—ices in mala carne teneantur remission and release of all sinnes and doth not pare of faults crimina faults of behauiour and conuersation but doth wholly take them away because of actuall sinnes which onely and no other they acknowledged there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiuen and pardoned c Sed de ista carnis coâ—upiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est vt etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat But as touching concupiscence saith he I hold that they are deceiued and do deceiue others with which the regenerate hath still to fight albeit he haue well profited and be guided by the spirit of God Yet this he saith is no sinne to him that is it is not imputed for sinne because the guilt thereof drawen by generation is remitted and forgiuen by regeneration Now this concupiscence as S. Ambrose saith is d Ambros Apolog Dauid cap. 13. mala radix an euill root e August de verb. Dom. serm 12. radix omnium malorum the root of all euils saith Austine euen as charity is the root of all
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
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
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
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
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
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
meanes giue ouer till he had left vs this stinke of Images This is one of the grosse and palpable abhominations of the kingdome of Antichrist the filth whereof there is no man but seeth saue onely they a 2. Cor. 4.4 in whom being vnbeleeuers the god of this world hath blinded their mindes that the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ which is the Image of God should not shine vnto them By this the Church of Rome hath matched all the idolatries of the heathen and brought all their iugling deuices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grossely and damnably as euer they did But in this field I haue walked at large before in b Sect. 12. answer of the Epistle to the King and therefore I will here tye my selfe to those things which Master Bishop giueth vs occasion to consider of M. Perkins in his third conclusion affirmeth a lawfulnesse of making Images to testifie the presence and effects of the maiestie of God when God himselfe hath so commanded as he exemplifieth in Moses his making of the brazen serpent in figure of Christ crucified the Cherubin set ouer the mercy seate God there promising his presence and signifying the attendance of Angels to do him seruice Concerning this point Tertullian being vrged by idol-makers with the example of the brasen serpent answereth very rightly c Tertul. de Idol Benè quod idem Deus lege vetuit similitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem interdixit Si eundem Deum obserues habes legem eius Ne feceris similitudinem Si praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis tu imitare Mosen Ne feceris aduersus legem similitudinem nisi tibi Deus iusserit It is wel that the same God both did forbid by law that any likenesse should be made and by extraordinarie commandement did appoint the likenesse of a serpent If thou worship the same God thou hast his law Thou shalt not make the similitude or likenesse of any thing if thou looke to the coÌ„mandement of making a similitude afterward do thou imitate Moses do not against the law make an image vnlesse God command thee also God giueth not lawes to himselfe but to vs what he commandeth to the contrarie by his owne authoritie is no iustification of our presumption For this cause M. Perkins obserueth that in the commandement it is said Thou shalt not make TO THY SELFE any grauen image to thy selfe that is saith he vpon thine owne head or vpon thine owne will and pleasure M. Bishop saith that this is a wilfull peruerting of the words which cannot signifie but to thine owne vse that is to adore Thus he cannot abide that they should be restrained from doing somewhat of their owne heads and at their owne will it is death to them to be hedged from that walke Yet Moses gaue it for a lesson from God d Deut. 12.8.32 vulg Hoc tantuÌ„ facito Domino Ye shall not do euery man what seemeth good in his owne eyes What I command thee that onely do to the Lord thou shalt put nothing to nor take ought therefrom Whereby it appeareth that M. Perkins exposition containeth a truth that to the Lord or by way of seruice to God no image might be made but what God himselfe commaunded neither doth the text declare any thing to the contrarie but that that is the true meaning of the words which he expoundeth In his fourth conclusion he saith that the right Images of the new Testament are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospell and all things that by the word of God do thereto appertaine whereby e Gal. 3 1â— Iesus Christ is described before our eyes as the Apostle saith euen as crucified amongst vs. This saith he is an excellent picture whereby Christ with his benefites is liuely represented vnto vs. These are Metaphoricall pictures saith M. Bishop not belonging to this purpose But why doth he admit that which M. Perkins citeth out of Origen affirming that Christians haue no other f Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. Simulachra Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera sed à verbo Dei dedolata formataque in nobis videlicet virtutu ad imitationem primogeniti totius ereaturae in quo sunt iustitiae temperantiae fertitudinis sapientiae pietatis caeterarumque virtutuÌ„ exempla Hae sunt statuae Deo dicata in animuÌ„ virtutes exertentium quibus deceÌ„tèr honorari credimus omniuÌ„ huiusmodi statuarum archetypum primuÌ„ c. The images to be dedicated to God are not the workâ—s of Carpenters but hewed by the word of God and framed in vs namely vertues to the imitation of him who is the first borne before all creatures in whom are the examples of iustice fortitude temperancie wisedome pietie and other vertues These are Images dedicated to God in the minds of them that exercise such vertues wherewith we beleeue the principall of all such Images the image of the inuisible God who is God the onely begotten to be conueniently honoured He knew no other images lawfull amongst Christians but onely such as wherein we beare the image of God and of his Son Iesus Christ but this M. Bishop thought not good to take knowledge of As for that which he saith that he beleeueth not our doctrine to be as M. Perkins hath set downe because the Magistrates publikely take away pictures from Catholikes and teare them downe and burne them he must vnderstand that it is nothing to vs what he beleeueth Our Magistrates know how to put difference betwixt the lawfull vse of things the vnlawfull abuse they know well how such pictures and images are by Papists turned to Idols and therefore to shew the detestation of the dishonor that thereby is done to God they burne them and teare them and deface them being found with them that they may no more be abused to such idolatrie Where otherwise they are found and are not subiect to their superstitious and false deuotions our Magistrates do nothing against them because they are not offended at the hauing but at the abusing of them By reason of those idolatrous fancies it is that our more feruent disciples as he calleth theÌ„ cannot abide a Crosse staÌ„ding by the high way side or in any other place They carie therein a true zeale to God though not alwaies so aduisedly managed as it ought to be But if any of priuate fancie proceed to the demolishing and destroying of such publike monuments we approue it not and they that do it deseruedly receiue their check We are well enough perswaded that they who first began the erecting of those Crosses did it meerely in the honour of the name of Christ that where before had stood the ensignes of false and idoll Gods g Ezec. 16.25 at the head of euery way there might be lifted vp a trophee and standard as a monument and token of the exaltation
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