Oecumen in Iac. ca. 2. De simplici assensu fideÌ„ dicere solemus c. Rursum coÌ„secutionem ex affectu procedeÌ„tem cum firmo assensu nomine fidei vocamus bare assent of the vnderstanding and there is a faith that implyeth the affection of the heart and will There is a faith whereby m Iohn 3.15 he which beleeueth shall neuer perish and there is a faith whereby some n â—â—k 8.13 beleeue for a time and in time of temptation go away There is a faith which the world o 2. Tim. 2.18 destroyeth and there is p 1. Iohn 5.4 a faith which is our victorie whereby we ouercome the world According to these differences there is q Iam. 2.14 a faith without workes and there is r Gal. 5.6 a faith which worketh by loue We affirme then of the faith of the elect whereby we beleeue in God to which the promise of iustification and eternall life is made that it is a faith which cannot be separated from charity and good workes but wheresoeuer it is there is infallibly ioined with it the loue of God bringing forth Å¿ Phil. 1.11 the fruites of righteousnesse which are by Iesus Christ to the glory and praise of God Now as touching this faith M. Bishops arguments must be vnderstood or else they are nothing against vs and being so vnderstood a man would wonder that a wise man should shew so much folly to bring arguments so impertinent and friuolous as he hath done The first is taken from the words of reprobate hypocrites who t Mat. 7.22 at that day shall say vnto Christ Lord Lord haue we not prophecied in thy name c. to whom he shall professe saying I neuer knew you depart from me ye workers of iniquity They shall say Lord Lord therefore they beleeued in Christ and were perswaded assuredly that they were of the elect the conclusion as well agreeing to the antecedent as a goose feather to a foxes taile It is to be noted that faith is grounded vpon the word of God and the thing which it beleeueth is that that God hath said Thus the Apostle telleth vs that u Rom. 10.17 faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God and therefore calleth the word of God x Ver. 8. the word of faith because that is the obiect and matter of faith Whatsoeuer we conceiue towards God beside the word of God it is opinion imagination presumption but faith it is not Now the word of God denounceth that x Psal 11.6 the soule of the Lord hateth them that loue iniquitie that y Psal 92 9. all the workers of iniquity shall be destroied that Christ shall say to them at the last day Depart from me ye workers of iniquitie If then there be no faith but by the word of God and the word of God denounce destruction to the workers of iniquity how can it be said that the workers of iniquitie haue faith to perswade themselues assuredly that they are of the elect S. Austine saith z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser Qui fidem hâ—bet sine spe dilectione ChristuÌ„ esse credit non in Christum credit He who hath faith without hope and charity beleeueth that Christ is but he beleeueth not in Christ For a Cyprian de simplic praelat Credere se in Christum quomodo dicit qui non facit quod Christus facere praecepit how doth he say that he beleeueth in Christ saith Cyprian who doth not what Christ hath commanded vs to do How then doth M. Bishop say that these beleeue in Christ in whom he confesseth there is no charity no loue to Christ to do those things which he commandeth They of whom Christ speaketh as the words very plainly import are heretikes schismatikes false Apostles false teachers yea and such also as though they preach the truth of Christ yet preach it not truly sincerely but b Phil. 1.15.18 of enuie and strife and vnder a pretence who vnder the name of Christ c Gap 2.21 seeke their owne and not that that is Christs making the word of God to serue them themselues not seruing it vsing the Gospell for their purpose when they haue no true purpose for the Gospel d Psal 50.16.17 taking the testament of Christ in their mouthes but hating to be reformed thereby e Tit. 1.16 professing to know God when by their deeds they deny him To the name of Christ euen in the mouthes of such wicked men God somtimes doth that honour as that miracles are done thereby diuels are cast out great effects are wrought wherin they much glory in respect thereof assume much vnto themselues These in the end not of faith but for feare wheÌ„ they shal see that which they beleeued not that f Phil. 3.19 damnation is their end shall in perplexity of mind cry vnto Christ whoÌ„ before they regarded not and therefore by him now shall be reiected Of such though professing to know God and prophecying in the name of Christ yet the Apostle saith as the vulgar Latine translateth and as the word well beareth that they are g Tit. 1 16. vnbeleeuers yea as Thomas Aquinas expoundeth it h Thom. Aquin. in Tit. 1. lect 4. Non apti ad credendum not fit to beleeue And if they be vnbeleeuers why doth M. Bishop say they haue faith or if they haue faith why doth the Apostle say that they are vnbeleeuers Surely they that beleeue destruction to be the end of the works of iniquity will be carefull to auoid the same Cyprian truly saith i Cyprian de simplic praelat Metueret conscientiae nostra si crederet quia non credit omnino nce metuâ—t si autem crederet caueret Si caueret euaderet Our conscience would be afraid if it did beleeue because it beleeueth not therefore it feareth not If it did beleeue it would take heede and if it did take it should auoide or escape namely the punishments to come whereof he speaketh in that place The cause why men k Heb. 4.2 profit not by the word of God is because it is not mingled with faith in those that heare it Where there is faith men profit by it and it is the l 2. Cor. 2.16 sauour of life vnto life but where faith is wanting it commeth to passe which Ambrose saith m Ambros in 1. Thess ca. 4. TraÌ„seunt hinc in gehennam vt ediscant verum esse quod credere noluerunt They go from hence to hell that there they may learne that that is true which here they would not beleeue Thus it commeth to passe with them of whom M. Bishop here speaketh who either preach their owne deuices vnder the name of Christ or mingle not that with faith in themselues which they preach to be beleeued of other men There is not so much as one word in the text whence he should conclude that
the Scripture onely to which he was bound without refusall to giue consent why then doth M. Bishop seeke to bind vs in a matter wherein S. Austin refused to be bound Prosper being vrged by the Pelagians with a sentence out of the booke of the Pastor reiected it m Prosper de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris as a testimonie of no authoritie albeit Antiquitie had n Ruffiâ—â—n exposit Symb. apud Cyprian so accounted of that book as that they had ioyned it to the books of the new Testament did reade it publikely in their Churches and doth M. Bishop thinke it much that we reiect some few testimonies alledged by him of farre lesse authoritie then that was But yet Austine found in these few testimonies of the more auncient Fathers sufficient to iustifie both for him and vs o Aug. de bono perseuer cap. 19. Istitales tantique doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de quâ— tanquam de nostro quod nobis Deâ—◠〈◊〉 â—edâ—rit gloriemur nec ipsum cor nostrum cogitationes nostrariâ— potestate nostra esse tetum dantâ—s Deo atque ab ipso nos accâ—pere confitentes vt permansuâ—â— conuertamur ad cum vt id quod bonum est nobis quoque videatur â—â—â—um quod velimus illud vt honoremus Deum recipiamus Christum vt ex indenotis efficiamur deuâ—â—i religiosi vt in ipsam Trinitatem â—redamus confiteamur etiam voce quod credimus haec vtique gratiae Dei tribuunt c. that we haue nothing whereof to glorie as ours which God hath not giuen vnto vs that our heart and thoughts are not in our owne power but Gods that all is to be ascribed vnto God and that we must confesse that we receiue all wholy of him as touching our conuersion to God and continuing with him that it is wholy the gift of grace the gift of God which of him we haue and not of our selues to will that that is good to receiue Christ to beleeue in God and by voice to confesse that which we beleeue And surely howsoeuer those more ancient Fathers spake obscurely of Free will and some of them questionlesse meant amisse yet for the most part their speeches being applyed as I said before against heathen Astrologers and wicked heretickes excluding mans will wholy from being any cause either of good or euil they spake worse then they meant and if we will take their words with those qualifications and constructions wherwith S. Austin cleared some speeches of his against the Manichees as p Sect. 6. before was shewed in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle they shal easily be recoÌ„ciled to the truth Therfore iâ—arhem also that speake most amisse we find somtimes a right and true acknowledgement of the grace of God Who was a greater Patron of Free will then Origen who yet notwithstanding confesseth q Origen contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc vt mundum cor habeamus sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis creet ideâ—rcò qui scit precari dicit Cor mundum c. that our will sufficeth not for the hauing of a cleane heart but that we haue need of God to create the same in vs and that therefore he that knoweth how to pray saith Create in me a cleane heart O God r Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei diuina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinatâ— sunt vt cognito Deo dignè viuaÌ„t c that the true knowledge of God by his mercie and grace is graunted onely vnto them who are praedestinate to liue worthy of him whom they know Å¿ Jn Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est id nostrum non est sed domoÌ„ est Dei. that whatsoeuer is in vs worthie our reioycing is not our owne but the gift of God Yea where he affirmeth that there is in euery soule a strength of power and freedome of will whereby it may do euery thing that is good yet further to expresse his mind he addeth t In Cantic Homil 4. Seâ— quia hoc naturae bonuÌ„ praeuaricationis occasione deceiptum vel ad ignomimam vel ad lasciuiam fuerat inflexum vbi per gratiam reparatur per doctrinam verbi Dei restituitur odorem reddit sine dubio illum quem primus conditor Deus indiderat sed peccati culpa subtraxerat that this benefite of nature was cropped by meanes of sinne and was turned aside to shame and lasciuiousnes but that the same being repaired by grace and restored by the doctrine of the word of God doth giue that sweet sauour which God the first Creator put into it but the trespas of sin had takeÌ„ away Where it appeareth plainely that in speaking of Free will his purpose was to shew what mans will is by condition of creation and to what it may be repaired by the grace of God not what power it hath of it selfe in this state of corruption to open to God when he knocketh or to assent to God when he calleth And thus Clemens Alexandrinus affirming Free will against the heretikes Valentinus and Basilides who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good some euill some faithfull and some vnfaiâ—hfull so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way yet reserueth due place to the grace of God saying u Clem. Alexan. Stromâ—t lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam c. ad quod maximè diuina opus habemus gratia rectaque doctrina castaque munda animi affectione Patris ad ipsum attractione We haue speciall need of Gods grace and true doctrine and of chast and pure affection and of the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe Where by affirming the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe he plainely excludeth the voluntarie opening and assenting and yeelding of Free will because drawing as before was shewed out of Austin importeth that there is no will in vs till God of vnwilling do make vs willing Let one speech of Austine serue to cleare all this matter x Augu. de corrept grat ca. 1 Liberum arbitrium ad malum ad bonuÌ„ faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae peccati auteÌ„ seruâ—â—m bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus ab eo qui dixit Si vos filius c. We must confesse saith he that we haue Free will both to do euill and to do good This is the common assertion of the Authors whom M. Bishop opposeth against vs but let vs take the wâ—rds following withall and by them expound the same assertion For euil-doing euery man is free from righteousnesse and the seruant of sinne there he hath alreadie Free will but in that that is good no man can be
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
blindly proposed by M. Perkins I will confirme the first with such texts of holy Writ as specifie plainly our good workes to be the cause of eternall life Mat. 25. Come vnto me ye blessed of my Father possesse a kingdom prepared for you And why so For when I was hungry ye gaue me meat so forth the like is in the same chapter of the seruants who employed all their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue bene faithfull in few things I will place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdome of heauen Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler that doth seek to peruert such euident speeches and would make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth onely signifie an order of things But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it let him reade S. Augustine In Psal 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text Come ye blessed of my Father receiue what shall we receiue a kingdome for what cause because I was hungrie you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there was no tidings in those daies and that iudicious Doctor found that good works was the cause of receiuing the kingdom of heaueÌ„ R. ABBOT M. Bishop to helpe the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ which specifie plainely as he saith our good workes to be the cause of eternall life To this purpose he alledgeth the words of Christ as touching the last iudgement a Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father possesse or rather b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inherite ye the kingdome prepared for you before the foundations of the world for I was hungry and ye gaue me meate c. Where the very place it selfe disproueth that that he intendeth to proue by it for by that that he saith Inherit ye the kingdome it is plainely gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth c Ambros de abitis Theodosij Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt â—â—bis We receiue as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised vnto vs. And if we receiue the kingdome by way of inheritance then it is not by merit as hath alreadie bene declared Againe when he saith prepared for you from the foundations of the world euen as S. Paule saith d Eph. 1.4 God hath chosen vs in Christ before the foundations of the world he sheweth that the kingdome was prepared for them that inherite it before they had any works and therfore to reason in the same maner as the Apostle doth e Rom. 9.11 not by workes but by the grace and mercie of him that calleth it is said Come ye blessed inherit the kingdome c. For to say that God f August contra Iulian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi seâ—utus est adiunxit si autem gratia c. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdome for them vpon foresight of their workes is the heresie of the Pelagians long agone condemned It must needes be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works and that their workes are alledged not as the proper cause fot which the kingdome is giuen vnto theÌ„ but as signes and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared euen as before we heard out of S. Bernard that g Bernard de grat lib arb Occultae praedestinationis indicia futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noâ— causa regnandi they are tokens of our predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining it No more can be argued out of the other place Reward we find there but Merit we find none neither can the one of these be euicted by the other It onely sheweth how God graceth his faithfull seruants by assigning vnto them vnder the name of reward that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth vpon them A most cleare example whereof we ha◠〈◊〉 our father Abraham to whome God made at first an absolute promise that he would h Gen. 12.2.3 make of him a great nation and would blesse him and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed and yet afterwards vpon the triall that he made of him for the offering of his sonne Isaac taketh occasion to renew the promise as if he would do it for his obedience therein i Cap. 22.16 Because thou hast done this thing and hast not spared thine onely sonne therefore will I surely blesse thee and I will multiply thy seede after thee c. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeied my voice The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God k Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio ne promisit sine lege dâ—nauit without any caution or condition as Prosper well saith but he would haue Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done that the promise before freely made should inuiolably without any impeachment stand good vnto him Euen so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises thereto for our assurance tieth the performance therof vnder the name of reward when as the true cause of all is his mercy in Iesus Christ by whom onely it is that the worke is accepted in his sight Now if God vouchsafe to honour vs let not vs thereby take occasion to dishonour him or chalenge proudly to our merits that for which we should sing praise onely to his mercy Neither do we herein wrangle or peruert the Scripture but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called vs l Ephe. 1.6 that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace m Aug. cont Pelag Celest lib. 2. cap. 24. NoÌ„ enim Dei gratia gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo which is not grace in any sort except it be free in euery sort we endeuour that this glory may be yeelded entirely vnto God and that to this end it may alwaies be acknowledged that n Rom. 6.23 eternal life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he alledgeth S. Austin to his purpose he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited but vsing the words Come ye blessed of my Father receiue ye a Kingdome goeth on hereupon to demaund not as Maister Bishop saith For what cause but o Aug. in Psal 49. Quid percipite Regnum Pro quare
thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome And reade it ouer as it becometh a good Christian with a desire to find out and to follow the truth because it concerneth thy eternall saluation and then iudge without partialitie whether Religion hath better grounds in Gods word more euident testimony from the purest antiquitie and is more conformable vnto all godlinesse good life and vpright dealing the infallible marks of the best Religion and spedily embrace that Before I end this short preface I must intreate thy patience to beare with the faults in printing which are too too many but not so much to be blamed if it be courteously considered that it was printed farre from the Author with a Dutch composer and ouer seene by an vnskilfull Corrector the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the booke Before the printing of this part was finished I heard that M. Perkins was dead I am sorte that it commeth forth too late to do him any good Yet his worke liuing to poyson others a preseruatiue against it is neuer the lesse necessary R. ABBOT IF you had respected the glorie of God M. Bishop it should haue appeared by your respect to yeeld soueraigne honour and authoritie to the word of God God is in heauen and we are vpon the earth we haue no knowledge of him no acquaintance or dealing with him but by his word Therein we seeke him and find him therein he speaketh vnto vs and thereout we learne to speake to him If we haue the word of God God is present with vs if we be without the word of God God himselfe is absent from vs. Therefore by our honour and obedience to the word of God it must appeare that we truly and sincerely intend and seeke for the glorie of God Hereby it appeareth that you M. Bishop in this your booke haue not fought for the glorie of God but rather to glorifie a Extrauag Ioan 12. Cū inter in glossa Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere c. haereticum censeretur your Lord God the Pope as your Glosse of the Canon law most blasphemously hath stiled him You haue in this worke of yours vsed all maner of vntruth and falshood to vphold and iustifie his wicked proceedings against the word of God Whatsoeuer God hath taught vs whatsoeuer Christ and his Apostles haue deliuered all is nothing if your Lord God the Pope and your master Bellarmine his proctor generall do say the contrary Howsoeuer simply and plainly they speake yet they meane not as they speake if the Pope and Bellarmine will tell you another meaning As for your talent we take it to be greater in your owne opinion and the opinion of your fellowes then it is indeed But whatsoeuer it is you haue abused it to the wrong of him that gaue it not to edification but to destruction not to fortifie any in the faith but to nourish and harden them that depend vpon you in error and misbeleefe not to leade any into the right way but to intice men to b Prou. 2.15 crooked wayes and leud paths which c Ch. 7.27 go downe to the chambers of death and the end whereof is confusion and shame not to withdraw men from fancies but to draw them to other fancies from fancies in conuersation to fancies in religion that so being fed wholy with fancies they may perish in the end for want of true food And indeed men that wander in fancies are the subiect for your malice and trechery to work vpon Many that liue in the oportunitie of the knowledge of Christ yet neglect and despise the same The light shineth into their eyes and they regard it not God offereth himselfe vnto them and they say in their hearts We haue no delight nor pleasure in thee Therefore being emptie and voide of truth they lie open to be filled with error and lies and hauing vnthankfully withholden themselues from God God by iust iudgement giueth them ouer to the hands of impostors and deceiuers that it may be verified which the Apostle saith d 2. Thess 2 1◠Because they receiued not the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God shall send them strong delusion that they may beleeue lies that they may be damned which beleeued not the truth but tooke pleasure in vnrighteousnesse Your friend of good intelligence and iudgement that thought it very expedient that you should take in hand the confutation of M. Perkins booke spake thereof haply as Caiphas did of the death of Christ meaning it one way which was to fall out another way I doubt not but it will fall out to haue bene very expedient which you haue done because you giue hereby occasion of discouering your false doctrine and of iustifying the truth of Christ which M. Perkins was carefull to maintaine I doubt not but many by this occasion will take knowledge of your corrupt and trecherous dealing your patching and shifting your cosening and deluding of men and will discerne the weaknesse and absurdity of that bad cause which with glorious and goodly words you labour so highly to aduance As for your commendation of M. Perkins booke it is but the imitation of some vaine-glorious captains who to grace their owne victories do set out to the vttermost the aduersaries power and prowesse thinking their glory to be the greater by how much the greater men shall conceiue the might and valour of them to haue bene whom they haue ouercome You dreamed of a victorie here and you thought it to be much for your commendation that your aduersary should be deemed of as great strength as any is to be found amongst vs. But we would haue you to vnderstand that the Church of England neuer tooke M. Perkins booke to be a warriour in complete harnesse or a chalenger for the field but onely as a captaine training his souldiers at home where he wanteth much of that munition and defence wherewith he should endure the brunt of battell He wrote it very schollerlike indeed for an introduction onely to the true vnderstanding and iudgement of the controuersies betwixt vs and you but knew well that it wanted much that might haue bene added to giue it ful and perfect strength You haue taken hereof some aduantage as you conceiue and yet how pitifully are you distressed many times both to vphold that which he obiecteth for you and to answer that which he alledgeth for vs. Now if for the compiling of his booke he bestirred himselfe as the Bee going into other mens gardens for the gathering of hony into his hiue yet he made no Rabbines of them to take any thing for hony because it grew in the garden of such or such a man but vsed carefull and aduised consideration of that which he wrote esteeming the weight of his arguments and of his answers that he might
Bishops curtesie and gift but by the very light of the text we will wrest it from him whether he will or not Now this M. Perkins setteth downe indefinitely that the whore of Babylon is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertaine thereto he concludeth not ergo the Romane Church is the whore of Babylon but inferâ—eth that by other consequence afterwards and M. Bishop shall see God willing that there is sufficient to be said for proofe thereof But wheras he saith that of that assertion it followeth that Romulus and Remus were the purple harlot he is much deceiued therein because the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome cannot be strained to import all people that are the inhabitants of Rome Yet we must let him vnderstand that Romulus was the first founder of Babylon and in him was the beginning of the first of those seuen heads of the beast because he was the first king of Rome For Rome was Babylon euen from the first originall of it as before I noted out of Aâ—stin and as appeareth in that it is described to haue seuen heads and therefore must be Babylon not vnder one or two onely but vnder all those heads though we indeed most commonly speake thereof onely in respect of Antichrist which is the seuenth head So was she also from the beginning a purple harlot being founded in bloud and parricide as S. Austin obserueth by r August de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap 5 Romulus his slaughter of his brother Remus that he might be king alone established by Å¿ Tit Liu. Dec. 1. lib. 1. rauishment of virgins and maides allured thither vnder pretence of sports and playes increased by continualll slaughter and bloudshed to that huge greatnesse which it attained vnto though the name of purple harlot be more specially giuen in respect of shedding the bloud of the martyrs of Christ and of the filthines of Antichrist wherein he shold go beyond all other that had gone before him As for Constantine Theodosius and some other such like godly and Christian Emperours though they were heads of her that is the whore of Babylon yet it followeth not that they were the whore of Babylon or the purple harlot because it is not necessarie that simply all in that succession should be of the same affection For euen amidst the ranke and succcession of idolatrous heathen Emperours when M. Bishop denyeth not but that Rome was Babylon there was t Euseb hist lib. 6. cap. 33. Philip the Emperour a godly and Christian Prince so deuoted to religion as that he submitted himselfe to the censure of the Church Yea and Valerian the Emperour in the beginning of his raigne was so well affected to Christian religion as that his v Idem lib. 7. caâ— 9. Tota illius aula referta erat puÌ„s et ecclesia dei facta Court was full of godly and deuout persons and was become a Church of God Therefore though Constantine and Theodosius were godly princes yet Rome might still continue Babylon both by the remainder of those impieties that were before and by the seedes of that defection that was to come which soone began to be sowed and mightily to grow there Whatsoeuer may be alledged of Rome for that time it is easily to be vnderstood that some small interregnum as I may tearme it and intermission of beastly and Babylonish corruption and confusion could not take away the nature and name of that which it had bene so long before and was soone after to be againe And indeed a small time it was that Rome continued in the hands of those religious and godly Princes Necessarie it was in respect of those things that were afterward to be fulfilled that Christian religion should publikely be established and aduanced there which could not be but that the Emperours and Princes themselues must be professors of Christian faith But the chiefe seate of the Empire being by Constantine translated to Constantinople in the East Rome within a while fell into the possession of other Lords For about threescore and thirteene yeares after the death of Constantine in which time also for some part thereof it had bene holden by Constantius and Valentinian the second Arian heretikes by Iulian the Apostata and Maximus the tyrant it was wholy taken by the Gothes out of the Emperours hands and so continued as x Bellarm. de Antichristo cap. 5. Valens Arcadius Theodosius â—unior alij eorum successores vsque ad Iustinianum omnes Roma caruerunt Bellarmine also confesseth vnto the time of Iustinian the Emperour which was about the space of an hundred and foureteene yeeres yea and soone after it was distressed and taken againe and the Westerne Empire wholy ouerthrowen the prouidence of God by this confusion giuing way by little and little to the Bishop of Rome to take vpon him as afterwards he did to be the seuenth head of the Romane State Now then we hope M. Bishop can see that we haue no meaning to argue in that sort that they are of like affection in Religion who gouerne the same kingdome nay we are so far from arguing in that sort as that we rather confesse that they who both are properly heads of the whore of Babylon may yet bee diuerse in religion as were the heathen Emperours that were of old from the Popes that are now Yet vpon his loose imagination he censureth vs that with such fallacies wee take vpon vs to controule the learnedst in the world of which whosoeuer they are we are sure that he is none nor doe hold him a fit man to iudge who they are But M. Bishop let vs not contend who are the best learned You know what we are wont to say that the greatest Clerkes bee not alwayes the wisest men Solomon telleth you y Prou. 26.12 Seest thou a man wise in his owne conceipt there is more hope of a foole then of him Thinke humbly of your learning and it will haply serue you the better to learne the truth As for our learning thankes be to God it hath done you that sorow that ye haue no cause to bragge of yours only loosers must haue their words and he can do little that cannot talke But now he telleth vs that admitting the purple harlot to signifie the Romane state yet the state of Rome must be taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is pagan idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Here is all that he hath to say and if this be nothing there is no remedie but Rome must be Babylon the Pope Antichrist and then what shall become of him Now we deny not but that Rome was the purple harlot vnder those heathen Emperours but we deny that in the falling of those Emperors she shold thencefoorth cease to be the purple harlot For the purple harlot described by S. Iohn was so to be vnder seuen
hos duos testes duos vn oâ— esse ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere â—um in vna ciuitate marerentur munera inuiceÌ„ mittere si tres dies sunt quo antequaÌ„ gaudeant de nece contristentur de resurrectione their conceipt is wholy excluded who thinke that those two witnesses shall be two certaine men and that they bee ascended to heauen in the clouds before the comming of Christ For how saith he should the inhabitants of the earth reioyce of the death of two when as they should dye in one citie and how should they send gifts one to another if there be but three dayes that before they can reioyce of their death they shall haue sorow againe of their resurrection He gathereth out of the very text it selfe that the place cannot be meant of two particular men because the inhabitants through the world can haue no such reioycing of two men put to death in one place who within three dayes must rise againe and therefore necessarily we must admit another construction thereof That is briefly this as more at large might be shewed if occasion so required that the seruants of God for the word of their testimonie the doctrine of Iesus Christ witnessed by the old and new testament should be murthered and slaine in the streets and cities of the Romane Empire and their bodies dishonorably cast forth and left to the foules and beasts whom yet notwithstanding God after a time certainly determined would chalenge from that despite and reproach and make their name glorious so that they should seeme euen to rise from death to life and as it were from hell to be raised vp to heauen which came afterwards to passe when God by Constantine freed his Church from the persecution of that time W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the ancient and learned men whom you cite in fauour of your exposition The first is S. Bernard who saith that they are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Of whom speaketh that good religious Father forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome Good who were as he saith the ministers of Christ because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places but serued Antichrist for that they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approuing the lawfull officers of Rome to be Christs ministers The second place is alledged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those words were not spoken of the Pope but of his enemie The reason yet there set downe pleaseth you exceedingly which you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that that Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bernard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the King of Almaine Fraunce England c. and their whole cleargie and people For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and vsurper because he was elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your words declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrarie But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficeth for this present that you find no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might maruell if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poyson might be sucked specially weighing well what he hath written vnto one of them Lib. 2. de Cons ad Eugen. to whom he speaketh thus Go to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time Who art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in Power Peter thou art he to whom the Keyes were deliuered to whom the sheepe were committed There are indeed also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleare opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but verie Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicholas as he citeth it that the Pope was to bee created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome at once but of the matter of election else where R. ABBOT I confesse the places of S. Bernard do not serue directly to that purpose to which they are brought In naming Antichrist he did not intend thereby that we should vnderstand the Pope yet M. Bishop without cause taketh aduantage of his first words because the Pope being Antichrist indeed nothing hindreth but that they who by office and calling and dutie are the ministers and seruants of Christ may in action and practise perfidiously and trecherously yeeld their seruice to the Pope Antichrist shall a 2. Thes 2.4 sit in the temple of God and therefore the officers of the temple of God shall be subiect vnto him That which by institution is the house of God shall by his occupation become a den of theeues they who by dutie are subiects shall in following him be rebels and traitors pastors shall become beasts watchmen shall be blind men and they who haue places for one vse shall turne them to another Thus S. Bernard saith of the Cleargie of Rome b Bernard in Cant. ser 32. Ministri Christi sunt seruiunt Antichristo They are the ministers of Christ and they serue Antichrist the true vse of their places is the seruice of Christ but they abuse the same to the helping forward of the kingdome of Antichrist He describeth at large in that place the horrible corruption of the Church of Rome c Ibid serpit hodie putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae et quo la tâ—uâ— eo desperatitâ— coque perititiosius quo interâ—tis A filthie contagion saith he is creeping through the whole bodie of the Church by how much the more generally so much the more desperatly and so much the more dangerously by how much the more inwardly He sheweth how the Pastours of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishops
another whereas to that purpose it was vsed and to that purpose most fitly is applyed and therein nothing contained but what is agreable to the truth For whereas he taketh vpon him to correct that terme of necessitie and will haue it to be called infallibilitie and certaintie he malapertly taketh vpon him to teach them that are more learned then himselfe It is a word which S. Austin often vseth vpon the like occasion both against the Pelagians and Manichees b August de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Quia peccauit voluntas secula est peccantem peccatuÌ„ habendi dura necessitas Man sinned by his will saith he and thereupon followed a cruell necessitie of hauing sinne c Retract lib. 1. cap. 1 Naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exortae est A cruell necessitie of sinne grew vpon our nature by the desert of the first sinne d De nat gra cap. 66 Ex vitijs naturae non ex coÌ„ditione naturae est quaedam peccandi necessitas Not by creation but by corruption of nature there is a certaine necessitie of committing sinne e Cont Fortunat. disput â— Post quaÌ„ libera ipse voluntate peccauit nos in necessitatem praecâ—pitati sumus After that Adam sinned by free will we were throwne headlong into a necessitie of sinne all that haue descended of his race And that this necessitie doth well stand with libertie S. Bernard sheweth in calling it f Bernard in Cantic Ser. 81. Ipsa sua voluÌ„tas necessitateÌ„ facit vt nec necessitas cùm voluntaria sit excludere valeat voluntatem nec voluntas cùm sit illecta excludere necessitatem Et postâ— Anima sub voluntaria quadam malè libera voluntate tenetur Et iterum post Voluntas inexcusabilem incorrigibileÌ„ necessitas facis a voluntarie and mis-free necessitie wherein neither can necessitie excuse the will because it is voluntarie nor the will exclude necessitie because it is entangled with delight therein wherein will taketh froÌ„ him all matter of defence and necessitie bereaueth him of possibilitie of amendment and in a word the will it selfe in strange wise causeth this necessitie to it selfe Now then because the state of sinne is such as that there is one way necessitie by the habit of corruption and another way libertie by the free motion of the will very rightly did M. Perkins to expresse the same vse the example of a prison that puts necessitie in one thing and libertie in another And thus in righteousnesse also necessitie and libertie agree and do not one exclude the other For the Angels being by the grace and power of God confirmed in goodnesse are thereby necessarily good g Jdem de grat lib. arist sup so and in such sort good as that they cannot become euill and yet they are freely and voluntarily good because it is the will it selfe that is established in goodnesse The same shall be the state of eternall life to the elect and faithfull h August de perfect iustitia Bene viuendi nunquam peccandi voluntaria foelixque necessitas A voluntarie and happy necessitie of liuing wel and neuer sinning any more Let M. Bishop take knowledge now of this manner of speech and learne not to find fault when he hath no cause But he noteth that we must not vnderstand that a man is at any time compelled to sinne where I may answer him with his owne words before Who knowes not this And againe that this is none of M. Bishops caueat but taken out of M. Perkins M. Perkins had told him so much before hand and therfore what needed this note For this necessitie groweth not of any outward force but from inward nature not by condition of the substance but by accidentall corruption which being supposed there is a necessitie of sinne as in the palsey a necessitie of shaking in the hot feauer a necessitie of burning in the broken legge a necessitie of halting so continuing till the maladie and distemper be cured and done away And whereas M. Bishop referreth this necessitie of sinne to the weaknesse of man and to the craft of the diuell he speaketh too short in the one and impertinently in the other For we are not to conceiue weaknesse onely which may be onely a priuation but a positiue euill habite and contagion of sinne whereby a man sinneth euen without any furtherance of the diuels temptations by the onely euill disposition of himselfe Which euill disposition because it is also in the will it selfe therefore in the midst of that necessitie a man sinneth no otherwise but as M. Bishop requireth to haue it said with free consent of his owne will W. BISHOP M. P. 5. Conclusion The second kind of spirituall actions be good as Repentance Faith Obedience c. In which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans Free will concurreth with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort for in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and Mans will for Mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule when any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willingly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he willeth his conuersion To this end saith S. Augustine He which made thee without thee Seâ— 15 de verb. Apost will not saue thee without thee Againe that it is certaine that our will is required in this that we may do any thing well it is not onely then required in our first conuersion if it be required to all good things which we do but we haue it not from our owne power but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giues a will to desire and will the same as for example when God worke faith at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling wil a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man go together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free-will neither may we proceed farther with them Hitherto M. Perkins Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall
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
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
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
the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued R. ABBOT It was not M. Perkins intent here to set downe any exact or formall description of Originall sinne but onely so to touch it as might serue to leade him to the point that was to be disputed of But out of that which he saith it ariseth that originall sinne is a common guilt of the first sinne of man inferring as a iust punishment an vniuersall distortion and corruption of mans nature and euerlasting destruction both of bodie and soule Concerning the matter therfore he propoundeth three things in Originall sinne to be considered the sinne the guilt and the punishment Where M. Bishop being like a man of glasse afraid of being crackt where he is not touched would for more assurance giue vs a note and I warrant you it is a wise one We say not saith he that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I haue heard concerning an outlandish Mathematicke Reader whose tongue hauing out-runne his wits and making a discourse of he knew not what asketh his hearers at length Intelligitisne Do ye vnderstād me they answered him No. Profectò nihil miror saith he neque enim ego intelligo meipsum Marrie I do not maruel for neither do I vnderstand my selfe Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here reade which no man else vnderstandeth nor he himselfe If he had vnderstood what Originall sinne is and that concupiscence being a part of Originall sinne is also a punishment thereof corruption of nature which is one part arising from the guilt of the first sinne which is the other part he would not so vnaduisedly haue denied that the punishment of Originall sinne is also a part thereof especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming that concupiscence is in such sort a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne and of what sinne but that which Adam in person committed by action and is ours originally by propagation But that either this punishment of Original sinne which is the corruption of nature or the following punishment thereof which is the first and second death should be called expulsion of Originall sinne we lacke some Oedipus to resolue vs sure I am that M. Bishop vnderstood not what he said nor can giue vs anie answer to make it good Such learned men haue we to do with which are so deepe in their points that they know not what they say Now he that vttereth such riddles himselfe might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him yet in it selfe verie easie to be vnderstood What a stirre doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith that in the regenerate the guiltinesse is remoued from the person but not from the sinne in the person The meaning is plaine that the sinne is pardoned to the man regenerate and therfore cannot make him guiltie but yet in it self and in it owne nature it continueth such as that setting aside the pardon it were sufficient still to make him guiltie and to condemne him as shall be afterwards auouched out of Austin to euerlasting death The pardon acquitteth the man but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sinne it setteth a barre against the effect but take away the barre the cause is as strong as it was before His idle and wast words and fighting with a shadow I let passe if he were not a senslesse man that that M. Perkins saith in the plaine meaning thereof would neuer seeme to him any senslesse imagination But he goeth further How can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Why M. Bishop what hindereth I pray you Can there be two contraries saith he in one part of the subiect at once And why not What hath not his Philosophie taught him that contraries are incompatible onely in their extremes Did he neuer reade that contraries when they striue to expell one another do it not in a moment but by degrees and though one be stronger then then the other yet the weaker stil hath that latitude which the strōger hath not gained Thus are there in the regenerate man a Rom. 7.23 the law of sinne and the law of the mind the former rebelling against the latter b Gal. 5.17 the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other as the Apostle speaketh and that in one part of the subiect as shal appeare Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding saith he Why did M. Bishop neuer reade of c Zephan 1.15 a darke day or will he reason therof if it be day it cannot be darke or if it be darke it cannot be day And if he can see that light and darknesse may meete together in a day can he not see that light and darknesse may also be together in the vnderstanding One where our Sauiour Christ commēdeth the light of his Disciples d Matth. 13.16 Blessed are your eyes for they see another where he condemneth their darknesse e Mark 8 18. Haue ye eyes and see not By light of vnderstanding Peter saith f Matth. 16.16 Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Blessed art thou Simon saith Christ for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee but my Father which is in heauen The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darknesse of vnderstanding giuing Christ occasion to say vnto him g Ibid. vers 23 Get thee behind me Satan for thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men h Orig. in Mat. tract 3. Contraria sibi adhu erant in Petro veritas mendaecium De veritate dicebat Tu es Christus c. Ex mendacio dixit Propitius tibi esto c. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro There were contraries as yet in Peter saith Origen truth and falshood he spake by truth one way he spake by falshood another way In a word the Apostle telleth vs that i 1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part we prophecie but in part we see through a glasse darkly or as the maisters of Rhemes translate it in a darke sort How can that be but that there is still some darknesse in the vnderstanding which yet in part hath receiued light He goeth further Can there be vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Yes M. Bishop for whatsoeuer is wanting of perfect vertue k August epist 29. Id quod minus est quà m debet ex vitro est ex vitio est saith S. Austin it is by reason of vice So long therefore as there is not perfect vertue there is vice remaining together with vertue The inner man wherein is the will of man is renewed as the Apostle telleth vs from day to day S.
deliuered from the body of death For i De nat et grat ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat sed contracta exillo vitia cohaeâ—ent quibus iusta poena debetur the death of the body separateth the wicked from the body when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do sticke fast to which iust punishment remaineth due Therfore when he praieth to be deliuered from this body of death k Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit he meaneth it of the vitious affections of the body l De Temp. ser 45. Per concupiscentiam dictuÌ„ est hoc nostrum mortis corpus By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called So Oecumenius saith that the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from m Oecumen in Ro. ca. 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt the concupiscences which are in the body and which are death vnto vs and do cause a spirituall death n Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatuÌ„ quod mortis est causa It is a body of death saith Origen wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death Ambrose saith that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death o Ambros apud Aug. cont IuliaÌ„ lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est c. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat c. because we all are borne vnder sinne and our very beginning is in trespasse acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin that what it was in the beginning the same in part it continueth still Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith that the Apostle here meaneth p Method apud Epiphan haer 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit c. sinne dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations thoughts whereof he wished to be deliuered accounting the same death and destruction it selfe Bernard saith that it was q Bernard in Cant. ser 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia c. Hoc sanè vnointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino Vnde optabas clamans Quis me liberabit c. the law of sinne euen concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him that made him crie out who shall deliuer me from the body of this death In concupiscence then standeth this body of death and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himselfe miserable it is concupiscence that maketh him miserable which therfore S. Austin calleth r August de Tempore ser 45. miseram legem the miserable law of sin not as being it self capable of misery but per metonymiam because it maketh vs miserable or because we are miserable by it Thus therfore the Apostle acknowledgeth himselfe miserable in himself not as holding himselfe to be in disgrace with God but as finding in himself that for which he deserueth so to be and should be but that God in Christ is mercifull vnto him not to impute the same And what is it but a miserie to haue as it were a filthy carion tied fast to him still breathing out noysome stinke to be continually troubled with an importunat enemy giuing him no rest wearying his soule from day to day nay to cary about with him Å¿ Idem cont Iulian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum queÌ„dam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat euen an army of diuerse and sundry lusts drawing one this way and another that way fighting against him on the right hand and on the left bereauing him of his ioy whilest in most earnest meditations they cary him away whether he will or not from that wherin his delight is If outward crosses do make a man miserable much more this inward destraction affliction which galleth the strings of the hart vexeth the very spirit and soule more then the bitternesse of death it selfe If M. Bishop knew this affliction he would thinke there were cause enough therein to make him crie out Miserable man that I am c. But his benummed heart feeleth it not and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schooles without any conscience or sence of that he saith and to a formall argument as he calleth it giueth these mis-shapen and deformed answers 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second Infants Baptized die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them any other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom 5. Rom. 5. death entred into the world by sinne Ans The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happie exchange of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it sayd most truly of S. Paul Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entred into the world by sinne But the other place The wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wages whereof if they had not repented them had bene hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Original sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of actuall sinne is either to shew great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it R. ABBOT The example of infants dying after Baptisme before they come to yeares of discretion is rightly alledged to proue that sinne remaineth after Baptisme because where there is no sin there can be no death To this M. Bishop sendeth vs a most pitifull and miserable answer that the cause of the death of infants is not sin but either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence Thus he would maintain a priuiledge to infants against the words of S. Iohn a 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues that they may say we say we haue
no sinne and we do not therein deceiue our selues and though we die yet it is not by reason of sin that we die but either by the disteÌ„perature of our bodies or externall violence But if M. Perkins had sayd as he might haue sayd Infants after Baptisme are subiect to distemperature of body and externall violence and death following all which are the proper effects of sinne therefore they are not without sinne in what a wofull case had M. Bishop bene and how had he bene put to his shifts to deuise an answer Surely S. Austin saith that b Auâ—ust in Psal 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quaÌ„ mâ—ruimus primo peccato we suffer not any thing in this life but by reason of that death which we deserued by the first sinne And so saith Origen verie rightly that c Origen in Leuit hom 3. Nobis hominiâ—us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est death and all other frailtie in the flesh was brought vpon vs by the condition or state of sin Therfore distemperature and weaknesse and sicknes and suffering of externall violence are no lesse arguments of sinne then death it selfe and how then doth he make these the causes of death without sinne when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sinne But he addeth further that God who freely bestowed their liues on them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them But yet if there be no sin and if it be as the Trent Councell saith that there is nothing in them that God hateth nothing that hindereth them from entring into heauen why then doth God without cause take away their life and not rather without death receiue them vnto himselfe why doth he not immediatly d 2. Cor. 5 4. cloth them vpon that mortality may be swallowed vp of life This is a mysterie to M. Bishop he cannot tel what to say therof But the dying of baptized infants sheweth that there is still in theÌ„ a corruption of flesh and bloud by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them e 1. Cor. 15.50 flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God neither shall corruption inherite incorruption The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruptioÌ„ the dissolution full mortification of the body of sin that this slough being cast off and mortalitie changed into immortalitie corruption into incorruption they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdome of God Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist that f Epiphan haer 64. ex Methodiâ— In auxiliaris medicamenti moduÌ„ ab auxiliatore nostro verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè inuenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles innoxij inueniamur c. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine c. God as the true Physition hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the vtter rooting out and putting away of sinne that we may be made faultlesse and innocent and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemely in all parts if it be broken and defaced by any meanes must be new cast and framed againe for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it euen so man the image of God being maimed and disgraced by sinne for the putting away of those disgraces and the repairing of his ruines and decayes must by death be dissolued into the earth thence to be raised vp againe perfect and without default Now if M. Bishop will not learne it of vs yet let him learne it of these ancient Fathers that sin is the cause of death euen in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiuen pardoned for Christs sake But he goeth further True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but both haue bene long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the kingdome of heauen But since they haue sinned what Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul Death entred into the world by sinne Well then if it entred by sin into the world doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entred Nay as it entred by sinne so sinne is the onely cause of the continuing of it and without sinne there is no death in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect Now to shew that death is the proper effect of sin M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death But M. Bishop saith that this place is foully abused by him And why so Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternall damnation And what then Doth he therfore not meane bodily death also Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God sayd to our father Adam in the beginning g Gen. 2.17 In the day that thou shalt eate of that forbidden tree thou shalt die the death thereby threatning vnto him both the first and second death And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before that by sinne came death c. Therefore M. Bishops great maister Thomas Aquinas telleth him that when the Apostle immediatly before saith the end of those things is death he meaneth by death h Tho Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata â—e se nata sunt inâ—iucere mâ—â—tem teÌ„poralem eternaâ—â— Et â—o â—arg finis peccati mori tam temporalis quà m aeterna both temporall and eternall death Another exception is that sinne is here taken onely for Actuall sinne which is a fiction meerly absurd and vaine For it is a proposition vniuersall concerning all sinne and so vsed vniuersally by all writers and if it be true of Actuall sinne that the wages of sinne is death much more is it true of Originall sinne which is the filthie and corrupt fountaine whence all actuall sins do spring And that we may know that M. Bishop himselfe is of no other mind he himselfe hath vsed it in the section next saue one before this concerning Originall sinne arguing that if Originall sinne were properly sinne in the regenerate then it should cause death vnto them because the wages of sinne is death Whereby it appeareth that he speaketh but at all aduenture and to serue the present turne without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh whether it be true or false He hath bene brought vp in Bellarmines schoole and of him hath learned to care no further but onely to say somewhat though it be starke naught Now for conclusion of this
not foorth except it conceiue So then saith M. Bishop it is not sinne of it selfe But we deny his argument for a mother bringeth foorth a woman and yet she her selfe is a woman also A woman bringeth not foorth a woman except she first conceiue and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne except by consent it first conceiue and yet it is sinne before conception There is nothing in Saint Austins words but standeth well with that that before hath bene said that concupiscence being the habite of sinne doth by gaining the consent of the will bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue but that concupiscence is sinne M. Bishop might very well haue seene if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth where speaking of the same being in vs he saith z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset verùm granitèr obesset nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset It should not onely be in vs but also greatly hurt vs but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes We would haue M. Bishop tell vs how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him but onely sinne especially the hurt being such as S. Austine anone after speaketh of a Tantum quis inest pertraheret ad vltimanâ— mortem to draw vs onely by being in vs to euerlasting death The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust b Cyrilâ—â— Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet ante peccandi actum before the actuall sinne but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue that lust also is not sinne nay in the words immediatly following he proueth that it is sinne affirming that c Vt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpeÌ„ ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus by circumcision we should learne that we shal not be cleane vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane it must needes be sinne because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point Such as the fruit is such is the tree was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree neither is it any thing but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne concupiscence which is the tree must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne But M. Bishop answereth that not concupiscence but the will of man is the tree Which is all one as if he should haue said that not the will of man but the will of man is the tree For it hath bene before shewed that concupiscence is nothing else but the corrupted will of man which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad vntil God do create it anew and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good In a word the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence d 1. Pet. 2.11 the lusts of the flesh so it calleth also the effects deeds of those lusts the workes of the flesh thereby shewing that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9 flesh and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes and all wickednesse do spring 7. W. BISHOP Lib. 5. contr Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I answer that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renew a man perfectly so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgment but may be called euil because it prouoketh vs to euill To this place of S. Augustine Tract 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason where he saith that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answerserueth that sin there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmitie or weaknesse R. ABBOT That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne which before hath bene declared a August contr Julian lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione coÌ„sentientis vel contagione nascentis As blindnesse of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not and the punishment of sinne wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit desireth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind and the punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it or by infecting of him that is borne of it Concupiscence then is sinne as blindnesse of heart is sinne But
patience and patience experience and experience hope neuer to be ashamed whilest by this meanes the loue of God as touching the assurance thereof towards vs is more and more shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs. This haue I set downe the more largely good Christian Reader for thy sake that thou maiest vnderstand hereby what manner of certaintie and assurance it is that we defend that thou maiest know that it is the property of true faith to giue this assurance and that our assurance is the greater by how much our faith is greater and the weaknesse of our assurance the weaknesse of our faith that so thou maiest see what it is whereunto thou art to striue reioycing in that that thou hast attained vnto already and for that that is behind praying as the Apostles did f Luk. 67.5 Lord increase our faith not being discoÌ„forted at the feeling of thine imperfection because it is the coÌ„mon frailty of Gods children and faith that it may be strong must haue time and occasion to grow and haply seemeth weake to thee when it is strong to God but alwayes resoluing that those sparkles of true light which God hath kindled in thee shall neuer be quenched and thy little graine of faith euen g Mat. 17.20 Mar. 11.23 little as a graine of mustard-seed shall yet be strong enough to cast all mountaines into the sea that shall rise vp to diuide betwixt God and thee As for M. Bishop it is no maruell if being an enemy of faith he be vnacquainted with the secret of faith the ioy of the faithfull being h Cant. 4.12 Bernard Epist 10â— Eli fons signatus cui alienus non communicat sol iustitiae qui timentibus Deum tantùm oritur c. as a garden inclosed and a spring and fountaine shut and sealed vp to be priuate to themselues i Psal â—8 9 a gracious raine which God hath put apart for the refreshing of his owne inheritance What maruell is it if he know not that k Reuel 2 17. new name which no man knoweth but he that receiueth it because the l Iohn 14.17 world knoweth not nor receiueth that COMFORTER the spirit of truth by which it is written yet grudgeth at the sheepe of Christ that they should feede in pastures which they know not or should be sayd to know that which they cannot conceiue or vnderstand And this is the cause that he talketh so rudely and absurdly of the hope of saluation in all this discourse ouerthrowing the whole doctrine of the Gospell crossing the whole vse of faith and of the word of God and speaking no otherwise of this question then a Philosopher or Iew or Pharisee would do as hereafter we shall see In the meane time to go forward with his briefe notes he telleth vs in the fift conclusion of consent that onely in the sence there expressed the first conclusion is true that is that onely by extraordinarie reuelation a man may be certaine of his saluation which being the maine point of the controuersie I referre to the processe of this discourse At the sixt conclusion he noteth that the sixt and second are all one but the tautologie was in his head not in M. Perkins writing For the second conclusion serueth to note the efficient and materiall causes of saluation whereupon our affiance resteth which is the mercy of God in Christ but the sixt serueth to note the manner of our apprehending thereof To the third conclusion of dissent he noteth that it is false namely that our confidence in Christ commeth from certaine and ordinarie faith But we say that it is true and now he and I must ioyne vpon that issue 2. W. BISHOP Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but set downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter The first Argument for the Catholike party is this 1. Obiect Where is no word of God there is no faith for these two are Relatiues But there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou that thou shalt be saued therfore there is no such ordinarie faith for a man to beleeue his owne particular saluation M. Perkins answer Although there be no word of God to assure vs of our particular saluation yet is there another thing as good which counteruailes the word of God to wit the Minister of God applying the generall promises of saluation vnto this and that man Which when he doth the man must beleeue the Minister as he would beleeue Christ himselfe and so assure himselfe by faith of his Saluation Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his Saluation To affirme as you do that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie equalling a blind and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods word but to say that the assurance of an ordinarie Ministers word counteruailes Gods word I cannot see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the other side to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be granted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect is to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrarie in these words 2. Tim. 2.19 The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth who be his and none else except he reueale it vnto them M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister and leaues him to speake at randon as the blind man casts his club and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe who hearing in Gods word Seeke ye my face in his heart answereth Lord I wil seeke thy face And then hearing God say Thou art my people saith again The Lord is my God And then lo without al doubt he hath assurance of his Saluation Would ye not thinke that this were rather some seely old Womans dreame then a discourse of a learned Man How know you honest man that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the
loued of God or no. R. ABBOT To his former inuisible reasons we shall haue now some further testimonies adioyned that make as little for him as his reasons haue done And first he alledgeth a place of Solomon A man doth not know whether he be worthie of hatred or loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come But he knew well that the translation of this place might iustly be excepted against which indeed is very false He saith that one heretike cauilleth against it but neither is he one onely nor an heretike neither doth he cauill but iustly reiecteth it by warrant of the originall text so as that M. Bishops owne friends do translate the words farre otherwise then he alledgeth them The Hebrew word for word according to the Septuagint translated by Hierome is thus a Eccles 9.1 Et quidem charitatem quidem â—â—lium no est cognoscens homo omnia in facie eoruÌ„ Hieron Also loue also hatred a man knoweth not all in the face of them The obscuritie of which words hath caused men very diuersly to conceiue of the true meaning thereof One construction is made by Olympiodorus that b Olimpiod in Eccles ca. 9. Qui adhuc sapit quae hominis sunt neque planè Deo se tradidit nescit discreto rudicio quae dilectione sunt digna quae odio he that yet sauoureth the things of men and hath not sincerely giuen himselfe to God knoweth not what things are worthie to be loued and what to be hated Another exposition he alledgeth taken from the translation of Symmachus c Ibid. Nescit homo si quâ—m nunc maximè odit mutatis vicibus amicum beneficum sit experturus contraque an timeÌ„dum sibi quandoque sit abeo quem nunc amore prosequitur A man knoweth not whether vpon some change he shall find him louing or kind whom he now hateth or shall haue cause to be afraid of him whom he now loueth With least mutation or change we translate the words thus A man knoweth not loue or hatred that is who is loued or hated by all that is before them and then the meaning is plaine that by outward things by the things that are before our face a man knoweth not whether he be beloued or hated of God whereof the reason followeth because all things come alike to all and there is the same condition outwardly to the iust and to the wicked c. And to this effect the translation of Symmachus tendeth though Olympiodorus gathered otherwise thereof d Symmac apud Hieron in Eccl. cap 9 Insuper neque amicitias neque immicitias scit homo sed omnia corarae eis incerta proptereà quod omnibus eueniunt similia iusto iniusto Moreouer a man knoweth not loue or hatred but all things are vncertaine before them because the like things befall to all both to iust and vniust Which translation as Hierome approueth so he confirmeth also the meaning of it saying e Hieron ibid. Quod autem ait Euentus est vnus omnibus iusto impio siue angustiarum siue mortis significat eueÌ„tum idcirco nec charitatem Dei eos in se nosse nec odium Whereas he saith that there is the same condition to all he meaneth it of affliction or of death and that therefore men know not the loue of God or his hatred towards them And thus indeed true it is as M. Bishop citeth out of Hierome that a man cannot esteeme by any outward state whether he be loued or hated of God for neither do the righteous only prosper neither are the wicked only crossed and afflicted but the wicked flourish many times more gloriously then the iust and the hand of God often lieth heauier vpon the iust then vpon the wicked and vngodly and both are subiect to death both are laied in the graue without any appearance or shew of difference betwixt the one the other But this maketh nothing against vs for although by the eye the beleeuer cannot discerne the loue of God towards himselfe yet that hindereth not but that by faith he apprehendeth and embraceth the same And thus S. Bernard excepteth against that place being so translated as M. Bishop readeth it f Bernard in dedic eccles ser 5. Sed de possibilitate iam certâ— de voluntate quid agimus Quis scit si est dignus amore an edio Quis nouit sensum Domini aut quis consiliarius eius fuit Hìc iam planè fidem nobis subuenire necesse est hìc oportet succurrere veritatem vt quod de nobis latet in corde paetris nobis per ipsius spiritum reueletur spiritus eius testificaÌ„s persuadeat spiritut nostro quod filij Dei simus Being sure of Gods ablenesse to saue vs how do we to be assured of his will thereto for who knoweth whether he be worthie of loue or hatred who hath knowne the mind of the Lord or hath bene his counsellor But here faith must helpe vs bere Gods truth must be our succour that that which lieth hidden concerning vs in the heart of God our Father may by his spirit be reuealed vnto vs and his spirit by the testimonie thereof may perswade our spirit that we are the children of God and that by calling and iustifying vs freely by faith Thus though we take the place translated as M. Bishop alledgeth it yet by S. Bernards iudgement it auaileth him nothing because albeit otherwise we cannot know whether we be beloued or hated of God yet by faith and by the spirit of God that secret is reuealed vnto vs that we are the children of God and beloued of him Only that we take that worthinesse of the loue of God to be meant of Gods acceptation and vouchsafing to thinke vs worthie because otherwise the place so translated soundeth a manifest vntruth and contrarie to the Scripture For if we speake simply of worthinesse who doth not know himselfe worthie of hatred what faithfull man doth not say as Daniel said g Dan. 9.7 To thee O Lord belongeth righteousnesse but vnto vs reckoning himselfe for one belongeth confusion of face Dauid saith h Psal 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified i 130.3 If thou straitly marke what is done amisse who shall be able to stand It is false then to say that a man knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or of hatred for he knoweth or should know himselfe worthie to be hated but yet by faith a man beleeueth himselfe in Christ to be beloued though he know that in himselfe he worthily deserueth to be hated And so S. Bernard againe saith of the faithfull k Bernard epist 107. Supra scit 3 A vile worme worthie of euerlasting hatred yet is confidently perswaded that he is beloued because he feeleth himselfe to loue Thus S. Bernard both wayes contrarieth M.
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâ—ttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ— remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ— plura meruissâ—t to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâ—s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌ„t iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌ„plete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
f Aug. in Psa 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuoruÌ„ in hoc nido operare opera tua the nest wherein we are to lay our workes that we may hatch them vnto God Faith is g Prosp de voc gen l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis iustae actionis est genitrix the mother of a good will and iust and righteous conuersation Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est Christ in vs and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me saith Ambrose according to my faith In a word S. Austin telleth vs that k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Vnde mors in anima Quia fides noÌ„ est Ergo animae tuae anima fides est faith is the soule of our soule what is that to say but the life of all our life It is faith then and not charitie that giueth influence to all the rest euen to charitie it selfe as faith increaseth so other graces are increased as faith decreaseth so other graces decrease the life of faith is our life the strength of faith is our l Cyprian ad Quirinum lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus quantum credimus strength if our faith be weake there is nothing else wherby we can be strong Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry yet no otherwise then he is wont to do in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith when as it is by faith that we m Galath 3.14 receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace on which all our state dependeth towards God 24. W. BISHOP The fourth reason if faith alone do iustifie then faith alone will saue but it wil not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therfore this first shift was very friuolous Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shal also be saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time wil reÌ„der vnto euery man according to his works But of this more amply in the question of merits R. ABBOT Tertullian rightly saith a Tertul. de poenit Horum bonorum vnus est â—itulus salâ—s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place If saluation be the whole and iustification but a part then more is required to saluation then to iustification because more is required to the whole then to a part Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world life and blisse eternall in the world to come The first act of our saluation is our iustification but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light To iustification belongeth only faith to sanctification all other vertues and graces wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14 holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme is very idle They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctified by the spirit of grace neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification But as touching the verie point his minor proposition is false We say that we are saued also by faith onely according to that that before I alledged out of Origen that d Origen in Ro. cap. 3 sup sect 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman Thy faith hath saued thee Hath saued thee saith he as a thing alreadie done according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe For so it is said of Zacheus e Luk. 19.9 This day saluation is come to this house So saith the Apostle f 2. Tim. 1.9 He hath saued vs and called vs with a holy calling g Tit. 3.5 of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is because in iustification as I haue sayd our saluation is begun and in that we are iustified we are saued Christ therein being giuen vs and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone we are saued by faith alone the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily coÌ„sequent not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued but as the processe of Gods worke for accomplishment of that saluation whereto in iustification we are begotten and in way of inheritaÌ„ce intitled by faith alone We are saued by faith alone saith M. Perkins because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who onely is our saluation Where obserue gentle Reader what M. Bishop maketh of that speech that for faith alone we are saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Os impudens Where doth M. Perkins say that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement What a Doctor of diuinitie to lye wilfully to lye What is this but meere varletrie to abuse his Reader not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke but taking it vpon his word But if thou haue M. Perkins booke I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection thou shalt find these words In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man who doubteth not here with manifest falshood to affime that M. Perkins saith that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement And by the same words the solution is
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
perfection of a man whereof if anie be wanting it is an imperfection so that a Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium quà m propemo duâ— nihil corpori quà m multuÌ„ detrahitur pulchritudini if but one ey-brow be shauen as S. Austine saith though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it Euen so is it in the iustified man faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life because as the quickening facultie power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith or in our hearts by faith but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man to which as to the other members from the heart so from faith life is imparted and communicated that in them we may be aliue to God Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification but by occasion of commending faith and loue that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine misquoteth Ep. ad Philippâ—nses faith is the beginning of life c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him For if faith be the beginning of life then by faith we first liue By faith therfore we are iustified for to be iustified as M. Bishop confessed in the former section is to be translated from death Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption as hath bene before shewed so faith wherein is our new birth giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life the summe whereof is charitie because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together do make perfect the man of God The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same and needeth no further answer With Chrysostome we say that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely though faith alone suffice to iustification Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man but he is not by them made a iustified man Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham c Chrys ad Rom. hom 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae eâ— verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri hoc scilicet admirabile est quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith it should be no strange matter but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith this is wonderfull and doth greatly set forth the power of faith S. Austin in the place by him alledged if it were S. Austin auoucheth good workes to iustifie theÌ„ that are iustified that is to approue them iust but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification and purposely in that place disputeth against it d August Hypognost lib. 3. Ex operibus noÌ„ iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt Ideò subiungens inquit Iustificatè gratu per gratiaÌ„ Dei. Noli â—i praeponere opera propria neâ— exâ—â—â—eÌ„ gloriari quâ— ex operibus non c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy through the faith of Iesus Christ is apparent vpon all that do beleeue Therefore the Apostle saith we are iustified freely by the grace of God Put not thine owne workes before it nor glorie thereof because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him If no workes go before iustification then M. Bishops cause as too weake must go to the wals because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes for being iustified before we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after and if neither by works before nor after then not at all It followeth therefore that when S. Austine saith in that place that men of God are iustified by good workes he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man not any causes of iustification Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after f Aug. vt supr Iustificatio per fideÌ„ Iesu Christi data est datur dabitur crâ—dentâ—bus Iustification hath bene giuen is giuen and shall be giuen to them that beleeue by the faith of Iesus Christ Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop he saith it not as to the Protestant but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi c. Thou wilt say Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes If so why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes To which he answereth h Audi haeretice stulte inimice fidei veritatis Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparaÌ„tur per gratiae praeâ—entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente gubernante perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna mâ—â— quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt iustificantur iustifiâ—abuntur in Christo Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur ex his tanquâ—m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith We condemne not the good works of free will which that they may be done are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will and the same preuenting grace causing directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil because by such men of God haue bin are and shal be iustified in Christ But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification from
for it selfe or as it is an act or worke as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse but as the heart giueth life to the body not by the substance of it selfe which is but flesh as the rest of the body is but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein and as the hand feedeth the body not as being it selfe the foode of the body but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life in him d Act. 26.18 receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life But M. Bishop telleth vs that the Apostles meaning in those places is to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of theÌ„selues so thought that by theÌ„ they had deserued to be made Christians A goodly toy Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time they began to dispute reason the matter whether it were for the works that before they had don that they were made ChristiaÌ„s whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians wheÌ„ e Ephe. 2.3 they had their coÌ„uersation in the lusts of the flesh in fulfilling the wil of the flesh of the mind walking according to the course of this world and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles before they were partakers of the grace of Christ Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous so senslesse and absurd deuices Who would thinke that M. Bishop a Doctor of Diuinitie by title should be so simple a man as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale The matter is plaine After that men had accepted the faith of Christ and were become f Act. 15.1.10 brethren and disciples there came vnto them the false Apostles and preached vnto them g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saued They sought to perswade men that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law Here was no question whether by any deserts they were become Christians but being now Christians what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles and hauing before h Gal 1.9 receiued the Gospell i Cap. 4.27 hauing bene baptized into Christ k Cap. 3.2 hauing receiued the spirit yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified thereby This the Apostle inueyeth against and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification but concerning iustification wholy concerning men beleeuing alreadie and in the state of grace that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28 Gal. 3.11 iustified by faith and not by the works of the law yea without the workes of the law yea and saith n Gal. 2.16 we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law The Papist saith we beleeue in Christ that we may be iustified by the works of the law but the Apostle saith we beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law giueth a reason why we that beleeue in Christ cannot be iustified by the works of the law o Jbid. because by the works of the law no flesh shall be iustified And whereas the Papist againe saith that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby the Apostle peremptorily denounceth p Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified saith thereof q Hieron ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moysâ— tantum dictum puâ—es non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur ideÌ„ Apostolus scribit dicens coÌ„sentio legi c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses that is the ceremoniall law but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law or delight in the law of God as touching the inner man But of that before in the third section Hereby then it appeareth that being members of Christ and baptized into him our iustification still consisteth not in workes but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop by a new qualification telleth vs that all works both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification Not then from being any cause but onely from being any meritorious cause For he hath r Sect. 21. before told vs that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh is the cause of iustification But if they be causes how then is it true that he saith here that the first iustification is freely bestowed For Å¿ Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end Gratis freely as the Rhemists tell vs is as much to say as for nothing and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake then it is not bestowed for nothing but for hope for charity c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way and can finde nothing whereupon to stand Saint Austine giueth it for a rule that t August cont Pelag. Celest li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueriâ— gratuita omnimodo the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort except it be free in euery respect And how is it free in euery respect if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs And what is it but a mockery to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification onely that they are not meritorious causes
excluded all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required but not charitie Vaine man what had S. Bernard here to do either with Iewes or Gentiles He spake to Christian and faithfull brethren to whom he had no occasion to giue any caueat either against Iewes or Gentiles but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieued with sinne euen to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse not meaning by righteousnesse inherent righteousnesse as M. Bishop doth but that righteousnesse which consisteth as he had before expounded it in the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therfore he teacheth to beleeue in Christ who is our righteousnesse l Justitia donaÌ„s delecta sub fineÌ„ a righteousnesse as he speaketh againe that forgiueth sinnes the forme of which righteousnesse he expresseth thus m Delicta iuueÌ„tutu meae ignorantias meas ne memineris â—â—stus sum Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances and I am righteous or iust Thus S. Bernard saith that a man is iustified by faith alone and shall we be so mad as to thinke that in saying a man is iustified by faith alone his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth that a man is iustified by faith and charitie that is to say not iustified by faith alone And did S. Bernard thinke that a man hath charitie before he haue charitie For seeing as M. Bishop telleth vs the gift of charitie is infused and powred into vs in iustification surely to say that by charitie a man is iustified is to say that by charitie the gift of charitie is powred into him Which if it be absurd then let him be content that S. Bernards meaning be as indeed it is that a man is iustified by faith alone let him take charitie for a gift of the iustified not for any fore-running cause of iustification Now that the righteousnes there spokeÌ„ of is not meant of inherent righteousnesse it is very plaine in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth seuerally therof vnder the name of sanctificatioÌ„ His counter-places are impertinent What S. Bernard therein saith we say n In Cant. ser 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae noÌ„â—peratur ex dilectione A mans beleeuing aright except it worke by loue doth not set him right or straight and againe o Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem Neither faith without workes nor workes without faith do suffice to the rectitude or straightnesse of the mind True it is as I haue often said that to the full rectifying and perfecting of a man belongeth not onely iustification by the forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctification to charitie and good workes but what doth this hinder but that notwithstanding both the worke of iustification and the obtaining also of sanctification may be performed by faith alone Chrysostomes words are p Chrysost ad Gal. ca. 3. Illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse They sayd he who rested on faith alone is accursed but Paul saith that he is blessed that resteth vpon faith alone M. Bishops answer that faith alone there excludeth onely the ceromonies of Moses law is alreadie shewed to be vaine But here it further appeareth in that Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle maketh speciall choice of Abraham who was so long before the Law for an example of being iustified without workes and that q Ibid. AbrahaÌ„ producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse iustificatioÌ„ Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide iustificatus est idque quum operibus bonis floreret multo magis vos Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom 8. supra sect 26. when as he abounded in good workes For if he in that case were not iustified by his workes but by his faith then it is manifest that not onely the ceremoniall workes of Moses law but all other workes are excepted from that iustification that is described to be by faith alone We are to be iustified as Abraham was Abraham though he abounded in good workes yet was not iustified thereby Therefore we also though we haue good workes yet are not iustified thereby but by faith alone The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins when as by himselfe it is altogether marred His words saith he truly repeated are these Let no man acknowledge c. putting in a sentence of his owne making vnder the name of Basils wordes truly repeated What a shamelesse man is he thus to mocke his Reader thus grosly and palpably to forge a matter and yet to pretend truth Basil hauing mentioned the wordes of S. Paul that r 1. Cor. 1.30 Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption saith hereupon thus Å¿ Basil ser de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè apud Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactat sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iustitiae indigum sola autem fide in Christum iustifâ—catum for that is perfect and full of reioycing in God when a man is not lifted vp because of his owne righteousnes but knoweth that he himselfe is destitute of true righteousnes and is iustified by faith onely which is in Christ Thus he spake to a Christian auditorie and instructed them to acknowledge themselues to be void wanting destitute of true righteousnes to be iustified only by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our owne but no necessary good disposition but he should remeÌ„ber I say that Basil spake to them that were past dispositions and preparations it being a Sermon not ad Catechumenos such as were yet to be baptized but ad fideles to the faithfull as they were tearmed after Baptisme and them doth he teach to acknowledge themselues to be iustified by faith alone But whosoeuer they had bene how crossely doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils words Basil saith Let a man acknowledge himselfe destitute of true righteousnesse and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith a man is not destitute of true righteousnesse but hath vertuous good dispositions and preparations by which he is to be iustified and not by faith alone But no maruell that they crosse others who are so tangled with the truth as that they know not how to speake but to crosse themselues still blowing both hot and cold freely and yet for workes for nothing and yet for something no merit and yet in some sort merit of meere mercie and yet somewhat to moue God beside his mercie But to giue some colour to that that he saith he telleth vs that Basil in his Sermon de Fide proueth by many texts of Scripture that charitie is as
our good workes directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob a Rom. 9.11 Before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not by works but by him that calleth it was said the elder shall serue the younger as it is written I haue loued Iacob and haue hated Esau b August Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed diâ—â—ret ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quastionem c. Where saith S. Austine if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood he would not haue said Not of works but would haue said for the workes that were to come and so would haue put the matter out of question c IdeÌ„ epist 105. Ideo inquiunt Pelagiani nondum natorum alium oderat alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat Quit istum aâ—utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur The Pelagians said as he obserueth that of them being not yet borne God therefore hated the one and loued the other because he did foresee their workes to come Who would not wonder saith he that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle But his resolution euery where is that Gods election is the cause of our good workes not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle d Ephe. 1.4 He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him through loue e De praedest sanct ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramuâ— sed vt essemus Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae c. not saith he because we would be but that we should be not because he foreknew that we would be so but that we might be so by his election of grace The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe f 1. Cor. 7.25 Aug. epist 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull but by his mercy made him so to be It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it deferreth the rest to the question of merits where he saith nothing directly to it It seemeth he was ielous of the matter and therefore was loth to wade too farre least it should too plainly appeare that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit 35. W. BISHOP The fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can do a good worke and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification and hauing before discussed the first and the second now remaining and expecting you why did you not say one word of it the matter being ample and well worthie the handling Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments as we bring to proue a second iustification Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification but these degrees must be made downward of euill worser and worst for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold Pag. 76. else-where let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse which can neuer after be either loosed or increased Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you well coursed read S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory Lib. 2. con Iouin Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against which I will put downe these reasons following R. ABBOT If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation What are they vertuous and yet are they not good Nay he hath called them a Sect. 30. 32. before good qualities good dispositions good preparations and what were they good then and now are they not good Tell vs M. Bishop your mind are your works of preparation good workes or are they not good If they be not good then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good If they be good then it is vntruth that you say here that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse that you haue said amisse Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand which is as he saith of the second iustification whereas Maister Perkins though noting their distinction of first and second iustification yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification whence it must follow that they haue no place in any second iustification And the argument here propounded directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatioÌ„ though he would not see so much For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified theÌ„ can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice Iustice is not full and perfect so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it There is still something to be added in their second iustification till it come to his full terme Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified Now the iustice that is not perfect if it be respected in it selfe cannot be pleasing vnto God It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands There can therefore be no good workes whereby a man should merit their second iustification M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument and hauing so done very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion graunting it in one sort when the premisses inferre it in another and yet braueth and faceth as if the matter were wholly cleare for him
he shall require the innocencie of our life in comparison of him that is to be as free from slippes and fals in our state as he is in his And to shew that man being subiect to alterations and chaunges is not iust in Gods sight according to the righteousnes that concerneth him in his owne state he addeth l Ibid. Iustificari in conspectu Dei quis viuentium potest cui ira cui dolor cui cupiditas cui obliuio cui ignoratio cui casus cui necessitas vel per naturam corporis vel per motum semper fluctuantis animae admixta sunt Cui quotidiè grauissimus hostâ—â— immineat drabolui videlicet animae viri fidelis insidians eamque ad interitum per sequens Hanc enim esse causam docet qua nemo viuens iustistâ—arò in conspectu Dei possit And what man liuing can be iustified in Gods sight with whom anger and griefe and lust and ignorance and forgetfulnesse and casualtie and necessitie are blended and mingled either by the nature of the bodie or by the motion of the euer-wauering soule who also hath daily a grieuous enemie at hand euen the diuell lying in waite against the soule of the faithfull man and persecuting the same to destroy it For this doth the Prophet teach to be the cause why no man liuing can be found iust in the sight of God By which words being very cleare and manifest the reader may esteeme with what fidelity M. Bishop hath brought Hilarie to iustifie his exposition of that place With the like truth or rather vntruth he citeth Hierome who saith that m Hieron in Psal 142. Manifestissimè demonstrauit quia misericordiam Deâ— praestolatur c. Hic quasi aliquis iudicet inter Deum Prophetam sicut scriptum est vt iustificeris c. Et proptereà intrat in iudicium Deus vt iustè pumat the Prophet doth manifestly shew that he did waite for Gods mercie that he supposeth some one to be iudge betwixt God and him which so being God should be iustified in his sayings and ouercome when he is iudged who therefore entreth into iudgement that he may iustly punish Then reckoning Abraham and Isaac and Iacob amongst them of whom the Prophet speaketh he inferreth n Ergo nec ipsi Patriarchae iusti ficabuntur in coÌ„spectu Dei Stellae enim non sunt mundae in conspectu eius Therefore not the very Patriarks themselues shall be found iust in the sight of God for euen the starres are not cleane in his sight What can be more plainely spoken to shew that euen the most righteous and iust for want of puritie and iustice should iustly be punished if God should enter into iudgment with them and that if the very starres not by their owne sinne but by being in the o Rom. 8.20.21 bondage of our vanity and corruption be found vncleane before God much more are we vncleane for whose sake it is that that imputation doth lye vpon them But to make it yet further to appeare what Hierome conceiued of those words he saith in another place p Hieron in Esa lib. 6. cap. 14. Cùm dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissoluentur omnes manus quia nullum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur non iustificabitur c. When the day of iudgement or death shall come all hands shall be faint because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God and no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight Where he plainly teacheth not onely as touching comparison to God but as touching that a iust man in himself ought to be that no man liuing no not so much as in any one worke shall be iustified in Gods sight but his hands that is all his workes shall faile if God enter into iudgement with him The next that he citeth is Arnobius who for one part of his exposition of these words saith that man is not to be found righteous if he be compared to God that q Arno. in Psal 142. Omnis pulchritudo te praeseÌ„te deformis est omnis fortitudo infirma omnes diuitiae mendicitas omnis humaena iustitia iniustitia all beauty in Gods presence is but deformity all strength but weakenesse all riches but beggerie all righteousnesse but vnrighteousnesse But hauing set downe this because this could not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the Prophet he addeth further r Jbid. Et vt vicinaÌ„ tuae iustinae iustitiam humanam exquirere desinas quaeso quoniaÌ„ persecutus est inimicus animaÌ„ meaÌ„ c. Tanta me obscuritate suae circuÌ„dediâ— fraudis vt â—â—ortuuÌ„ me apud DeuÌ„ credens putareÌ„ me nullum â—â—uperationis apud iustitiaÌ„ tuaÌ„ audituÌ„ inuenire idâ—o anxiatus est in me spiritus meus And I pray thee that thou wilt cease to search out the righteousnesse that concerneth man that should be neighbour to thy righteousnesse because the enemie hath persecuted my soule and compassed me about with such darknesse of his deceipt as that beleeuing my selfe to be dead with God I thought I should finde no hearing with thy righteousnesse for my recouerie therefore is my spirit troubled within me It is plaine then by the iudgement of Arnobius that not onely in comparison of God but euen by that righteousnesse that belongeth vnto man no man liuing shall be found iust before the iudgement seat of God Euthymius whom he alledgeth next is as plaine to the same purpose For although with Arnobius he on the one side denie iustification in comparison of God in comparison of whom saith he not onely man but neither the Angels themselues are iust because it is he onely that is not capable of sinne yet not contented herewiâ—h he on the other side expoundeth the praier of the Prophet in this sort Å¿ Euthym. in Psal 142. Id est non districtè mecuÌ„ agas in futuro ad te fugio non sum dignus vocari filius tuus nec ego tecum intrâ—re in iudicium volo nec constituo iustitiam meam quòd non iustificabâ—tur hic in carne vbi nemo hic viuenâ— pâ—enò mundus est Enter not into iudgement c. that is deale not strictly with me in the time to come I flie vnto thee and am not worthy to be called thy sonne neither will I enter into iudgement with thee neither do I set vp mine owne righteousnesse because it shall not be iustified here in the flesh where no man liuing is perfectly cleane He further addeth reasons of the vsing of this praier t Ibidem Quotidiè peccamus Pauca bona facimus in comparatione commâ—ssionis omissionis minima bona faciâ—â—â— in comparatione beneficiorum Dei because we daily sinne because we do few good deedes in comparison of that that we commit in euill and omit in good because we doe little good in comparison of the benefites of God Now then what is become of Maister
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
giuen vnto vs and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs euen as Saint Augustine speaketh e August in Psalm 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum queÌ„ promisit the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard no question but he hath an answer readie though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place so notable a facultie haue these men to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him forsooth Bernards meaning is that merits are not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs out of which our merits proceed Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words Bernard saith they are not the cause Yes saith M. Bishop they are the cause though they be not the whole cause But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein for it is as much as if he should say The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth but the roote whence it proceedeth and the boughes whereupon it groweth whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree without which it is not a tree and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite So saith he Merits are not the whole cause of saluation but the grace and promise of God distinguishing merits as one part of the cause from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace and hath of God a promise of reward By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder but that merits are the whole cause of saluation fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith that merites which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Yet of that which he saith he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers In the meane time whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name though that booke indeed be none of his f August Manuâ—l ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum refugium meum salus vita resurrectio mea All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merite M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sence Where we see him to be an apt scholler and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius g Jndex Expur in castigat Bertram We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries But what is that good sence Marry by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence he must necessarily make the like of the rest The death of the Lord is my merite my refuge my saluation my life and resurrection If his meaning be the death of the Lord is my merite that is hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe then in the rest also shall be likewise said the death of the Lord is my refuge that is hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe the death of the Lord is my saluation life and resurrection that is hath purchased for me to be saluation life and resurrection to my selfe So likewise where he addeth h Meritum â—â—eâ—â— miseratio Domini noÌ„sum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit My merite is the mercie of the Lord so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile I shall not want merite the meaning shall likewise be the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe and so song as his mercie faileth not so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen Now these constructions are lewd and absurd and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ and the mercie of God as his onely succour and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon Which that the Reader may throughly vnderstand I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke euen out of the same spirit i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi ipsae anima et traÌ„seat se noÌ„ cogitaÌ„do se sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes fiducia mâ—a Est enim inte Deo meo Domino nostro Iesu Christo vniuscuiusque nostrum portio et sangâ— câ—ro Vbi ergo portio mea regnat ibi regnare me credo Vbi sanguis meus dominatur ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco Quamuis peccator sim tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt naturae communio non repellit c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea vitiae culpas infinitas negligentias meas quas egi quotidi è indesinenter ago corde ere opere omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret habitaret in nobis Sed desperare iam non audeo quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit mortem In ipso autem securus respiro c. Let my soule saith he be silent to it selfe and passe ouer it selfe not thinking of it selfe but of thee O my God because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ the portion and flesh and bloud of euery
Austin in Psal 102. hath these words o August in Psal 102. Ergo coronat te quia donae suae coronat non merita tua He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Which is the same in effect with that which M. Bishop putteth in place of it very often repeated by S. Austin either in the same or very neare the same words that God when he crowneth vs p IdeÌ„ epist 105. et in Ioan. trac 5. de grat et lib. arb cap. 6. 7. crowneth his owne gifts not our merits But he answereth hereto very vntruly and deceitfully It is true indeed that S. Austin there speaketh to him that thinketh he hath merits of his owne and of himself that God wil not crowne those because they are onely euill and he giueth not the crowne to euill workes but he crowneth onely his owne gifts because in vs there is no good worke to which onely the crowne is giuen but onely by Gods gift q De grat et lib. arb ca. 6. Prorsus talia cogitanti veriffimèdicitur dona tua coronat Deus non merita tua si tibi teipso non ab illo sunt merita tua Haec enim si talia sunt mala sunt quae autem mala sunt non coronat Deus Si autem bona sunt Dei dona sunt To him that so thinketh sayth he it is rightly said God crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits if thou haue thy merits of thy selfe and not of his gift for if they be such they be euill and God crowneth not those that be euill but if they be good they be the gifts of God Now to those words M. Bishop addeth in the same letter as if it were S. Austins whether by the Printers fault or by his owne lewd falshood he can best tell himself this animaduersion But if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then may we as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits But M. Bishop did S. Austine tell you so Will you so wilfully abuse him and peruert his words and meaning Surely in the beginning of the next Chapter which is but ten lines after the words cited S. Austine saith thus r Jbid. cap. 7. Siergo Dei donae sunt merita tua non Deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua If then thy good merits be Gods gifts God doth not crowne thy merits as thy merits but as his owne gifts In which words he plainely denieth that there is any respect of our merit or that God accounteth vs as hauing merited but that he giueth the crown and reward onely as to his owne gifts which he himselfe hath bestowed vpon vs. How bad a man then is M. Bishop to make S. Austin say that God crowneth our good workes proceeding from his grace as our merits when S. Austin expressely and flatly denieth the same But there is yet some further poison hidden in his words for when he nameth merits proceeding from grace working with vs he diuideth betwixt God and vs that which S. Austin maketh entirely the gift of God The worke is not meerely of the grace of God in vs but of grace working with vs because we also as well as grace are partakers of the worke So then S. Austin must not say that God crowneth his owne gifts not our merits but God crowneth partly his owne gifts and partly our merits because the good workes which he crowneth are partly of his grace and partly also of our owne freewill By this meanes Maister Bishop will hold it very absurd which the same Saint Austine saith in the other place Å¿ Epist 105. Câ—â—â— Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quà m namerae sua When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts for if he crowne nothing else but his owne gifts if he crowne nothing at all of ours then what part of the câ—owne is it that we can say is merited and deserued by vs His answer to the last words of Austine is excluded by the very words themselues t Aug Psal 14â— Propter â—â—men tuum D â—â—ine viuificabis â—eâ—in tua iustitia non in mea noÌ„ quia ego merut sâ—â— quia tu miseritis Lord for thy names sake thou wilt quicken me in thy righteousnesse not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou art mercifull This place he saith appertaineth to the first iustification of a sinner but it seemeth he gaue the answer somewhat too early in the morning before his eyes were well opened for otherwise he might haue seene that these are the words of a man alreadie iustified vttered in the name of the Prophet of God not in the preterperfect tense as of a thing past but in the future tense as of a thing to come Thou shalt or wilt quicken me and therefore cannot be vnderstood of any first iustification The Prophet being alreadie in part reuiued to the life of God prayeth stil to be reuiued and quickened more and more and promiseth to himselfe by assurance of faith through the holy Ghost that God will so do not in my righteousnesse saith he as Austin expresseth it not because I haue deserued it but for his owne names sake for his owne mercies sake giuing to vnderstand that not onely the beginning of the worke of God but also the proceeding thereof is not for any merit of man but by the mercie of him by whom it was first begun And whereas he saith that they confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie he doth but blind his Reader with a concealed distinction of merit hauing himselfe u Of Iustification Sect. 21. before taught that his workes of preparation are the cause of the iustification of a sinner as he hath corruptly argued out of the words of Christ Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much So that the terme of meere mercie is vsed only colourably and for fashion sake neither doth he acknowledge the meere mercy of God in any sort but as the Pelagian heretickes did in the first offer of his grace 14. W. BISHOP Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alledged against Merits let vs see what can be said for them following as neare as I can M. Perkins order Obiections of Papists so he termeth our reasons First in sundry places of Sâ—ripture promise of reward is made vnto good works Gen. 4. Prou. 11. Eccl. 18. Mat. 5. If thou do well shalt thou not receiue To him that doth well there is a faithful reward Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the reward of God remaineth for euer and When you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen and a hundreth such like therfore
vitam immortalitatem esse quaesitam Peter saith he suffered many things for the Church Many things also S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles suffered when they were scourged when they were stoned when they were imprisoned For by that bearing of wrongs and experience of dangers the Lords people was founded and the Church receiued increase for that other hastened to martyrdome when they saw that by those sufferings there was no impeaching of the Apostles vertues and moreouer that for this short life immortality was sought or gotten therby In the like sort doth he expound the words of the Apostle which here we speake of k Idem in Colos ca. 1. In tribulationibus quas patiebatur exultare se fatetur quia profectum suum videt in fide credentium Non est cuimâ—inants triâ—â—â—atio quando cum pro quo patitur acquirit ad vitam He professeth himselfe to reioyce in the troubles which he endured because he seeth his successe in the faith of them that beleeue for his trouble is not in vain when he gaineth him to life for whom he suffered No other thing doth Cyprian gather out of those words l Cypria de dupl Mart. Quemadmodum ille mirabili testimonio clarifi auit Patrem in ho. mundo aâ—que etiam in coelisma testimonâ—um illius quodammodo coÌ„summatur testimonio SanctoruÌ„ quasisit vna passio Domini seruorum Id nequis exiflimet parùm religiose dictum beatus Paulus nobis patrocinatur na scribens c. Quis enim nescit quam vberem prouentum effudit Ecclesiae seges Apostolorum caeterorum Martyrum sanguine irrigata Quò plus sanguinis effusum est hoc magis ac magis esstoruit muâ—titis do fidelium hoc latiùs sparsit suas propag nes illa beata vitis à Christo stirpe surgens necupans orbem vniuersum c. Euen as Christ saith he by his admirable testimonie glorified the Father in this world and also in heaueÌ„ so his testimony is after a sort consummated or made perfect in the testimonie of the Saints as if the passion of the Lord and of the seruants were all one And that no man may thinke that irreligiously spoken S. Paule warranteth the same to vs thus writing to the Colossians I now ioy in my sufferings for you and fulfill those things which are yet wanting or behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church For who knoweth not how plentifull increase the corne field of the Church hath yeelded being watered with the bloud of the Apostles and other Martyrs The more bloud was shed so much more more the multitude of the faithfull flourished so much the wider that blessed vine spred her branches arising from Christ her stocke and possessing the whole world Afterwards going forward to shew that m Testificatus est se esse pastorem bonum quia animam suam posuit pro euibus nobis exemplum praebens vt qui pro nostra qualicunque portione vices illius gerimus parati simus ipsi pro grege dominico sanguinem fundere nisi malumus videri mercenarij quam pastores Domini verbis congruunt verba discipulâ— Cùm enim dixisset se gaudere c. perpetiens ipse pro corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia qualia pasâ—us erat Dominus causam adiecit cur ea libenter pateretur Cuius inquit miâ—â—â—ier factus sum c. vt impeam verbuÌ„ Dei Sicut ergo mortibus Martyrum consummantur passiones Christi ita sanguine pastoruâ—â—â—â— firmantur prâ—m ssa Christâ— Nulâ—uÌ„ enim instrumentum in dubitabilius quam quod tot Martyrum sanguine signatum est Hoc â—â—mtrum si â—mpâ—ere vertum Dei hoc est replere Euangelium Christ testifying himselfe to be the good shepheard because he gaue his life for the sheepe hath therein giuen example to those that are the pastors in his stead to be ready to shed their bloud for the Lords stocke vnlesse they wil be taken for hirelings rather then for pastors he saith that thereto the words of the Apostle accord who saying that for the bodie of Christ which is the Church he suffered the like things as the Lord suffered he addeth The cause why he suffered those things willingly whereof saith he I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God which is giuen to me that I should fulfill the word of God For as by the deaths of the Martyrs the sufferings of Christ are perfected so by the bloud of the Pastors the promises of Christ are confirmed For there is no instrument more vndoubted then that which is sealed with the bloud of so many Martyrs This is indeed to fulfill the word of God this is to fulfill the Gospell In the like sort doth S. Austin make construction of the words of S. Iohn n 1. Ioh 3.16 He laid downe his life for vs therfore ought we also to lay downe our liues for the brethren namely o August in Ioan. tra 47. Sic nos debeâ—â—os ad aedificandam plebem ad fidem asserendam aminas pro fratribus ponere for the edifying of Gods people for the auouching of the faith Thus it was said that p Tertul. Apol. cap. 45. in fine Semen est sanguis Christianorum the bloud of Christians was like seed that q August in Psal 58. Sanguine seminata seges Ecclesiae fertilius pullulauit the field of the Church being sowed with bloud did more fruitfully spring and grow whilst r Idem Epist 50 Laudatur Dominus qui donare dignatus est vt serui eius passionibus suis lucrarentur fratres suos the Lord did grant that his seruants by their sefferings did win their brethren but that the bloud of Christian Martyrs was any satisfaction for the rest of the Church of Christ or any redemption of the punishments of their brethren it was neuer heard of in those times They knew nothing then of the Popes store-house of Supererogations and Satisfactions they knew nothing of that marting and chopping and changing of merits which these presumptuous Romish hypocrites now maintain in whom it is much more verified then it was in the Donatists which S. Austin saith Å¿ Idem Epist 51. Tantam sibi arrogant iustitiam vt cam iactent se non solúm habere sed etiam alijs hominibus dare They arrogate vnto themselues so great righteousnes as that they brag not only that they haue it theÌ„selues but also giue it vnto others But to conclude this point let M. Bishop know that both he and his fellowes are very impudent and shamelesse men thus to wrest the words of the Apostle to the defence of a doctrine which for aboue a thousand yeares was neuer heard of in the Church and which haue out of the auncient Church according to the Scriptures a very manifest and cleare exposition another way 5 W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins second reason In
they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterward of which high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christs resurrection and so many of them must needs be deliuered by Tradition vnwritten R. ABBOT More faults then lines saith M. Bishop but very slender proofe doth he bring of any fault First he cauilleth that the text is mangled and things put in instead of miracles The words are thus a Ioh. 20.30 Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God and that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Where we translate the Greek relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in the neuter gender these things because it hath not reference only to miracles mentioned in the former verse but to the matter of the whole book S. Iohn here intending to set foorth the end purpose of all that he hath written For being b Hier. Proem in Matth. Cum esset in Asia tam tunc haereticorum seminae pullularent Cerinthi Hebionis caeteroruÌ„ qui negant Christum in carne venisse coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asiae Episcopis multaruÌ„ Ecclesiarum legationibus de diuinitate saluatoris altiùs scribere in Asia as Ierome saith and the seeds of heretickes beginning to grow of Cerinthus Ebion and others denying Christ to haue come in the flesh he was forced by almost al the bishops of Asia and by messages from other churches to write more deeply then the other Euangelists had done of the diuinity of our Sauior Christ Here then he signifieth that he hath so done these things saith he are written that ye may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God Therefore Cyrill saith hereof c Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap 61. Quasi repetendo quae scripsit intentionem EuaÌ„gelij manifestat As it were repeating or recounting the things which he hath written he manifesteth the intent of his Gospell The first fault then pretended by M. Bishop is no fault because the relatiue implieth generally what the Euangelist hath written according to the intent and purpose of his Gospell The second fault is ridiculously alledged for wheÌ„ M. Perkins collecteth that by faith we be saued how doth he meane it or how doth any man meane it but d Acts. 3 16. by faith in the name of Christ As touching the third point it hath bene e Of Iustification Sect. 18. before declared that to beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God importeth the applying vnto vs of the merit and righteousnes of Christ For as a man may f Thom. Aquin. 22 q. 2. art 2. ad 3. Credere Dâ—uÌ„ non conuenit infidelibus sub ea ratione qua ponitur actus fidei Non enim credunt Deum esse sub his conditionibus quas fides determinat beleeue that there is a God or that God is and yet be still an infidell wanting that beleefe therof which is properly the act of faith as Thom. Aquinas noteth so a man may in some sort beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Son of God yet not so beleeue it as the Scripture nameth it for the act of iustifying faith because he beleeueth it not vnder such conditions as are determined by the doctrine of faith If it be taken only for an act of vnderstanding as the Papists take it a maÌ„ may beleeue it without any fruit because the diuels so beleeue but the beleefe of the heart which the Scripture intendeth importeth affiance and trust and inward feeling and comfort of that which it beleeueth whilst therby we apply vnto our selues the benefite of the merit passion of Christ expecting therby the remission of our sins But now froÌ„ noting of faults M. Bishop cometh to a finall answer that because S. Iohn speaketh of miracles not of doctrine therefore these words proue nothing for the sufficiency of the written word Where M. Perkins exception still standeth vnremoued that because by miracles without doctrine we caÌ„not attaine to that faith wherby we beleeue that Christ is the Son of God therfore the words of the Euangelist cannot be restrained to miracles only For others did miracles as great yea g Ioh. 14.12 greater then Christ did as by example we see when h Act. 5.15 by the shadow of Peter and by i Chap. 19.12 napkins and handkerchifes from Paules body the sicke are healed which we reade not of Christ himselfe By miracles therfore Christ is not discerned vnlesse by doctrine accoÌ„panying the same he be made known vnto vs therefore the words of the Euangelist must be referred to the doctrine also whereby he teacheth to make vse of the miracles of Christ So S. Austin referreth the words both to those things which Christ did and said k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Sanctus Euangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae scripta non sunt Electa sunt auteÌ„ quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur The holy Euangelist testifieth that Christ both did and said many things which are not written and for the ouerthrowing of M. Bishops answer and iustifying of our assertion he addeth but those things were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue Cyril speaketh more expresly l Cyril in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 68. Non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscriptasunt sed quae scribentes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata vt recta fide operibus virtute rutilantes ad regnum coeloruÌ„ perueniamus Al things which Christ did are not writteÌ„ but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well touching conuersation as doctrine that shining with right faith and vertuous works we may attaine to the kingdom of heauen It is not then our collection only but thus these ancient Fathers conceiued that of the miracles doctrine of Christ so much was written as is sufficient to instruct vs to faith to the attainment of euerlasting life And this is plainly deliuered in the words of S. Iohn who could not say These things are written that ye may beleeue and beleeuing may haue eternall life if there be not that written by the beleefe whereof we may obtaine eternall life Therefore as touching Saint Iohns Gospell containing all things needfull to saluation we answer him first that indeed we affirme that there is no article of faith necessarie to saluation which is not to be taught and learned out of the Gospell of S. Iohn Secondly there is no cause so to restraine the words as if Saint Iohn would meane onely in his Gospell to comprehend all that should be needfull for the instruction of the Church Nay he hath a plaine reference to those things
u Percurie Ecclesias Apostolicaâ— apud quas ipsae adâ—uc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesideÌ„tur apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur c. Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos c. si Italiae adiaceâ— hâ—bes Romanam c. Cum Aphricanis quoque Ecclesijs contestatur vnum Deum nouit Creatorem vniuâ—sitaâ—â—â— Iesum Christum ex Virgine Maria filium Creatoris carnis resurrectionem legem Prophetâ—s cum Euangelicis Apostolicis literis miscet inde fidem portat eam c. where were still Bishops in the seates of the Apostles and their authenticall Epistles were still read as of the Corinthians the Philippians the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Romanes which together with the Aphricane Churches acknowledged one God the Creatour of the whole world and Iesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Sonne of the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh ioyning the lawe and the Prophets with the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles and thence deriuing that faith Thus had he before set downe the doctrine and faith which in all this treatise he thus laboureth to vphold and maintaine x Regula est autem fidei illa scilicet qua creditur vâ—um omninò Deum esse nec alium quà m mundi Creatorem qui vniuersa produxerit de nihilo per verbum suum primò omnium omissum c. Superest vt demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de Apostolerum traditione censcatur The rule of faith is this to beleeue that there is one onely God and the same no other but the Creator of the world who by his word first of all sent foorth made all things of nothing The same word called his Son was vnder the name of God diuersly seen of the Patriarkes euermore heard in the Prophets last of all by the spirit and power of the Father was brought into the Virgin Mary made flesh in her wombe and being borne of her did the part of Iesus Christ preached thencefoorth the new law and the new promise of the kingdome of heauen wrought miracles and being nailed to a crosse rose againe the third day and so forth according to the articles of Christian beleefe VpoÌ„ the assertion of this rule he inferreth that y Si haec ita se habent vt veritas nobis adiudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo tradidit constat ratio pro positi nostri definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad eanâ—è de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertiâ—ere sith the truth must be adiudged to them who walke in that rule which the Church had deliuered from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God it was hereby assured which he had before propounded that the heretikes were not to be admitted to disputation by the Scriptures who without the Scriptures were proued to haue no title to the Scriptures Therefore for conclusion of all this he saith that z Illic igitur ScripturaruÌ„ expositionum adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas muenitur doctrinae Quibus fuit propositum aliter doceÌ„di necessitas institit aliter disponendi instrumenta doctrinae Alias enim non potuissent alitèr docere nisi alitèr haberent per quae decerent Sicut illis non potuisset succedere corrup tela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum eius ita nobis integritas doctrinae non compentisset sine integritate eorum per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio iâ—tulimus vt aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adiectione vel transmutatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc suntinde Scripturae ab initio suo Ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quà m sumus the corrupting of the Scriptures and of the meaning thereof must be reckoned to be there where there was found diuersitie of doctrine from the Scriptures For they saith he who intended to teach otherwise had need otherwise to dispose of the instruments of doctrine and teaching For they could not teach otherwise except they had somewhat otherwise whereby to teach But on the contrarie side he saith As their corrupting of doctrine could not haue successe without corrupting of the instruments thereof so neither could integritie or soundnesse of doctrine haue stood with vs without the integritie of those instrumeÌ„ts by which doctrine is handled For in our Scriptures what is there contrarie to vs What haue we brought in of our owne that somewhat being found in the Scriptures thereto contrarie we should remedie by adding or taking away or changing any thing What we are the same are the Scriptures euen from their beginning From theÌ„ we are euer since there was nothing otherwise then we are This is the briefe summe of all that Tertullian in that booke saith pertinent to the matter here in hand wherein as there is nothing in fauour of the cause which M. Bishop maintaineth so there is much to be obserued for the oppugning and conuincing thereof First it is apparent that Tertullian here saith not a word for the auouching of any doctrine beside the Scripture but onely for iustifying the doctrine that is contained in the Scripture The heretikes oppugned the maine and fundamentall grounds of Christian faith concerning the vnitie of the Godhead the creation of the world the Godhead and incarnation of Christ the resurrection of the dead the coming of the holy Ghost and sundry other such like They reiected such whole bookes and razed such testimonies of Scripture as euidently made against them affirming the same not to haue bene written by the Apostles or by any diuine inspiration a Contra Marc. lib. 4 Contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit conspirantia cum Creatore quaesi ab assertoribus eius intexta but foisted in yea sometimes that they were to correct and reforme those things which the Apostles had written Therefore albeit the points in question were manifestly decided by cleare testimony of Scripture yet the authoritie of Scripture being reiected and refused it was necessarie for many mens satisfaction to take some other course for the conuicting of them b Ibid Haeresis sic semper emendat Euangelia dum vitiat Iren. lib. 3 cap. 1. EmeÌ„datores Apostolorum Hereupon he referred men to the consideration of the Apostolicke Churches where the doctrine of the faith of Christ was most renowmedly planted and had successiuely continued from the time of the Apostles that by the testimonie of those Churches it might appeare both that the Scriptures were authenticall and true and that the doctrine auouched against the Heretickes was no other but what the Apostles themselues by the institution of Christ had in those Scriptures
enforcing vpon them whatsoeuer it pleaseth to deuise for the seruing of it owne turne and wherein there haue bene so many innouations and alterations as that their varieties vncertainties from age to age do shew that they are departed from that one certaine rule which Christ and his Apostles first deliuered to the Church To coÌ„clude Tertullian teacheth vs to take knowledge of such heresies or falshoods as are noted to haue bene in the Apostles times and by them condemned and thereby to know them for deceiuers not only who teach the same but any that haue taken seedes from thence or being then but rude and vnfashioned are since polished and fined with more probable deuice and shew Such were then the teaching h Act. 15.1 of iustification by the workes of the law i Col. 2.18 the worshipping of Angels k Ibid. ver 23. the not sparing of the body nor hauing of it in honour to satisfie the flesh to which we may adde the l 1. Tim. 4 3. forbidding of mariage and commanding of abstinence from meates noted for time to come All which we see in the Papacie now maintained and practised and though they be glosed and coloured with trickes and shifts that they may not seeme to be the same that the Apostles spake of yet by Tertullians rule are to be taken to haue bene then condemmned inasmuch as the Apostles speaking of them as they were then vsed no restraint for warrant of them as they are defended now Thus then M. Bishop hath little cause to boast of Tertullians booke of prescriptions and better might he haue forborne the naming of him but that he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine to name authors sometimes in generall when in particular they make nothing for that he saith as in that whole booke Tertullian hath not one word for warrant of any tradition or doctrine that is not contained in the Scripture But he will make the matter sure I trow out of another place where Tertullian formally proposeth the question whether traditions vnwritten be to be admitted or not and answereth that they must so Now it is true indeede that Tertullian so resolueth and concludeth the matter in those words which Maister Bishop hath alledged but he should withall haue told vs when it was that he so resolued and then little cause should we haue to wonder at that he saith He wrote his booke of prescriptions when he yet continued in the societie of the Church but the booke which Maister Bishop citeth de Corona militis he wrote afterwards when he was fallen away and besotted with the prophecie of Montanus and purposely girdeth according to his vsuall manner at the Catholike and godly Pastors and professours of the Church and specially indeede of the Church of Rome at which it was that he was specially offended He vpbraideth them as m Tertull. de Coron militis Noui pastores corum in pace leones in praelio ceruâ—s c. Non dubito quoslam sarcinas expedire fugae accingi de ciuitate in ciuitatem nullaÌ„ aliam Euangelij memoriaÌ„ urant fearfull and faint-hearted and minding nothing more if persecution should arise then to runne away And because they had condemned Montanus with his new prophecie therefore he saith of them n Planè superest vt martyria recusare mediteÌ„tur qui prophetias musaeÌ„ sp sancti respuerunt It remaineth indeede that they thinke of shunning martyrdome who haue reiected the prophecies of the holy Ghost The matter whereupon he tooke the occasion of this writing was briefly thus A Souldiour who was a Christian comming amongst the rest to receiue the Emperours donatiue refused to weare his garland vpon his head as the manner was but came with it in his hand Being demaunded why he so did he answered that he might not do as the rest did because he was a Christian Hereupon he was taken and cast in prison and feare there was least further danger should hereby grow to the whole Church Many hereupon condemned the vndiscreete zeale of this man who without cause in a matter meerely indifferent would thus prouoke the Emperours fury both against himselfe and the whole profession of Christian faith Tertullian ready to entertaine euery such occasion taketh the matter in hand and writeth this booke as in commendation and defence of the constancie and resolution which he had shewed in this matter Now it is to be considered what it was that was said on the Churches behalfe which Tertullian taketh vpon him to oppugne o Maximè illud oppâ—nunt Vbi auteÌ„ prohibemur ne coronemur c. Vbi scriptuÌ„ est ne coronemur c. This they specially vrge saith he Where are we forbidden to weare a garland where is it written that we should not weare a garland To this he answereth that p Hanc si nulla scriptura determinauit certè consuetudo cerroborauit quae sine dubio de traditione manauit though no Scripture had so determined yet custome had so confirmed which no doubt saith he came by tradition He then bringeth in the Churches reply q EtiaÌ„ in traditionis obtentu exigenda est inquis authoritas scripta But saiest thou in pretence of tradition authority of Scripture is to be required Whereby it is manifest that the Church then reiected vnwritten traditions and where tradition was alledged required authoritie of Scripture for the warrant of it and hereupon was it that Tertullian being now become an heretike defended vnwritten traditions against the Church Therefore the latter Church of Rome in defending traditions beside the Scripture followeth the steps of Montanus the heretike and we in oppugning the same do no other but take part with the auncient Church of Rome Albeit the absurdity of Tertullians defence of traditions here doth sufficiently bewray it selfe in that he maketh it r Annon putat omni fideli licere concipcie constituere dunta aeat quod Deo coÌ„gnat quod disciplinae coÌ„ducat quod saluti proficiat c Salus traditionis respectu quocunque traditore censeatur lawfull for euery faithfull man to conceiue and set downe what may be fitting to God what helpfull to discipline what profitable to saluation and will haue tradition to be regarded whosoeuer be the author of it He maketh Å¿ Confirmata coÌ„suetume idonea teste probatae traditionis custome a sufficient witnesse for the approuing of tradition who notwithstanding else-where though stil possessed with the same humor yet much more discreetly saith that t De virgin velan Consuetudo fâ—rè initium ex ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in vsum per successionem corroboratur na aduersus veritatem vindicatur Custome coÌ„monly hauing his beginning of ignorance or simplicity is by succession strengthened to common vse and so is maintained against the truth well obseruing withall that u Ibid. Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem cognominatuit c.
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
yet I beleeue that the authoritie of the words of God should be most cleare concerning them if man without damage of saluation promised might not be ignorant thereof In which words wee see Saint Austine mentioning difficult and hard questions but we see withall that he denieth the determining of any such without assured and cleare testimonies of holy Scripture affirming that he beleeueth that there should be cleare authoritie of Gods word for the deciding of them if man and not onely simple men without losse of saluation might not be without knowledge of them Hereby then he most euidently testifieth that whatsoeuer is necessarie for the saluation of mankind hath cleere and euident testimonie of holy Scripture and that what hath not so we are to surcease from defining any thing of it How lewdly then doth M. Bishop deale to make his Reader beleeue that Saint Austine sayth for him that the resolution of harder points and difficulties which yet the learned must expresly beleeue are not contained in the Scriptures But yet he telleth vs that that is also gathered out of many other places of his workes and yet out of all those places alledgeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austine himselfe doth not vndertake to iustifie by the Scriptures It hath beene before declared that when wee say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scripture wee vnderstand as the auncient Fathers did not that all things are literally and verbally contained in the Scripture but that all are either expressed therein or by necessary illation and consequence to be deriued from thence S. Hierome doubteth not to say as we do f Hieron contra Heluid Sicut haec quae scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus What things are written we do not denie but what are not written we reiect and yet in the same booke he saith also that it is g Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idioma c. ea de quibus posset ambigi si noÌ„ fuissent scripta signari caetera verò nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui the propertie of the holy Scripture that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written are set downe but other things are left to our vnderstanding to collect and gather them thereby And in this sence Saint Austine saith h August cont Maxim Arian lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus By those things which we reade we vnderstand some things also which we do not reade Thus doth the same Saint Austine sometimes say that the Church receiueth some things that are not written not that those things are not to be proued and defended by the Scriptures but onely that they are not literally expressed in the Scriptures And so it appeareth in the first instance produced by M. Bishop as touching the rebaptizing of them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes For although Saint Austine say that i Jdem de Bapt. contra Donatist l. 5. cap. 23. Apostoli nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eoruÌ„ traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est the Apostles commaunded nothing thereof but that the custome which was opposed to Cyprian was to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition yet he himselfe disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture refuseth to haue the matter decided but onely by the Scripture and in the first propounding thereof sayth very plainly to them k Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar c. ex Euangelio profero ceriae documenta quibus demonstro quà m rectè placuerit verè secundum DeuÌ„ vt hoc in quoquaeÌ„ schismatico vel heretico ecclesiastica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separabatur illud auteÌ„ quod sanuÌ„ maneret agnituÌ„ potiùs approbaretur quà m improbatuÌ„ vulneraretur That I seeme not to deale by humane arguments namely for that a generall Councell hath so confirmed I bring assured proofes out of the Gospell whereby I shew how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them that ecclesiasticall medicine should cure that in an hereticke or schismaticke wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church â—ut that which remaineth sound should rather be acknowledged and approued then by being disallowed should be wounded To omit many other places that might be alledged to the same purpose soone after the words alledged by M. Bishop he saith thus l Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatuÌ„ Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismuÌ„ Christi acceperunt baptizantur quia sanctaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ testimonijs pianè ostenditur c. It is against the commaundement of God that men comming from heretickes should be baptized if there they haue receiued the Baptisme of Christ because by testimonies of holy Scripture it is plainly shewed thus and thus Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example Saint Austine speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture but by Tradition so accustomed because there is nothing expresly mentioned thereof but yet sheweth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approoued because by testimonies of Scripture it was confirmed to be right m Ibidem lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex vtroque litere disputationis rationibus Scripturarum testimonijs potest etiam dici Quod veritas declarauit hoc sequimur because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controuersie it might be said What the truth hath declared that we follow And thus it is true which S. Austine addeth in the place cited n Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt multa quae vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta benè creduntur quanquam scripta non repertiantur that there are many things which the whole Church holdeth and for that cause are beleeued to haue come froÌ„ the Apostles albeit they be not found set downe in Scripture because they be not namely word for word set down in Scripture albeit they be to be iustified by those things that are there set downe Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place of the custome of the church in baptizing infants which Austin saith o De Genes ad liter lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolike tradition and we also acknowledge no lesse But what did Austin hold it a traditioÌ„ that could not be proued and warranted by the scripture Nothing lesse For he himselfe against the Pelagian heretikes proueth the necessitie thereof by the Scriptures p August epist 89. Dicunt infantem morte praeuentum non baptizatum perire non posse quoâ—â—am
is not in the generall signification whether the Gospell were a tradition that is a thing deliuered frō God or whether it were a tradition by word that is a thing deliuered by word but whether of that traditiō that is of that doctrine deliuered from God by word any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tradition We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition we denie not but that the Euangelists in the historie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word which they should afterwards commit to writing although in the writing thereof inspired of God e Iohn 14.26 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that concerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes towards God To come now to the point howsoeuer the Euangelists built their Gospels vpon Tradition that is vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them whether by Christ or by his Apostles yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine that is any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them by tradition of former times that is by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets This was the matter in hand why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away He telleth vs of desperate carelesnesse thinking to carry the matter with desperate words but we must tell him that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new 15. W. BISHOP His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten traditions were necessary to saluation then we must as well beleeue the writings of the ancient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall traditions are not elsewhere to be found but in their bookes but that were absurd for they might erre Answer That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolical traditions are as wel kept in the mind of the learned as in the ancient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the Fathers writings Secondly they are commonly recorded of more then one of the Fathers and so haue firmer testimony then any one of their writings Thirdly if there should be any Apostolicall tradition related but of one auncient father yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a thing of more estimation And a-againe some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages would haue reproued it as they did all other falshoods if it had not bin such indeed as it was termed which when they did not they gaue a secret approbation of it for such and so that hath the interpretatiue consent at least of the learned of that age and the following for Apostolicall tradition But Master Perkins proues the contrary by Saint Paul who saith * Act. 26.22 That I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and Moses did say should come Why make you here a full point let Saint Paul make an end of his speech and tell vs for what points of doctrine he alledgeth Moses and the Prophets Marrie to proue that Christ should suffer death and rise againe and that he should giue light to the Gentiles For these and such like which were euidently fore-told in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe but when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses Law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them * Act. 16. As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with Tradition saying * 1. Cor. 11. I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth And in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome so that out of S. Paul we learne to alledge Scriptures when they be plaine for vs and when they beare not so cleare with vs to pleade Tradition and the custome of the Church R. ABBOT It is strange to see how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this matter being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions They tell vs that traditions vnwritten are a part of the word of God The councell of Trent professeth a Cōcil Trident. ses 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit c. to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence as they do the holy Scripture Now we desire to know by what testimonie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these traditions are for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures there is reason that they be approued vnto vs by testimoniall witnesse equiualent to the Scriptures If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers as well as we beleeue the Scriptures M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned as in the auncient fathers writings and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings So then belike the mindes of the learned together with the writings of the auncient fathers are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures and if Maister Perkins had put in both these then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say But we must yet aske further whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions If he will say that they receiue them of the fathers then the argument still standeth good If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them and so vpward till we come to the fathers and so in fine it must fall out that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō But alas good man we see he cannot tell what to say only Bellarmine telleth vs that b Bellarm. de sacram lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cōciliorū veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet the assured certainty of all councels and of all doctrines of faith dependeth vpō the authority of the present
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
to be accounted of as those are to which Christ hath giuen witnesse by his owne word No otherwise therefore could he conceiue of the booke of Wisedome being of the same kinde and that he did so it plainly appeareth for that of that and the booke of Ecclesiasticus it was that he said that which before I mentioned that the bookes which are not in the canon of the Iewes are not alledged with so great authority against them that say against vs. And that this booke was not receiued in the Church as a booke of diuine authoritie appeareth by the very place which Maister Bishop citeth where it is shewed that Saint Austine citing a testimonie out of the said booke exception was taken against it c Aug. de praeâ—â— sanct cap. 14. Quod à me positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis tanquam non de libro canonico adhibituÌ„ For that it was taken out of a booke that was not canonicall S. Austine indeede pleadeth earnestly to gaine credit to it and alledgeth that of long time it had bene accustomed to be read in the Church and men had vsed to cite the testimonie of it as diuine but yet could not expresly say that euer it was reckoned for a Canonicall booke And as for those arguments M. Bishop is deceiued to thinke that they could proue it to be Canonicall because the booke of d Ruffinan exposit symb the Pastour was in like sort read in the Church as Ruffinus beareth witnesse in the place before alledged and yet was not accounted canonicall Scripture and Cyril and Ambrose cite the bookes of Esdras by the name of e Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Sic ait Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata c. Ambros de obitu frat Prophetico sermone dicitur c. â—epeto sacro Scriptura solatia tua de bono mort cap. 11 Ait propheta ad angelum c. holy Scripture and inspired of God and Ambrose calleth him by the name of a Prophet whereas Hierome calleth those bookes f Hieron praefat in Esdram Nehem. Nec apocryphorum tertij quarti libri sâ—mnijs delectetur dreames and wisheth no man to be delighted with them They vsed these bookes in their Sermons casually as we do thinking it not materiall to cite them for exhortation to the people howsoeuer they held them not of sufficient authority otherwise Therefore they cited them with condition sometimes g Hieron ad furiam Legunus in Iudith sicut tamen placet volumen recipere if we will receiue such or such a booke as Hierome doth the booke of Iudith and h Origen in Math. tract 30. Si recipitur liber qui dicit quoniaÌ„ sapientia est quae facta est populo columna nubis c. Origen the booke of Wisedome of which we here speake By these things therfore it is plaine enough that though Austin were not willing that authority should in that sort be detracted from any booke that was receiued publikely to be read in the Church yet that he was well able to discerne and so did which bookes were of diuine and infallible authority and which were to be accounted of inferiour and lesser worth iudging thereof in effect no otherwise then we do Now from this M. Bishop goeth to another cauill at that that M. Perkins saith that a man to come to know the Scriptures to be of God must first take and beleeue them so to be He saith that the mans wits were from home in so discoursing but the cause is because his wits serue him not to conceiue that which M. Perkins saith Very well and truly doth Saint Austine obserue that i Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. Jntellectus merces est fidei ergoâ—oli quaerere intelligere vt credas sed â—rede vt intelligas vnderstanding is the reward of faith Seeke not therefore saith he to vnderstand that thou maiest beleeue but first beleeue that thou maiest vnderstand He gathereth it from that which the Disciples say k Iohn 6.69 We beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God They first beleeue and in beleeuing they learne to know The beliefe of which Maister Perkins speaketh is the beliefe of a learner of whom in matters of other knowledge they are woont to say Oportet discentem credere the learner must beleeue There are in all Arts and Sciences certaine propositions and principles which the learner first accepteth vpon the word of him that teacheth him which notwithstanding afterwards he attaineth so to know as that if he that taught him should say any thing to the contrary he should thinke him beside himselfe and by no meanes yeeld to him as knowing that certainly now which he did at first beleeue Euen so is it in this case a man hauing it wrought out of his owne conscience that there is a God to whom honour and worship and seruice is due and that this God vndoubtedly hath some way reuealed wherein that honour and worship doth consist betaketh himselfe vpon the testimonie of the Church to the reading and hearing of the Scriptures and in the exercise thereof findeth and feeleth that to be true which was testified vnto him and saith l Psal 48.7 Like as we haue heard so haue we seene in the Citie of our God And as the Samaritans being drawn to Christ by the report of the woman after they had seene and heard him say m Iohn 4.42 Now we beleeue not because of thy saying for we haue heard him our selues and know that this is indeede the Messias the Sauiour of the world so this man being first brought to the Scriptures by the report of the Church and thereby beleeuing the same to be of God doth by his owne experience afterwards fully apprehend the truth and certainty of that report yea more then was reported so that he saith n Origen in CaÌ„t. hom 2. Per illos quidem audiui ad te autem veni tibi credidi apud queÌ„ muliò plura viderunt oculi mei quà m annunciabantur mihi By them I heard of thee and I came to thee and haue beleeued thee with whom mine eies haue seene much more then before was told me Therefore he resteth not his faith now vpon the Church but vpon God himselfe so that though the Church should slide backe and denie that which it hath before affirmed yet he standeth secure and chooseth rather to die a thousand times then to forgoe the comfort and hope that he hath conceiued by the Scriptures which were at first deliuered vnto him by the Church Thus Christian people haue beene woont to receiue the Scriptures of the hands of the Church wherein they haue liued without seeking any further approbation and warrant thereof because in the vse of them they haue giuen a sufficient warrant and testimonie of themselues So then we rest not the Scriptures vpon the discerning of priuate spirits as Maister Bishop idlely and vainely
of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answer is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it self is the best glosse if there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsly termed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsly termed matter of strife because it is not so of his own nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. Peter sayth Yes No sayth M. Perkins 1 Pet. â— because that cometh not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly termed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly that which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so termed although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text is extreme rashnesse and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules endued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisite yet he ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his study he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Epist 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why do the Lutherans to omit all former heretikes vnderstand in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrary Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of temporall iustice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be law or when should there be any end of any hard mater one Lawyer defending one part another the other one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one party to haue the right another as certainly auerring not that but the contrary to be law both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloudy debate perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisedome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randon to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the old Testament which was but a state of bondage as it were an introduction to the new yet was there one appointed vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stand to his determination and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe being the life and soule of all the rest R. ABBOT It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas that a Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 39. art 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata sed etiam modus significandi in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified but also the manner of signification A speech may be true yet true only in some manner of signification which therefore in propriety of speech is not true because the thing properly of it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be Christ saith M. Bishop is truly called the rocke of offence Be it so yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him in proprietie of speech it is not true because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so He becommeth so
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues As for our own country we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants Puritanes was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs as was the dissention of the secular Priests Iesuites amongst them the one in no sort to be coÌ„pared to the other If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion what preiudice should it be to vs that there is some matter of difference amongst vs He wil say that the maine matter amongst them was but a matter of circumstance of gouernment and so his wisedome knoweth if he list that the matters of controuersie amongst vs are onely matters of ceremonie and forme He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent and so let him know that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them In a word wee are able alwaies to iustifie that in substantiall points of faith there is no so great difference amongst vs but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture For the first part whereof he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation to shew vs how necessary it is that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning but will simply answer him that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church hauing giuen thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12 Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the ministery and for the building vp of the body of Christ till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires so hath God appointed the ministers of his word euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him to deliuer what the law of God is and to answer and resolue cases and doubts as touching faith and duty towards God g Tit. 1.9 to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine and to improue them that speake against it to be the same to the people as God of old required the Priests to be h Malach. 2.7 The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge and men should seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes If of these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke and therfore are by common sentence iudgement to condemne such that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of theÌ„ But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend parts being taken this way that way so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby the example of the Apostles is to be imitated and in solemne assembly councel the matter is to be discussed and determined the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 8 as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe was to die for his contempt so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater to a Councell prouinciall or nationall or general By their authoritie they haue gathered them together they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon as we may see in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—tet Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord of the Church euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national the sentence whereof we account so waighty as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same But yet with all for the excluding of his issue he must vnderstand that in causes matters of faith and of the worship of God we make these to whom this iudgement is coÌ„mitted not lawgiuers at all but Iudges only As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth but the mouth of the law not to speak what he liketh but what the law directeth nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
as of Fasting Prayer c. to be parts of Gods worship and that they tend vnto a state of perfection We say flatly no holding that lawfull vowes be stayes props of Gods worship but not the worship it selfe this is long since confuted But here M. P. setteth vp a rotten prop or two to vphold his ruinous building saying S. Paule saith plainly * 1. Tim. 4. Bodily exercise profiteth litle but godlines profiteth much Where are you good sir We treat here of vowes which are formally actions of the mind what do you now about bodily exercises Vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse which is so profitable And if by bodily exercise fasting and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood then we say that such things of themselues would profite little but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh to the end we may lesse offend and better serue God then they may much profite vs. But let vs heare M. Perkins his second reason against such vowes Gods kingdome standeth not in outward things and therefore his worship standeth not in outward things Answer Gods kingdome in it self standeth not in outward things and as it is in vs also it doth consist chiefly in inward worship by faith hope charitie and religion in whose kingdome vowes hold an honorable rank but a great part of this worship among vs depends of outward things for be not the two only parts of Gods worship among Protestants as M. Perkins saith in this question Baptisme our Lords Supper both which partly consist in outwardly both speaking doing And is not faith which is the roote of all Christian Religion gotten by outward preaching and hearing R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop sheweth himselfe againe in his right colour for whereas M. Perkins mentioning vowes of things not commanded addeth for example as of meates drinkes attire c. he in steede hereof putteth in as of fasting and prayer c. that he might make his Reader beleeue that M. Perkins affirmed prayer to be no part of Gods worship Well he must keepe his wont and it fitteth well the cause that he hath in hand The thing that M. Perkins propoundeth is this that lawfull vowes of things not commanded are stayes and proppes of the worship of God but not the worship it selfe This M. Bishop saith is long since confuted but where he cannot tell But for proofe hereof M. Perkins first alledgeth the words of S. Paule a 1. Tim. 4 8. Bodily exercise profiteth little but godlinesse is profitable for all things To these words M. Bishop giueth an answer that fully confirmeth what M. Perkins saith But first he beginneth merily Where are you good Sir Here M. Bishop what would ye we treate here of vowes saith he which are formally actions of the mind what do you now about bodily exercises Yea but M. Bishop you haue told vs before of good vowes and considerate vowes and therefore we presume you allow not of all vowes as if a man should vow the b Esa 66 3. killing of a man or the cutting off of a dogges necke You will tell vs then that good vowes are such as whereby we vow good things and then we answer you that vowes indeed take their condition and qualitie from the things themselues that are vowed and therefore that those onely vowes are the true worship of God whereby we vow those things that belong to his true worship Whence it followeth that where bodily exercises are vowed by which God is not worshipped the sentence of the Apostle is rightly alledged against the taking of those vowes for anie worship of God that bodily exercise profiteth little but godlinesse is profitable for all things We see the Apostle setteth downe bodily exercise for one thing and godlinesse for another and thereby teacheth vs that bodily exercise by it selfe is no part of godlinesse and if bodily exercise be no part of godlinesse then vowes of bodily exercise can be no part thereof It is but at randon therefore that M. Bishop saith that vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse that is so profitable because they are no parts of that godlinesse but when that godlinesse it selfe is the thing which we vow But now he addeth If by bodily exercise fasting and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood then we say that such things of themselues would profite little but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh to the end we may lesse offend and better serue God then they may much profit And what is this but that that M. Perkins saith that such things are stayes and proppes and helpes of the worship of God but in themselues they are no part of Gods worship The mortifying of fleshly lusts the auoyding of sinne the yeelding of our obedience to God these are things wherein God is worshipped But fasting and such other exercises are onely helpes to these and no part of them and therefore the vowes thereof as M. Perkins saith are no otherwise to be reckoned but as props and stayes and not as partes of the worship of God Poperie hath wickedly taught men to recken of them as meritorious workes and satisfactions for sinne yea not onely for a mans owne sinnes but for other mens sinnes also These are impious and damnable conceipts and farre from that which the Scripture hath taught vs to conceiue of all outward things But against that opinion of vowing such outward and bodily seruice Maister Perkins further vrgeth that the kingdome of God standeth not in outward things as eating drinking and such like alluding to the words of the Apostle c Rom. 14.17 The kingdome of God is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and peace and ioy in the holy Ghost and he that in these things serueth Christ pleaseth God and is approoued of all men The Apostle would thereby haue it vnderstood that we are no whit the nearer to the kingdome of God by eating or not eating by drinking or not drinking by wearing or not wearing this or that or by any such like things belonging to the externall conuersation and life of man By outward things then we vnderstand not all things that are done outwardly but onely those things the vse whereof properly belongeth to the outward man The preaching and hearing of Gods word the ministring and receiuing of the Sacraments are things outwardly done but they are things belonging not to the outward but to the inward man M. Bishops exception therefore as touching these things is nothing to the purpose but the argument standeth good that because the kingdome of God consisteth not in such outward things as belong to the outward man therefore Popish vowes are to be condemned as superstitious and as hauing no ranke in anie true religion whereby men make vowes of such outward things to become thereby the nearer to the kingdome of God Nowe marke gentle Reader that as M. Bishop began this Section with one lye so he endeth it
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
record or witnesse of it M. Bishop citeth Sozomen making mētion of that herbe also but he doth it only vpō Eusebius his credit other proofe or knowledge of it he bringeth none Now it is not possible that so famous a testimonie iustification of the name of Christ should be omitted by Iustin Martyr by Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Minutius Felix and others in their Apologies and defences of Christian religion against the heathen yea in the expounding of the story of that woman in the Gospell neither Origen nor Chrysostome nor Hylarie nor Ambrose nor Hierome make any mention of such a matter This I suppose should much weaken the credit and opinion of the miracle by him reported to say nothing that if any such matter had bene knowne which could not but be knowne it is not credible that it could haue stood for the space of those three hundred yeares in so many terrible persecutions wherin nothing was left vnattempted or vndone to take away all things that might giue any glorie to the name of Christ Some speech it seemeth there grew afterwards concerning it at leastwise of the standard or Image which in likelihood stood there which so soone as d Sozomen hist. lib. 5. cap. 20. Iulian the Apostata heard he sent to haue it taken away and his owne Image to be set vp in steade thereof Which being done in despite of Christ no maruell if by thunder lightning from heauen God reuenged it and turned topsi-turuie the Image which that renegate set vp against the name of Christ Yea we doubt not concerning Popish Idols and Images of Christ and his Saints but that Gods reuenge shall follow them who destroy them in contumely reproch of Christ and in despight and hatred of his name howsoeuer they themselues are abhominable also in the sight of God who are the makers and vsers of them For he who amongst the heathens so notoriously reuenged the sacriledges that were done to idoll-gods when they were done to thē vnder the name of gods will vndoubtedly reuenge the contempts that are offered and done to sacrilegious Idols in the name of Christ because their malicious purpose is therein directed against Christ himselfe The tenne tribes being diuided from Iudah built themselues altars wherewith to sacrifice to God expresly contrarie to the law of God who admitted e Deut. 12.11.13.14 no altar but in the Temple at Ierusalem but yet when Ahab and Iezabell pulled downe those altars in contempt of God and in behalfe of Baal Elias the Prophet complaineth vnto God f 1. King 19.10 Lord they haue digged downe thine altars That therfore which Sozomen reporteth of the destructiō of Iulians image serueth not to adde any credit to Popish Images if at least it be true which he alone also reporteth who in the same place reporteth some other verie fabulous and vaine things The next example of Images is so much the more impudently alledged for that in their owne Decrees those two Epistles g Dist 15. cap. Sancta Romana ex decret Gelas 1. Concil tom 2. Epistola Abagari regis ad Iesum Apocrypha Epistola Iesu ad Abagarum regem apocrypha of Abgar to Christ and of Christ to Abgar whence that fable is taken are condemned for an apocryphall or counterfet deuice It is to be noted also that h Euseb hist. lib. 1. cap. 14. Eusebius mentioneth Abgarus sending an Epistle to Christ and Christs answer to him but of this matter of Christs image he saith not one word The tale it appeareth was then begun but it was not come to perfection till afterwards Damascen that notable Idol-monger added to it another peece and to that peece Nicephorus added yet another peece and so now it serueth M. Bishop and his fellowes for an authentical and good record As for the miracles that he telleth vs of they litle auaile with vs because the one standeth wholy vpon a false ground and for the other or rather for both we know that Euagrius sometimes sheweth too little discretion in the entertaining of such tales The third instance M. Bishop himselfe distrusteth and naming first Athanasius for the reporter of it cometh in presently with either it is his or some other verie graue and ancient writers And why for saith he it is related in the seuenth generall Councell namely wherein they seemed euery man to haue put on a vizard vpon his face that they might not be seene to blush at those leud and shamefull forgeries wherewith they then almost eight hundred yeares after Christ laboured to set vp the worshipping of Idols and Images by the instigation and furtherance of a wicked Empresse vsurping and tyrannizing in the minoritie of her sonne We shall haue afterwardes further occasion to speake concerning this Councell in the meane time it is to be vnderstood that i Sigebert in Chron. anno 765. Sigebert mentioneth this matter of the Image of Christ to haue befallen as the report was 400. yeares after the time of Athanasius in the yeare of our Lord 765. at which time much good drinke was in brewing to make men drunke with the opinion of that Idol-seruice which Satan then by might and maine laboured to bring in Yet M. Bishop so directed by his maister Bellarmine is not ashamed to cite this as vnder the name of Athanasius by his name to gaine some credite to a lye Such another tale doth he tell vs out of Theodorus Lector and Metaphrastes and Nicephorus of the Image of the virgine Marie taken by Saint Luke the Euangelist of whom we reade that he was a Physition but that he was also a Painter we reade not This matter hath no record at all for sixe hundred yeares after Christ and we must beleeue it vpon their words who so long after haue deuised it of their owne heads They come too late to informe vs what Saint Luke did and because it hath no better witnesse we reiect this also for a lye The rest I omit importing onely a ciuill and historicall vse of Images as M. Bishop propoundeth which we question not onely against the seuenth Synod we except as an vnfit witnesse in this cause which from historicall vse lifted vp Images to be adored with religious and holy worship 3. W. BISHOP This briefly of Images in generall now a word or two of the signe of the Crosse which our Protestants haue banished from all their followers neuerthelesse it cannot be denied to haue bene in most frequent vse amōg the best Christians of the Primitiue Church Tertullian hath these words * De corona militis At euery going forward and returne when we dresse vs and pull on our shoes when we wash and sit downe at the lighting of candles and entring into our chambers finally when we set our selues to anie thing we make the signe of the Crosse on our fore-heads Saint Ambrose * Serm. 84. exhorts vs to begin all our workes with the signe
but somewhat at least to the free will of man Againe it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth but Å¿ Sest 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men as he hath before expressed Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice yet he maketh no exception but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heaueÌ„ vnto him as iustly deserued which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth that t Aug Hypog lib 3. Intellâ—ge in miseratione misericordiae non in factione meritorum animam coronari not for performance of merits but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned and to say with Hilary u Hilar in Psal 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus quòd erimus quòd non sumus causam â—â—am non habet nisi misericordiae Dei That we are what we were not that we shall be what we are not it hath no other cause at all but onely the mercie of God Againe he will not haue vs boast and say that God needed vs for our selues but we must needes say with Tertullian x Tertul. aduer Hermog Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur There is none but needeth him of whose he vseth any thing Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe but at our will It is in the power of our free will either to helpe it or hinder it either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise God must stand in neede of our will to consent to his worke or else it succeedeth not For the auoiding of which absurdity we must confesse that God vseth nothing in vs for the effecting of our saluation but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting our beleeuing our willing our working all is of God and nothing is there therein that we can call ours Now therefore it is plaine that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians y Ephe. 2.8 By grace ye are saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ taketh exception generally against works and giueth to vnderstand that they are effects not causes of saluation because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus vnto good workes M. Bishops exception is that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues before we be iustified But that his exception is very vaine appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith Not of workes least any man should boast addeth in the next words For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do For what sence were it to say we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification But the Apostles meaning is very euident we are not saued by any good workes that we do for our good workes are none of ours but they are his workmanship in vs by whom we are saued who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in to the same saluation It was not then M. Perkins ignorance to take two distinct manner of workes for the same but M. Bishops absurd shifting to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth that there is no difference at all But we would gladly know of him to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions To the latter he cannot because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus which we are not till we be iustified and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification If to the former then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification So in neither place doth he say any thing of them and because he knew them not he hath wholy left them out He was vndoubtedly to blame to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions as not to think them worth the speaking of But it is woorth the noting to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle Not by workes least any man should boast that is not by workes that are of our selues but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation which are partly of God and partly of our selues and yet as I haue before said they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation to be onely of our selues because as yet there is z Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriuÌ„ auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed moueÌ„tis adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem noÌ„ solum patiendo sed operando agendo no infused or inhabitant grace whence they should proceede and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle But see the singular impudencie of this man who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions who hath not in the place alledged by him so much as any seÌ„blance or shew for proofe thereof Note with S. Austin saith he that faith excludeth all merits of our works but no vertuous dispositions for preparatioÌ„ to grace Lewd Sophister where is that note found in S. Austine in what words is it set downe What still lye and nothing but lye S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but not all workes for there are workes of preparation which Doctor Bishop no simple man I warrant you defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes vnderstanding by merits any thing going before iustification that should be vnto God a motiue or cause
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of