glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
the light thereof Now albeit this be the true light i Ephes 5.13 which maketh all things manifest and the onely sure foundation whereupon we can rest our faith for what is it what the whole world saith if God say not the same yet against the importunitie of the aduersarie and for thy better satisfaction thou shalt see our assertions and expositions throughly munited and fenced with the acknowledgment of the auncient Church Wherein although we cannot but say that by the Fathers and Bishops of those times many things were conceiued and deliuered amisse and are not our aduersaries forced will they will they to confesse the same yet God hath so prouided that his truth ex abundanti is iustified by them and no antiquity or authoritie of humane error hath so defaced it but that still the track thereof euen by thē who somtimes haue deemed somewhat against it is plainly to be discerned Yea in sundry articles of our faith the whole streame of antiquitie runneth so oppositely directly against the doctrine and practise of the Romane church that now is as that we may wōder at their extreme impudency and wilfulnes who against so cleare and euident testimony do still persist in the maintenance thereof Which in some part thou shalt see in the treatise here following and shalt vnderstand according to the occasiō here offered that howsoeuer they cry with wide mouthes The fathers the fathers yet their crie is greater then their strength and that the Fathers haue not left vs vnfurnished either of armour to defend our selues or of weapons to conquer them And the more to secure thee hereof I haue set downe the testimonies of the Fathers for the most part in their owne words either in Latine or translated into Latine or in the Greeke tongue sometimes where I had the copie at hand and saw the Latine translation not fitly to expresse the Greeke I haue had a sincere and faithfull care to deale vprightly herein and not to trouble thee with impertinent allegations but onely such as are pregnant and cleare to that purpose for which they are alledged That God by whose prouidence this seruice hath befallen vnto me make the same profitable both to thee and me and graunt vs by writing and reading to increase in the light and assurance of his truth that we may more and more see and discerne the frauds of these Mountebanks and iuggling Sophisters who by insolent ostentation of words and casting of false and deceitfull colours take vpon them to be able to charme the world and by their wits to iuggle all other men beside their wits treading vnder foote the word of God pretending the fathers names and betraying the faith of the fathers subiecting all religion to their owne fancie and saying after the manner of wicked men k Psal 12.4 With our tongues we will preuaile we are they that ought to speake who is Lord ouer vs And thou O merciful Father who onely art the refuge and dwelling place of thy poore and maligned Church l Psal 68.18 stablish for thy names sake the thing that thou hast wrought in vs go forward with the worke which thou hast so graciously begun to dissolue the captiuity of Babylō and to free the remnant of thy Church from the yoke of the slauerie and bondage of Antichrist that all stumbling blockes of Popish prophanations and idolatries being remoued there may be a way prepared for the returne of the forlorne seede of Abraham into the societie of thy people that thencefoorth we may expect and looke for the comming of thy Sonne Iesus Christ to make an end of these euill dayes and to gather vs euerlastingly to that hope which in him thou hast set before vs. m Apoc. 22.20 Amen Lord. Come Lord Iesus come quickly The speciall Contents of this Booke THat the Church of Rome maketh Christ in effect no Christ pag. 14. c. That Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist pag. 39. Of Free-will Chap. 1. pag. 86. Of originall sinne after Baptisme Chap. 2. pag. 163. Of the certaintie of Saluation Chap. 3. pag. 255. Of Iustification Chap. 4. pa. 379. in which are handled these points 1. That righteousnesse before God is imputed not inherent pag 387. 2. What manner of faith it is whereby we are iustified p. 434. 3. That Faith onely doth iustifie pag. 468. 4. How we affirme it vnpossible to keepe Gods commaundements pag. 550. 5. That our good works are not free from staine of sin p. 573. 6. That true faith cannot be without charitie good works pag. 605. Of Merits Chap. 5. pag. 629. Of Satisfaction Chap. 6. pag. 729. Of Traditions Chap. 7. pag. 839. Of Vowes and namely of the Monkish vowes of chastitie pouertie and obedience Chap. 8. pag. 992. Of Images Chap. 9. pag. 1105. THE PREFACE TO THE READER BY DOCTOR BISHOP GEntle Reader I meane not here to entertaine thee with many words the principall cause that moued me to write was the honour and glorie of God in defence of his sacred veritie then the imploying of his talent bestowed vpon me as well to fortifie the weaker sort of Catholiks in their faith as to call backe and leade others who wander vp and downe like to lost sheepe after their owne fancies into the right way I tooke in hand particularly the confutation of this booke not only for that I was thereunto requested by a friend of good intelligence and iudgement who thought it very expediēt but also because perusing of it I found it penned more schollerlike then the Protestants vse to do ordinarily For first the points in controuersy are set down distinctly and for the most part truly Afterward in confirmation of their opinion the chiefe arguments are produced from both Scriptures Fathers and reason Which are not vulgar but culled out of their Rabbins Luther Peter Martyr Caluin Kemnitius and such like though he name them not Lastly he placeth some obiections made in fauour of the Catholike doctrine and answereth to them as well as he could And which I speake to his commendation doth performe all this very briefly and clearly So that to speake my opinion freely I haue not seene any booke of like quantitie published by a Protestant to contain either more matter or deliuered in better method And consequently more apt to deceiue the simple especially considering that he withal counterfeiteth to come as neare vnto the Romane Church as his tender conscience will permit him whereas indeed he walketh as wide from it as any other noueller of this age Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best imployed about the discouering of it being as it were an abridgement of the principall controuersies of these times and do endeuour after the same Scholasticall manner without all superfluitie of words no losse to maintaine and defend the Catholike partie then to confute all such reasons as are by M. Perkins alledged for the contrary Reade this short treatise good Christian diligently for
the Church and Pope of Rome He hath alledged S. Bernard before and he is answered before Further he bringeth Irenaeus saying b Iren. lib. 3. ca. 3 Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter poteâ—tiâ—â—em principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles â—n qui semper ab 〈◊〉 qui suâ—t vnd que conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio To this Church by reason of the more mightie principalitie it is necessarie that euery Church that is the faithfull on all sides do agree in which the tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies preserued of theÌ„ that are about her Which words he alledgeth but drawes no direct coÌ„clusion from them nor indeed can do but by begging that which is in question betwixt vs. It was necessarie in the time of Irenaeus that euery Church should accord to the Church of Rome because therein the tradition and true doctrine of the Apostles had bene faithfully preserued but will M. Bishop hereof simply conclude that it is now also necessarie for euery Church to accord with the Church of Rome It is a question now whether she retaine the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles nay it is out of question that she doth not so and therefore her former commendation is no argument that we should approue her now Ierusalem was c 2. Chron. 6.6 the city which the Lord did chuse to place his name there She was a faithfull citie so long necessarie it was that all other cities shold conforme themselues to her But d Esa 1.21 of a faithfull citie she became a harlot and departed so farre from her former steps as that she crucified the Sonne of God and killed his Saints and in the end it was said of her by a voyce from God as Iosephus recordeth e Ioseph de bello Iudaicoâ—â— 7. c. 12 Migremus hinc Let vs depart from hence So the Church of Rome was a Virgin the chast and faithfull spouse of Christ continuing stedfastly in the doctrine by which she first became the Church of Rome and so long as she so coÌ„tinued it was necessarie for al Churches to accord with her as for her to accord with all other Churches that had done the like But she is since become an vncleane filth prostituted to all manner of fornications embrued drunken with the bloud that she hath sprit so that now the voyce of God calleth to vs in like sort concerning her Go out of her my people Neither hath M. Bishop any better helpe by that that he will further alledge that Irenaeus mentioneth a potent principalitie of that Church For that potent principalitie was not intended by Irenaeus for any supremacie of the Church of Rome but imported onely an honour yeelded vnto it in respect of the imperiall state of the citie of Rome which we know men of inferior townes are wont to yeeld to them that are of high and honorable cities only for the preheminence of the place But if the Church of Rome had had any such potent principalitie as M. Bishop intendeth in respect whereof all other Churches shold yeeld subiection and obedience vnto her then would not f Jren. apud Euseb hist eccles lib. 5. cap 23. Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna haue refused to yeeld to Anicetus the Bishop of Rome in matters of difference betwixt them as Irenaeus sheweth he did before his time neither would g Ibid. cap. 22. Hieron in Catal. Script Eccles in Polycrate Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of the Asian Churches haue resisted Victor in the time of Irenaeus neither would h Cypr ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephane Cyprian haue contradicted Stephanus neither would Aurelius and Austin and the rest of the Fathers in the Councell of Carthage haue i Concil Carth. 6 Aphrican cap 101. c. withstood the claime of the Bishop of Rome for authoritie to receiue appeals made from them to him neither would those sixe hundred and thirtie Bishops in the Chalcedon Councel haue yeelded to the Patriarch of Constantinople according to a former decree of a councell of k Conc Constantinop 1. cap. 2. Constantinople an equalitie of priuiledge and prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome The matter is very plaine l Conc l. Chaâ—cedon Act. 15. ca. 28. Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbi ilâ—a imperaret iure Patres priuâ—legiae tribuere Et eadeÌ„ consideratione moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuere rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio Senatu honerata sit aequalibus cum antiquissimo Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis non secus ac illaÌ„ extolli magnificari secundaÌ„ post illam existentem The Fathers say they haue yeelded priuiledges to the sea of old Rome because that was the Imperiall citie And the hundred and fiftie Bishops of the Councell of Constantinople being moued with the same consideration haue yeelded equall priuiledges to the sacred sea of new Rome that is Constantinople rightly iudging that the citie which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enioyeth equall priuiledges with old Rome should also in ecclesiasticall matters be no lesse extolled and magnified then it is being the next vnto it Thus they acknowledge the principalitie of the Church of Rome to be nothing else but in respect that that citie was the seate of the Empire and therfore Constantinople being become the seate of the Empire and in respect thereof being called New Rome they gaue to the Church of Constantinople equall dignitie and principalitie with the Church of Rome leauing to the Bishop of Rome onely precedence of name and place The Legates of the Bishop of Rome would faine haue had it otherwise but the whole Councell approued the decree Now by that that hath bene said to Irenaeus the answer is plaine to that that M. Bishop further citeth out of Hierome The true faith and doctrine of the Godhead of Christ was then maintained by the Church of Rome against the remainder of the infection and poyson of the Arian heresie Hereupon Hierome writeth to Damasus Bishop of Rome to be aduertised of the vse of some words that concerned that point He commendeth the Church of Rome m Hieron ad Damasum Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum seruatur haereditae for that the inheritance of the Fathers that is the true faith was preserued vncorrupt with them onely For this cause doth he bind himselfe to the communion and fellowship of Damasus Vpon the rocke of that faith which the Church of Rome stil held he knew the Church to be built In respect of this faith he that went out of that house that is left the communion of that Church because thereby he renounced the truth he became prophane In the same respect he that gathered not with Damasus being
a maintainer of the true faith be must needes be a scatterer He could not be of Christ that refused them that tooke part with Christ and therefore must be of Antichrist In this respect he renounced Vitalis Milesius and Paulinus because n Erasm schol ibid. they were all either knowne or suspected to be partakers of the heresie of Arius and therefore very deceitfully doth M. Bishop alledge that he would not set vp his rest with his owne Bishop Paulinus who was no meane man but the Patriarch of Antioch as hereby to adde a superioritie to the Bishop of Rome when as there was otherwise so apparant cause why he should refuse so to do In all this therefore Hierome saith no more of the Bishop and Church of Rome then he might haue said of any other Bishop and Church professing true faith and doctrine as the Church of Rome then did but very farre was he from teaching or intending any perpetuall necessitie that all Churches for euer should conforme themselues to the Church of Rome And that he neuer had any such meaning let it appeare by himselfe when being vrged with the example of the Church of Rome he answereth o Hieron Epist. ad Euagr. Quid mihi profers vntus vrbis consuetudinem quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas What dost thou bring to me the custome of one citie why dost thou maintaine a paucitie or fewnesse whence hath growne proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church He had said a little before p Ibid. Si autoritas quaeritur orbis maior est vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij siue CoÌ„stantinopoli siue Rhegij siue Alexandriae siue Tanis eiusdem meriti est eiusdeÌ„ sacerdotij Potentia diuitiaruÌ„ pauperiatis humilitas sâ—l linuorem vel inferiorem EpiscopuÌ„ non facit caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt If we demaund authority the world is greater then the citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be whether of Rome or of Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanes he is of the same worth and of the same office of Bishopricke Power of wealth or basenesse of pouertie maketh a Bishop neither higher nor lower but they are all successors of the Apostles Thus he spake purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome charging the same with proud domineering ouer the lawes of the Church affirming the authoritie of the Churches through the world to be greater then the authority of the Church of Rome attributing to euery Bishop of whatsoeuer place equalitie in office with the Bishop of Rome because all are alike successors of the Apostles Yea and to shew that the Church of Rome receiued no more by Peter then other Churches did by the rest of the Apostles he saith in another place that q Idem adu Iouin lib. 1. At dicis super PetruÌ„ fit datur Ecclesia liceta idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelerum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur the Church is built vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the strength of the Church is equally grounded vpon them Whereby it plainely appeareth that Hierome neuer meant to make the Church of Rome any such perpetuall Mistris and ruler of other Churches as M. Bishop dreameth her to be Yea but S. Ambrose further saith I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome But why did M. Bishop giue ouer there not adde also that that followeth r Ambros de Sacram lib. 3. cap. â— In omnibus cupio sequi Romanâ—m Ecclesiam sed tamen nos homines sensum habentus ideo quod alibi rectiùs seruatur nos rectè custodimus I desire saith he in all things to follow the Church of Rome but yet we are also men that haue vnderstanding and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere we also iustly obserue the same S. Ambrose being Bishop of Millaine not farre from Rome sheweth that he yeelded a reuerend respect vnto the Church of Rome but yet professeth that things might be better in other places then they were at Rome and that his Church of Millaine had vnderstanding to iudge what was fit aswell as the Church of Rome and therefore that they held not themselues tyed by any necessarie dutie to the example thereof but would do what they thought more rightly performed in any other Church Now then what shall we thinke of M. Bishop who thus shamefully seeketh to blind his reader by alledging one part of a sentence for his purpose when the other part thereof expresly crosseth that for which he alledgeth it And thus much concerning M. Bishops answer to M. Perkins Prologue For the rest I will God willing follow him in like sort steppe by steppe according to his owne words in more honest and faithfull manner then he hath dealt with M. Perkins and that in such sort I hope as that the meaner learned shall vnderstand that the learning which he would teach them is naught and the more iudicious shall be able to iudge that it is a very bad cause to which the marrow and pith of many large volumes can yeeld no better defence then he hath brought CHAPTER 1. OF FREE WILL. 1. W. BISHOP THat I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath sayd agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off onely superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning Free will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free will both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will onely whereby we chuse or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more popular M. Perkins 1. Conclusion Man must be considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renued as he shall be glorified In the first state we ascribe vnto mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or will either good or euill note that this libertie proceeded not from his owne nature but of originall Iustice in which he was created In the third libertie of grace in the last libertie of glorie Annot. Cary this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will R. ABBOT MAister Bishop here dealeth as iuglers are wont to do who make shew of faire play when they vse nothing 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
was impossible that God should lie we might haue strong consolation which can be but very weake yea none at all so long as we hang it vpon any other thing It is therefore a wicked presumption to hope for Saluation by vertue of our owne doings but the presumption that groweth of faith is a commendable presumption h Ambros de Sacrament lib. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione suâ— sed de Christi gratia c. Bona praesumptio It is a good presumption saith Ambrose to presume not vpon thine owne worke but vpon the grace of Christ Such a presumption S. Austin teacheth i August in Psal 85. Quicquid est circae te vel inte vnde possit praesumâ—re abijce à te tota praesumptio tua Deus sit Whatsoeuer there is about thee or in thee to presume of cast it from thee and let God be thy whole presumption or presume wholy vpon God Namely in that sort as S. Ambrose teacheth by occasion of Dauids words k Psal 119.116 Receiue me according to thy word l Ambros in Psa 118. Ser. 15. IntoleraÌ„dae praesumptionis videretur Deo dicere suscipe me nisi promissum eius adiungeret hoc est vt auderemus ipse feeiâ—â—i tuo te chirographo conuenimus It were a matter of intollerable presumption saith he to say to God Receiue me but that he addeth the promise of God as if he should say Thou hast caused vs to presume we challenge thee vpon thine owne bond This is the presumption of true faith whereby we withdraw our eyes from our selues and cast them wholy vpon God assuredly beleeuing that we shall receiue because we beleeue in him that promiseth Therefore Gregorie saith m Greg. Magn. in Ezech. hom 22. Per praesumptionem gratiae vitae caniant iusti iudicium quod ti iusti omnes pertimescunt By presuming of grace and life the righteous sing of that iudgement which all the vnrighteous are afraid of Let M. Bishop then learne that there is a godly presumption of Saluation and eternall life which because it cannot arise of any sufficiencie of our workes must necessarily be grounded vpon faith alone Wherein notwithstanding faith receiueth comfort and strength by the good fruits and effects of grace in the feare and loue of God in faithfull care and conscience of duty towards God and men because albeit of themselues they cannot be presumed of yet being fruits of faith euen in their beginnings imperfections are n Bernard de grat lib. arbit Occuliae praedestinationis indicia future foepâ—citatis praesagia tokens of Gods secret election foretokens of future happinesse so that a man o Idem epist 107. Vocatus quisque per timorem iustificatus per amorem praesumit se quâ—que esse de numerâ— beatorum called to God by feare and framed to righteousnes by loue presumeth that he is of the number of them that shal be blessed M. Bishop is not acquainted with true faith and professeth that he knoweth not whether he haue any feare or loue of God and therfore no maruell that he is a stranger to this presumption do take that to be an vnlawfull presumption which indeed is nothing but true faith 6. W. BISHOP To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them To his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answer to the third first which is The Catholikes say Pag 56. we are indeed to beleeue our Saluation on Gods part who is desirous of all mens Saluation very rich in mercie and able to saue vs but our feare riseth in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sins depend vpon our true repentance Vnlesse you do penance ye shall all perish Luke 13. And the promises of Saluation is made vpon condition of keeping Gods commaundements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements Againe No man shall be crowned Math. 19.2 Tim. 2. except he combat lawfully Now we not knowing whether we shall well performe these things required by God at our hands haue iust cause to feare lest God do not on his part performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions To this M. Perkins answereth That for faith and true repentance euerie man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them To which I replie that for faith being rightly taken it may be knowne of the partie that hath it because it is a light of the vnderstanding and so being like a lampe may be easily seene but true repentance requires besides faith both hope and charitie vvhich are seated in the darke corners of the vvill and cannot by faith be seene in themselues but are knowne by their effects vvhich being also vncertaine do make but coniectures and a probable opinion so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith Proue your selues whether you be in faith or no. 2. Cor. 13. Because we accord that it may be tried by vs whether we haue faith or no although I know well that Saint Pauls words carrie a farre different sence But let that passe as impertinent To the other 1. Cor. 2.12 That we haue receiued the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God What things these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs S. Paul teacheth in the same place That which the eye hath not seene nor eare hath heard c. God hath prepared for them that loue him but to vs God hath reuealed by his spirit All this is true but who they be that shall attaine to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared God onely knoweth and by his spirit reuealeth it to verie few And will you learne out of S. Ierome that ancient Doctor the cause why In 3. caput Ion. Therefore saith he it is put ambiguous and left vncertaine that while men are doubtfull of their Saluation they may do penance more manfully and so may moue God to take compassion on them R. ABBOT The condition of repentance is required not as whereby we worke our Saluation but whereby we seeke it and that not by the keeping of the commandements wherein we all faile but in Christ alone by faith in him whence followeth a measure of keeping Gods commandements and of striuing lawfully vnto him not as any proper cause of Saluation but as parts and tokens and preparations of and to that Saluation which we receiue and haue by Christ alone Now here M. Perkins bringeth in the Popish Doctors affirming that we cannot be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that which we suppose our selues to haue M. Perkins answereth that he that doth truely repent and beleeue knoweth that he doth so To this M. Bishop replieth that faith being rightly taken may be
fall and runne into enormous offence thereby to be the better instructed how little safetie we haue in our owne defence and therefore how necessarie it is for vs to depend wholy vpon his grace Thus the Apostle Peter presuming too much of himselfe and being left thereupon to himselfe fell euen to the denying and abiuring of his maister Christ that he in himselfe and we in him might learne that q 1. Sam 2.9 by his owne might shall no man be strong and that euill would our state be if our safetie did not rest onely and altogether in the Lord. Thus therefore in both places cited by M. Bishop and in many other we read of feare to feare the iudgements and threatnings of God which the faithfull alwayes doth because faith beleeueth them to feare to trust in our selues which euerie faithfull man also doth because faith it selfe importeth trust in God but we no where reade any thing whereof to gather that which he affirmeth that the faithfull ought to stand in feare of their owne Saluation Now therefore his argument is easily answered for the minor proposition which he saith is plainely proued by the places cited is meerely false and hath no proofe at all either by those places of any other And how absurdly doth he abuse his Reader that whereas the proposition by him to be proued is not expressed in the places alledged he notwithstanding skippeth ouer with meere quoting of them without shewing how the matter to be proued is to be inferred thereof But such pretie shifts do best become the cause that he hath in hand About the maior proposition whereof there is lesse question he bestoweth a little paines to little purpose No man must stand in feare of that of which by faith he is assured Which we grant as it importeth a dutie that no man ought to haue any feare of that which he is taught to beleeue but we deny that which he saith for the prosecutiō or explication therof For it is false that there is no feare in faith that is that there is no faith where there is feare or feare where there is faith For whē our Sauior Christ vpbraideth his disciples with r Mat. 8.26 14.31 fearfulnes doubting and yet attributeth vnto them little faith as before is alledged he plainly sheweth that little faith it subiect to feare and doubt and yet ceaseth not thereupon to be faith He saith that he that feareth cannot giue certaine assent We answer him that our assent is according to the measure of our faith little faith yeeldeth but weake assent but yet it is a true assent whereby we embrace that whereto we assent The truth of which faith and assent hereby appeareth euen in feare because feare causeth it to fall to prayer which what is it else but as it were the casting forth of the armes of faith to catch hold of him in whom it beleeueth as expecting succour and helpe of him for s Rom. 10.14 how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued Thus the faith of the disciples appeared in the places euen now cited when their feare made them to go vnto Christ and say to him Maister saue vs which they would not haue sayd but that they beleeued to haue safetie and deliuerance by him Whereas therefore M. Bishop alledgeth the old sayd saw Dubius in fide infidelis est he that is doubtfull in the faith is an infidell or vnbeleeuer we tell him that it is true in him that wholy and absolutely doubteth But there is a difference to be made betwixt him that absolutely doubteth and him that weakly assenteth and in assent is only interrupted with some feare or doubt For which interruption I trow M. Bishop will not say that the disciples of Christ were faithlesse when Christ himselfe expresly acknowledgeth their faith And thus by reason the seeds of all impietie lie still hidden in the corruption of our nature it commeth to passe that faith sometimes is assaulted with doubts euen in the maine and principall articles of our beleefe and out of our owne sinfull condition we question vpon occasion the godhead the power the wisedome the prouidence the iustice and mercie of almightie God when yet our faith doth not wholy relinquish the assent thereof Which though in generalitie it more seldome come to passe yet in application of our generall faith to particular occasions we many times goe halting and lame and stagger somewhat at that whereof our faith should giue vs full assurance by the word of God Thus did t Gen. 18.12 Sarah cast doubt of Gods promise as touching the hauing of a child who yet is said u Heb. 11.11 through faith to haue receiued strength to conceiue when she was past age because she iudged him faithfull that had promised Thus did x Numb 11.21.22 Moses call in question the power of God as touching prouiding flesh for the people of Israel when he promised so to do So y Psal 73.2.3 Dauid and z Habac. 1.2.13 Habacuk staggered as touching the prouidence of God and his care of iust and righteous men So I shewed before how the disciples vpon the death of Christ were in a mammering concerning the godhead of Christ and the hope of redemption by him which before they had imbraced Yet we do not thinke that such doubts and mammerings did in these men wholy extinguish the light of true faith In like sort therefore we also resolue that the faith whereby we beleeue our owne Saluation is not by and by ouerthrowne because sometimes the assurance thereof is shaken and interrupted with casting of feares and doubts And thus the argument which he added for supplie of those which M. Perkins brought is found to be of as little indeed lesse worth then all the rest and it well appeareth that M. Perkins was better able to speake for M. Bishop then M. Bishop is able to speake for himselfe 11. W. BISHOP To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies taken as well out of the holy Scripture as out of the ancient Fathers First what can be more manifest to warrant vs that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their Saluation Eccles 9. then these words of the holy Ghost There be iust and therfore faithfull and wise men and their workes be in the hand of God and neuerthelesse a man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come Where is then the Protestants certaintie And because one heretike cauilleth against the Latine translation saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned heare how S. Ierome Comment in hunc locum who was most cunning in the Hebrew text doth vnderstand it The sence is saith he I haue found the workes of the iust men to be in the hand of God and yet themselues not to know whether they be
act of faith it is in that prayer to beleeue that God will giue that which he is assured of before hand such foolish petitions cannot please God and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied that any faithfull man may pray for his Saluation but rather thanke the Lord for it But to answer directly he who prayeth must beleeue he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer which be many but to this purpose two are required necessarily the one that be who prayeth be the true seruant of God which first excludeth all those that erre in faith touched in these words What you of the faithfull shall desire when you pray shall be giuen you The other is when we request matters of such moment that we perseuer in prayer and continue our sute day by day of these sutes of eternall Saluation we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken We must alwayes pray Luk. 1â— and neuer be wearie and then no doubt but we shall in the end receiue it But because we are in doubt whether we shall obserue those necessarie circumstances of prayer or no therefore we cannot bee so well assured to obtaine our sute although we be on Gods part most assured that he is most bountifull and readier to giue then we are to aske But saith M. Perkins S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith 1. Iohn 5. calling it Our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will But where find we that it is Gods will to assure euery man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall Saluation is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauior towards him R. ABBOT The argument is very pregnant and cleere Christ hath taught vs to a Mat. 11.24 beleeue that we shall haue that that we pray for We are to pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life We are therefore to beleeue that we shall haue forgiuenes of sinnes and euerlasting life Nay saith M. Bishop we must pray for our Saluation therefore we are mâ— assured of it He forbare to answer strictly by the very termes of the argument because therein his notable impudencie and wâ—â—â—ll contradiction to the word of Christ had verie notably appeared For then he must haue answered thus We must pray for our Saluation therefore we must not beleeue that we shall haue Saluation directly against the words of Christ instructing vs to beleeue that we shall haue that that we pray for But to take that which he doth say I answer him againe that our praying for Saluation is an argument that we are not yet assured of it by possession but it hindereth not but that wee are assured thereof in hope We are not assured of it as a thing in present but yet we are assured of it as a thing to come As for his conceipt that we are not to pray for anie thing that we haue assurance to obtaine the follie and blinde ignorance therein bewrayed is sufficiently discouered before in the fifth Section We beleeue the promise of God as touching our Saluation not doubting but that he will make vs partakers thereof according to his promise to those that doe beleeue in him but as yet we enioy not this Saluation He leadeth vs on in the hope and desire of it and by our prayer we vtter our desire still resoluing that he will effect it but yet still begging and crauing till hee doe effect it So then we thanke God that he hath called vs to this hope and we reioyce therein but still we begge the accomplishment of that that hee hath taught vs to hope for But to leaue this as handled before he will further giue vs as hee saith a direct answer and that is that hee that prayeth must beleeue hee shall obtaine that vvhich he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer But we answer him that it is not for the perfection of our prayers that God accepteth vs but for the true affection of our hearts We manie times faile in the due circumstances of prayer and much faintnesse and weaknesse we shew therein when yet we beleeue that God mercifully respecteth vs therein by the intercession of Iesus Christ Now of these circumstances he setteth downe two as necessarily required the one that he that prayeth be the true seruant of God the other that he perseuere in prayer And what of these Marrie saith he because we are in doubt whether we shall obserue those necessarie circumstances of prayer or no therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtaine our suite Behold he is in doubt whether he be the true seruant of God or not and we may therein see the blindnesse wherein Poperie holdeth men not discerning the miserie of their owne estate He knoweth no faith but what is incident to diuels and damned men he cannot tell whether he haue any true hope towards God any loue any true repentance whether he be the true seruant of God whether God heare or regard his prayer but walketh altogether in the darke and knoweth not whither he goeth But true faith yeeldeth a man whereof to say b Psal 116.16 Behold O Lord for I am thy seruant c 119. vers 125. I am thy seruant O giue me vnderstanding that I may I keepe thy commandements d 143. ver 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant c. As for perseuerance in prayer saith expecteth it also of him that e Psal 10.17 prepareth the heart and f Zach. 12.10 powreth vpon vs the spirit of grace and of prayer g Rom. 8.26 which maketh request for vs that is h August epist 105. Quia interpellare nos facit nobis interpellandi gâ—â—nendi inss rat affectum maketh vs to make request for our selues and inspireth into vs the affection of prayer with sighes and grones that cannot be expressed If the faithfull man in these things depended vpon himselfe he should haue iust cause to feare and doubt his owne perseuerance but he saith with the Apostle i 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue beleeued and I am sure that he is able to keepe that which I haue committed vnto him against that day euen my selfe my faith my hope my prayer my soule my life knowing my selfe to be a verie vnsafe keeper of my selfe Yea he prayeth also for perseuerance and because he is willed to beleeue that he shall haue that that he prayeth for therefore he beleeueth that he shall perseuere and the word of Christ assureth him that he shall so doe because he saith k Mar. 11.24 Beleeue that ye shall haue it and it shall be done vnto you To which purpose Saint Bernard well saith l Bernard in Cant. ser 32. In bonis Domini quatenus fiduciae pedem porrexeris eatenus possidebis In
BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towards God beleeuing those things to be true which God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus And when knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgements they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a new life and to keepe all Christs commandements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and mans owne Iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Iesus Passions the instrumental is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onely formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification Of the Iustification by faith and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is iustified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnesse for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnesse which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formal cause of Iustification is our iustice that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience whereas obedience if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hands R. ABBOT The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification is the very heresie of the Pelagians as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace b Coster Enchirid cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum motio spiritus s adhuc foris degentis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed mâ—uâ—nus adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem not any intrinsecall or infused but only outwardly assisting grace which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged they deriue faith hope loue repentance the feare of God the hatred of sinne and purpose of new life whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith hope charity and other gifts of the holy Ghost then to be powred into his soule Whereby though they will not seeme so to do yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that which if Pelagius had not denied condemned he had bene condemned himselfe c August epist 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits In which sort Bellarmine saith that d Bellarm. de Iustificat lib. 1. cap. 1â— Fides â—ustificat per moduÌ„ dispositioâ—is merin meretur remissionem peccateruÌ„ suo quodam modo faith iustifieth by way of merit that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes applying thereto some speâ—ches of Austine which to that purpose were neuer meant In seâ—â—ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell he committeth an absurd errour in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification as if it selfe could be the final cause of â—â—eâ—fe whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life Whereâ—â— he saith that they agree with vs in this point that Iustification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God through his in◠〈…〉 our Sauiours Passion he doth but sop◠〈…〉 For if Iustification be of the free grace of God then it is not of works according to that of the Apostle e Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace But he afterwards professedly disputeth that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God and therefore formally he nameth it but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith shall be proued vnto him God willing by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note in which he telleth vs that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience whereas obedience saith he if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hand Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle in that he saith f Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous For to him he might likewise say that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience that many by it are made righteous whereas by his obedience if it had bene without charity many could not haue bene made righteous But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie whereas charity is the very mother of obedience neither is there any true obedience but what issueth therefrom And therefore M. Perkins well noted though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes 2. W. BISHOP And whereas M. Perkins doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is
in the not imputing thereof but also in h Cap. 6.6 destroying the body of sinne and restoring in vs the image of God i Ephe. 4.24 in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth he hauing giuen himselfe k Tit. 2.14 to purge vs to be a peculiar people vnto himselfe and l Ephe. 5.27 to make vnto himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing And all this Christ will effect vnto vs but he will do it according to his owne will not according to Popish fancie All this is now in fieri non in facto esse it is begun and in doing but it is not yet finished and done it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead In the meane time he bringeth vs not to perfect righteousnesse in our selues nor giueth vnto vs a full immunitie from sinne that he may take away from vs all occasion of reioycing in our selues that as Saint Austine noteth m August de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 13. Vt dum non iustificatur in coÌ„spectu erâ—s viuens actionem gratiarum semper in dulgentiâ—e ipsius debeamus siâ— ab illa primâ— caâ—sa omniuÌ„ vâ—ticrum id est ae tumore superbâ—e sancta humilitate scruemur whilest no man liuing is found iust in the sight of God we may alwaies owe thankesgiuing vnto his mercie and by humilitie may be healed from swelling pride and n Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Vt scâ—amus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit that we may know as Saint Bernard saith at that day that not for the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Now therefore we doe no wrong to Gods goodnesse wisedome iustice in our iustification as Maister Bishop fondly chargeth vs because we teach iustification in the same sort as God himselfe hath taught it vs inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessarie effect but not conteining it as an essentiall part We hold sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in this sence that the one cannot be without the other and that no man is iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ but we denie sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in Maister Bishops meaning as to be any cause or matter of it As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him the true purpose of it onely is to shew the worke of Gods grace to be irreuocable in them vpon whom he hath set the marke of his election and hath iustified them by faith in Christ to whom as Saint Austine saith o August Soli. loq cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonuÌ„ etiam peccata ipsa euen their very sinnes doe worke for good and thereof is made as it were a triacle and preseruatiue against sinne so that as Bernard saith p Bernard de triplici cohaer clauor vincul glutin Of Certaintie of Saluation Sect. 9. though Dauid be branded with the blot of horrible sinnes and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Maister yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God who because he will preserue them therefore preserueth their faith and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification and though by occasion they fall yet they neuer so fall but that q 1. Iohn 3.9 his seede remaineth in them and r Psal 37.24 his hand is vnder to lift them vp againe Now because we affirme the inward sanctifying of the heart to be alwaies an infallible consequent of iustification there is no place for that obiection of his that we make the righteous man like to sepulchers whited without with an imputed Iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder The imputation of righteousnesse both outwardly and inwardly is our iustification before God and by sanctification the iustified man both outwardly and inwardly becommeth other in quality then he was before so that although sinne in part be still remaining to lust and rebell yet it is brought into subiection that it raigneth not and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit a man is not by it reputed full of iniquitie and disorder But of this sufficient hath bene said Å¿ Sect. 17. before by occasion of the same cauill in his epistle to the Ring Here as he giueth further occasion we tell him that that remainder of sinne in the regenerate is couered with the mantle of the righteousnesse of Christ and so S. Austine as we haue seene before calleth it t August de nupt concup lib. 2. ca. 34. peccatum tectum sinne couered or hidden But saith he it is madnesse to thinke that any thing can be hid from the sight of God We answer him that God seeth it well enough with the eye of his knowledge but by reason of that couerture u August in Ps â—1 Noluit aduertire Tecta quare vt non videâ—â—tur Quid erat Dei videre peccata aâ—si puâ—ire peccata will not see it with the eye of his iudgement he seeth it with a discerning but seeth it not with a reuenging eye euen as it is said x Numb 23.21 He seeth no iniquitie in Iacob nor beholdeth transgression in Israel But he demaundeth Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away and adorne the soule with grace c. He hath his answer before I will here quit him onely with Saint Austins words y Augus â—â—nat Câ—â—grat cap. 27. riot agit Deus vt â—aâ—ct onâ—â—a sed agit tuâ—licio suo nec ordinem sanaâ—di accipit ab aegreto God is in hand to heale all but he doth it at his owne discretion and receiueth not of the sicke man an order for his cure Againe he asketh Hath not Christ deserued it We tell him ye Christ hath deserued it and for his merits sake it shall be done but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it Christ hath deserued for vs to be wholly freed from mortalitie corruption and death as before was sayd but mortalitie corruption and death yet continue still When mortalitie corruption and death shall be abolished then shall sinne also wholly and for euer be taken away Last of all he demaundeth Is it because God cannot make such iustice in a pure man I answer him out of Tertullian z Tertul. aduers Praxeâ—in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac senteÌ„tia vtamuâ— quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volanduÌ„ instruxâ—sse non tamen quia potuit statim fecit c. Probare apertè debebis ex Scripturâ—s If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceiue opinion we may faine what we list of God as if he had
trecherously and falsly he dealeth in saying that the best learned of our side do confesse that the Fathers be all against vs hath bene shewed before and it shall appeare God willing throughout this whole booke that there is no cause for them so to say 15. W. BISHOP The second difference about the manner of Iustification VVE all agree in generall that faith concurreth to our Iustification but differ in three points First how faith is to be taken Secondly how it worketh in our iustification Thirdly whether it alone doth iustifie Concerning the first point Catholikes hold a iustifying faith to be that Christian faith by which we beleeue the articles of our Creed and all other things reuealed by God The Protestants auerre it to be a particular faith whereby they apply to themselues the promises of righteousnesse and of life euerlasting by Christ This to be the true iustifying faith M. Perkins saith he hath proued alreadie he should haue done well to haue noted the place for I know not where to seeke it but he will here adde a reason or twaine 1 Reason The faith whereby we liue is the faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue is a particular faith whereby we apply Christ to our selues as Paul saith I liue Gal. 2 â—0 that is spiritually by the faith of the Sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the words following Who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly Answer The Maior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith whereby we apply Christes merits vnto our selues making them ours in the proofe Saint Paul saith onely that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christes iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ died as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue was so exceeding great towards mankinde that he would willingly haue bestowed his life for the redemption of one onely man But hereupon it doth not follow that euery man may lay hands vpon Christes righteousnesse and apply it to himselfe or else Turkes Iewes Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make very bold with him but must first doe those things which he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them heartily of their sinnes to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. Perkins also confesseth that all men haue not onely promised Pag. 152. but also vowed in Baptisme Now because we are not assured that we shall performe all this therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse and life euerlasting although we beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular That which followeth M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that Saint Paul in this manner of beliefe that is in applying to himselfe Christes merits was an example vnto all that are saued See the places good Reader 1 Tim. 1.16 Phil. 3.15 and learne to beware the bold vnskilfulnesse of sectaries For there is not a word sounding that way but onely how he hauing receiued mercy was made an example of patience R. ABBOT That the act of true faith is particularly to apply hath bene handled before in the question of the Certaintie of Saluation but yet the place so requiring M. Perkins thought fit here to set downe some few reasons for further proofe thereof The first whereof is grounded vpon the words of S. Paul a Gal. 2.20 I liue by the faith of the Sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me M. Bishops exception is that S. Paul speaketh not of faith wherby we apply Christes merits or iustice vnto our selues making them ours but saith onely that Christ died for him in particular But what is not the death of Christ a part yea and a principall part of the merit of Christ With vs it is so and M. Bishop we suppose when he is well aduised conceiueth no otherwise If then the Apostle speake of faith apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ he speaketh of faith apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the merit of Christ And all parts of the merit of Christ are parts also with vs of the righteousnesse of Christ As his obedience in b Ambros in Ps 118. ser 8. Baptizatus pro nobis being baptized for vs was his c Mat. 3.15 righteousnesse so his d Phil. 2.8 obedience in dying for vs was his righteousnesse also Therfore faith applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ applieth vnto vs particularly the righteousnesse of Christ Now M. Bishop telleth vs that all Catholikes beleeue with S. Paul that Christ died as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular of his exceeding great loue towards mankind But tell vs further M. Bishop was that all that S. Paul meant that Christ loued him as he loued all men he died for him as he died for all men Was this S. Pauls faith Christ loued me as he loued Iudas the traitour he died for me as he died for Simon Magus It is written concerning Esau e Rom. 9.13 I haue hated Esau and in him a patterne of all reprobates is set forth vnto vs and might Esau say as well as Paul Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Indeed as S. Austine saith f â— August ad articul sibi falso imposit art 1 Quod ad magnitudineÌ„ et potentiaÌ„ pretuÌ„ quod ad vnaÌ„ pertinet causam generu humani sanguis Christi redemptio est totim mundi c. Redemptionis proprietas haud dubiuÌ„ penes illos est de quibus princeps hâ—ius mundi missus est foras et â—am non membra diaboli sed vasa sunt Christi Cuâ—us mors non impensa est humano generi vt ad redemptionem eius etiam qui regerandi non erant pertinerent c. as touching the greatnesse and sufficiencie of the price and one coÌ„mon cause or condition of mankind the bloud of Christ is the redemption of the whole world but yet as he further addeth there is a propriety of this redemption on their part from whom the Prince of this world is cast forth and who are not now vessels of the diuell but members of Christ neither did he bestow his death vpon mankind that they also that were not to be regenerated should belong to his redemption Christ in his death intended a price of such extent in value and woorth as should be of power and ablenesse to saue all and therefore should be offered indifferently to all but yet in loue he paied this price onely for them to whom of loue he intended
fruit and benefit thereby in loue he gaue his g Mat. 20.28 26.28 soule or life a redemption for many he shed his bloud for many h Hiero. in Mat. 20. NoÌ„ dixit pro omnibus sed pro multis id est pro his qui credere voluerunt not for all saith Hierome but for many that is for them that should be willing to beleeue who are i Act. 13 48. so many as are ordained vnto eternall life If he had loued Iudas he would haue loued him to the end because k Ioh. 13.1 whom he loued he loued to the end If he had loued vniuersally all he would haue praied for all but now there is a world of men of whom he saith l Cap. 17.9 I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen me m Ver. 6. out of the world that we may know that there is n Cap. 3.16 a world which God loueth euen o August in 1. Ioan. tract 1. Propitiatio peccatorum totius mundi quem suo sanguine comparauit the world which Christ hath gained by his bloud which is p Act. 20 28. the Church of God the same Church being reckoned q Prosp. de voc Gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Populus Dei specialis quaedaÌ„â—ensetur vniuersitas vt de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videâ—ntur assumpti a speciall kind of vniuersality as it were a whole world redeemed or deliuered out of the whole world and that there is a world of which Christ saith r Ioh. 8.23 I am not of the world and Å¿ Cap 17.9 I pray not for the world which therefore he cannot be vnderstood to loue And according to this difference the Church of Smyrna writeth that t Euseb hist eccl lib. 4 cap. 15. Pro totius seruandoruÌ„ mundi salute passus est Christ suffered for the saluation of the whole world of them that are to be saued Properly therefore to speake of the intendment of Christes death he died not generally for all but onely for them that were to be saued thereby Therefore S. Austine hauing mentioned the words of the Apostle u Rom. 8 3. Who spared not his owne Sonne but gaue him for vs all asketh the question x Aug. in Ioan. trac 4â— Sed quibus nobi Praescitu praedestinatis iustificatis glorificatis de quibus sequitur Quis aâ—cusabit c. But which vs Euen vs saith he whom he hath foreknowne predestinated iustified glorified of whom it followeth Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect So S. Ambrose y Ambr. in Luc. ca. 7 Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est quia pro Ecclesia passus est Though Christ died for all yet specially he suffered for vs because he suffered for his Church For the elect then Christ hath died in peculiar and speciall wise to giue vnto them the benefit that should arise of his death for them onely he hath giuen himselfe in loue with purpose to make them partakers of his loue And in this meaning it is that the Apostle saith Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me which because it is the voice of faith it followeth that by faith we haue particular application of Christes loue towards our selues and do beleeue that hauing giuen himselfe for vs and being giuen vnto vs he is wholy ours the merit and righteousnesse that he hath performed in giuing himselfe to liue and to die for vs is ours to the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and euerlasting life Now then euery true beleeuing man hath by the Gospell this boldnesse ministred vnto him to make application to himselfe of the death of Christ and the benefit therof and yet it followeth not that Turkes Iewes heretikes lewd Catholikes may make bold with Christ in that behalfe because they haue not faith whereby to conceiue this boldnesse and we cannot but wonder that so drunken a conclusion should proceede from him that carieth the name and reputation of a learned man They must first saith he do those things which he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent heartily of their sinnes to beleeue and hope in him First saith he they must do these things but hauing so done may they then apply vnto themselues the merit and righteousnesse of Christ If so then he saith nothing against vs who teach no faith to saluation but according to the rule of Christ z Mar. 115. Repent and beleeue the Gospell no remission of sinnes but according to the like rule that a Luk. 24.47 repentance and remission of sinnes are preached in the name of Christ and againe b Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized euery one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes We say with Austine c August in Psal 41. Nemo currit ad remissionem peccatoruÌ„ nâ—si qui displicet sibi No man runneth to the forgiuenesse of sinnes but he that is displeasing to himselfe and againe d Jdem in Psal 123 Jn ecclâ—siae corpus nemo intrat â—isi priùs eccisus meritur quod fuit vt sit quod non fuit No man entreth into the body of the Church except he be first slaine he dieth as touching that he was that he may be that that he was not Now if hauing done these things he may not yet apply vnto himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ then M. Bishop doth but trifle and mocke his Reader in saying fiâ—st he must do these things And yet how doth he say that a man thus doing is made partaker of Christes inestimable merits if he may not apply the same vnto himselfe Marry saith he we are not assured that we shall performe all this therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse But what if we know that we haue done all this may we then apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse His meaning is that we may not because as we haue heard he denieth wholy the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ and therefore doth but spend his wit in assigning the cause why we may not apply the same to be because we are not assured of doing the things mentioned by him But if he be not assured of his repentance faith hope c. no maruell if he faile of all other assurance towards God yet let him not be like the dogge in the manger if he can make no vse of Christ himselfe let him not be snarling and biting at them that doe As for the places alledged by M. Perkins to shew that Paul is vnto vs an example of beleeuing the former of them is plaine e Phil. 3.17 Brethren be followers of me and looke on them that walke so as ye haue vs for an ensample If in the faith and doctrine of
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
a more excellent gift then faith therefore it should be the forme and life of faith or faith the instrument of charitie It followeth not that because the eie is more excellent then the eare therefore for the vse of hearing it should be more excellent then the eare No more doth it follow that because charitie is more excellent then faith therefore for the vse of iustification it must excell faith Faith and charitie respectiuely haue the preferment each of other If we respect latitude of vse charitie is more excellent then faith as which is extended euery way to God to Angels to men and by which all the gifts of God which he bestoweth vpon vs are made profitable to other men so as that k Aug. de verb. DoÌ„ ser 18. Vniuersa inutilitèr habet qui vnum illud quâ— vniuersis vtatur non habet vnprofitably he hath all saith Austine who wanteth that one whereby he should vse all l Chrysost hom de fide spe charit Nullum charismae sine charitate perfectam est nullum donuÌ„ sine charitate aptuÌ„ Quicquid enim charismatis aut doni quisque meruerit desertuÌ„ charitate non stabit Omnia enim quae Sp. sanctus deuotis aut impertit aut donat aut charitate perficiuâ—tur aut sine charitate effectuÌ„ nulluÌ„ sortiuntur No gift saith Chrysostome is perfect or conuenient without charitie Whatsoeuer grace or gift a man hath obtained being destitute of charitie it will not stand because whatsoeuer God imparteth or giueth either is perfected by charity or without charity it commeth to no effect or vse But if we consider a man priuately in himselfe and for his owne vse faith is more excellent then charity as wherin originally standeth our communion and fellowship with God m Ephe. 3.17 by which Christ dwelleth in our hearts into which as a hand God putteth all the riches of his grace for our saluation and by which whatsoeuer else is in vs is commended vnto God We haue nothing in vs pure nothing cleane nothing but what is corrupted defiled but faith salueth all healeth all setteth Christ betwixt God and vs that for his sake he may be mercifull vnto vs. Againe if we respect latitude of time coÌ„tinuance charity is to be preferred before faith For faith is but for a time and when the promise of God which is the matter or subiect of it shall be fully accomplished the vse of it shall cease But charity and loue abideth for euer and shall continue betwixt God and vs an euerlasting bond Therfore Origen saith n Origen in Numer hom 14. Sola charitas nunquaÌ„ excidit ideò super prophetiaÌ„ super fideÌ„ super scientiam super ipsum etiaÌ„ martyrium charitas habenda est Onely loue it is that neuer faileth therefore it is more excellent then prophecie then faith then knowledge then martyrdome o Chrysost hom de fide spe charit Sola charitas aeterna est quia cum Deo in sanctiâ— est ideo maior est Only charity is eternall saith Chrysostome because with God it is in the Saints for that cause it is the greater The same reason S. Austine also giueth p August de doct Christ lib. 1. cap. 39. Quia cùm quisque ad aeterna peruenerit duobus istis decedentibus charitas auctior certior permanebit because saith he when a man is come to things eternall those two faith and hope failing charity shall remaine more increased and better assured In few words to resolue M. Bishop in this behalfe we say that q Aristot Topic. the end is more excellent then those things which pertaine to the end The end of our faith iustification is charity that is the full restoring of vs to the image of God the very summe and effect whereof is loue Absolutely therefore to speake it is true that loue is greater and more excellent then faith But when we speake of the meanes of iustification and attainment of that saluation whereto perfect charity and righteousnesse doth belong then faith must be preferred as the greater and more excellent faith onely beareth sway therein and this slender weake charity which here we haue is of no effect or moment thereunto To saue a man I say faith is the greater in man being saued charity is the greater Till faith haue finished our saluation loue must yeeld to faith When faith hath fully saued vs it shall haue an end but loue which simply is the greater shall abide for euer Now as touching the place of Austine he speaketh there of faith according to vulgar vnderstanding in like sort as S. Iames doth He speaketh of a faith that may be without charity which true faith cannot be r August epist 85. Pia fides sine spe charitate esse non vult Godly faith saith the same Austine will not be without hope and charity For Å¿ Idem de verb. Dom. ser 61. Si fidem habet sine spe delectione Christum esse credit non in Christum credit if a man haue faith without hope and loue saith he he beleeueth Christ to be but he beleeueth not in Christ But that onely is the true iustifying faith whereby a man beleeueth in Christ which taketh not his life and force of loue but incorporating vs into Christ receiueth of him t 2. Tim. 1.7 the spirit of loue and by Christ giueth life and force to all the fruites and workes thereof Faith then as it is professed to men may be without charity but being without charity it profiteth nothing nor can stand vs in any steed with God but true faith is neuer diuided from charitie nor can be and therefore of it Saint Austine speaketh not That which he would seeme to inferre is without any premisses and apparantly false by the very words here questioned For if faith worketh by loue then faith is the worker that is the mouer and commaunder and loue the instrument by which it worketh and as absurd it must needes be to say that charity or loue is the commaunder and faith the instrument as to say the axe is the commaunder of the Carpenter that heweth with it or the Carpenter the instrument of the axe For conclusion of this section Maister Bishop wil giue vs a reason to proue that in the worke of iustification charitie hath the chiefest place First he asketh full wisely whether that worke of iustification by faith be done for the loue of God and to his owne honour or no Iustification is the worke of God who is u Rom. 3.26 the iustifier of him that is of the faith of Iesus His question is this whether God do iustifie vs for the loue of God But I answer him that the finall end of our iustification is the honour and glory of God who hath x Ephe. 1.5.6 predestinated vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto himselfe to the praise of the
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
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
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
iustification He excludeth not then good workes which proceede from Gods grace as M. Bishop saith but he denieth that there are any good workes before iustification because he knoweth no grace but iustifying grace and therefore directly crosseth Maister Bishops assertion of good workes before iustification which are the causes for which we are iustified 29. W. BISHOP Maister Perkins third argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this end of apprehending but faith onely Answer Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries must needes know little But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnesse according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours onely by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but onely the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them ours thē faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him But charity doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship A micorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertues we take such hold on Christes merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying De nat gra cap. vlt. That Charity beginning was Iustice beginning Charitie encreased was Iustice encreased great Charitie was great Iustice and perfect Charity was perfect Iustice R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledgeth that very reason may teach vs that faith onely iustifieth because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiuing but faith onely To this M. Bishop answereth that mans reason is a blind mistresse in matters of faith Wherein he saith truly and indeede is the cause why he himselfe writeth so blindly as he doth and measureth high mysteries by carnall and base conceipts And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blinde who gaue so blinde a reason against that which Maister Perkins saith being spoken not out of the reason of man but as the reason of a faithfull man may esteeme by direction of the word of God No man entreth into the possession of any thing saith he by beleeuing that he hath it for if a man beleeue that he is rich doth he thereby become rich I answer him no but though a man by beleeuing himselfe to be rich do not become rich yet if to a poore begger a great man say If thou wilt take my word and referre thy selfe to me and depend vpon my fauour and good will I will make thee rich doth he not by giuing credit to his word commit himselfe to him entertaine his fauour accept his offer and become owner of that that is promised vnto him What is it whereby we accept of promise but onely beliefe Now all that our question is of consisteth of promise in all the benefits of God we are a Gal. 4.28 the children of promise b Cap. 3 29. heires by promise c Heb. 6.17 heires of promise expecting all things by the gracious promise of God d 2. Pet. 1.4 by promise to be partakers of the diuine nature e Gal. 3.14.16 the blessing by promise f Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise g Gal. 3.18 the inheritance by promise h Tit. 1.2 life eternall by promise i 2. Pet. 3.13 by promise a new heauen and a new earth wherein righteousnesse dwelleth all which k 2. Cor. 1.20 promises in Christ are yea and in him Amen for his sake first made and for his sake to be performed also Now seeing God hath taught vs that l Heb. 11.33 by faith we obtaine the promises that m Gal. 3.14 we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith that n Ibid. ver 22. the promise of blessing is giuen by the faith of Iesus Christ to them that beleeue that o Mat. 8.13 as we beleeue so it shall be vnto vs that p Mat. 11.24 whatsoeuer we desire when we pray if we beleeue that we shall haue it it shall be accordingly vnto vs why is it strange to M. Bishop that in beleeuing according to the word and promise of God to be partakers of those things which he hath promised we should be said to become partakers thereof In those mad presumptions fondly alledged by him there is no beleeuing because there is no ground whereupon to beleeue but when God promiseth and tieth the effect of his promise to the beleeuing of it not to beleeue that in the beleeuing of it we are partakers of that which we beleeue is to make God a liar and to frustrate that which he hath promised Sith then God hath promised Christ vnto vs to be q Ierem. 23.6 our righteousnesse and that r Rom. 3.22 by the faith of Iesus Christ that is by beleeuing
him to be that vnto vs which God hath promised surely in beleeuing him to be our righteousnesse he is our righteousnesse and ſ 2. Cor. 5.21 we are made the righteousnesse of God in him And this is indeede not by receiuing Christes righteousnesse really into vs but by hauing righteousnesse imputed vnto vs for his sake For we receiue the righteousnesse of Christ euen as we receiue himselfe who so becommeth ours as that t Iohn 6.56 we abide in him and he in vs u Ephe. 5.30 we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones we are really and truly by the power of his spirit one with him and he with vs and yet he is not personally bodily brought vnto vs. Faith seeketh Christ and findeth him and holdeth him in the virgins wombe in the maunger in the garden vpon the crosse in the graue in his resurrection and ascension vnto heauen and in his now sitting at the right hand of God to make intercession for vs. Euery where faith imbraceth him and in euery of these seeth him to be ours as hauing vndertaken and atchieued all these things for our sakes Euen so the righteousnesse merit of Christ is spiritually but really ours within and without in spirit soule and body to clense and sanctifie vs vnto God But saith he if it be ours by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it A foolish and idle question as if he should say If I giue food to a hungry man what neede hath he either of a hand to take it or a mouth to eate it He himselfe saw that the answer is ready euen the same that Ambrose deliuereth x Ambros in Rom ca. 4. Sic decretum a Deo hoc sāxit Deus Et in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutū est c. God hath so decreed it is thus appointed of God God requireth faith to which he will impute the righteousnesse of Christ Where we may wonder at the absurd boldnesse of this blind baiard who telleth vs hereupon that he will be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs. What M. Bishop wil you be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper to apply Christ vnto vs as that which God himselfe hath appointed for that vse Is not the will and ordinance of God sufficient to restraine your presumption and boldnesse to shut your mouth from running ouer in this sort He saith that there is no other aptnesse requisite in the cōdition it selfe but only the wil and ordinance of God But shal we be so impious as to think that the wil ordinance of God without cause appointeth one cōdition whē as wel it might appoint another or appointeth anything to be don which is not more fitly done that way that he appointeth then any other way The Apostle telleth vs y Rom. 4.16 Therfore it is by faith that it may be of grace importing that faith is appointed as the fittest meanes wherby to set forth the grace of God Again he addeth for another reason z Ibid. That the promise might be sure to all the seed For no otherwise can we rest assured of the promise of God but as it is of grace who in our works can find nothing whereupon to assure our selues By faith therfore we beleeue it to be of grace that with cōfortable assurāce we may firmly expect the blessing which God hath promised vnto vs. Another reasō with S. Paul why faith is specially appointed is a Cap. 3.27 to exclude boasting So saith Ambrose b Ambros in Psal 43. Maluit Deus vt salus homini fide potius quà m operib quaereretur nequis gloriaretur in suis factis God hath made choise that saluation should be gotten rather by faith then by workes that no man should glory in his owne doings It is therefore for the speciall aptnesse of faith that God hath appointed it to be the instrument for applying vnto vs the whole benefit of Christ Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that true diuine reason teacheth him that both hope and charity do much more apply Christes merits vnto vs then faith doth But it is indeede a dreaming and vnreasonable fancie and not anie true diuine reason that hath taught him so For whereas he saith that hope applieth in particular what faith beleeueth in generall it hath bene before shewed that the office of true faith is to make this particular applicatiō And indeed there can be no true hope in any man where there is not first a faith to apply the benefit of Christ particularly to himselfe For though I beleeue that Iesus is a Sauiour yet what ground haue I thereby to hope for saluation vnlesse I beleeue that he hath saued me that c Gal. 2.20 he hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Surely vnlesse I beleeue for my selfe I cannot hope for any thing for my selfe saue onely at vncertaine aduenture and without ground Now M. Bishops hope being no other how can he be said thereby to apply that to himselfe whereof he is still to stand in feare whether it be his or not But to come neerer to the point the question here is of applying the merits of Christ vnto vs. Now the merit of Christ is that that Christ hath already done for vs. But hope respecteth that onely that is futurely to be done Hope therefore can in no sort be the instrument to apply vnto vs the merit of Christ Neither can charitie serue vs for that vse because I cannot presume of that that is anothers vpon any conscience of my loue towards him but vpon confidence onely of his loue towards me Howsoeuer I seeme to employ my selfe to the seruice of God yet it giueth me nothing whereof to presume with him vnlesse I beleeue that of his loue he doth accept my seruice and will reward the same Be it as Maister Bishop saith that all things are common amongst friends but before we can build thereupon wee must haue it resolued vnto vs that God taketh vs for his friends which can be no otherwise but by faith onely d Rom. 3.25 God hauing set foorth Christ to be an attonement to make vs friends with God through faith in his bloud Faith then must first applie vnto vs the merite of the bloud of Christ before there can be anie friendshippe betwixt God and as And although being now in friendship with Christ our loue may giue vs encouragement and comfort to make vse to our selues of that that is his yet it is not by our loue that we take it to make vse therof For the art of loue is done only extramittendo by issue and passage from vs to Christ and therefore it must be somwhat else whereby we receiue and apply from Christ to vs. To be short we wonder what application M. Bishop can make by charity who e Chap. 3. Sect.
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
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
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
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
galled himselfe in the riding of him We do imagine that by that time he hath better aduised of this whole matter he will thinke that some body did ride him when first he tooke this businesse in hand We may here see the blinde insolencie of a presumptuous vaine man who hauing said nothing but what is iustly to be derided and scorned yet taketh vpon him as if he had giuen vs some very admirable and learned answer Yea in this very place he bableth as if his wits were to seeke crossing and thwarting that in one line which he vttereth in another He telleth vs that the words of Esay were spoken in the person of the sinfull who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath and yet by and by he saith that their good workes though but few were free from all spots of iniquitie Againe as vncertaine where to stand he telleth vs that their euill works defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath If their good works were free from all spots of iniquity how did their euil works defile them and make them like a stained cloath Or if their euill workes did defile their good and make them like a stained cloath how were they free from all spots of iniquitie Againe we would demaund of him how sinfull or as he hath called them before euill and wicked men should do good workes free from all spots of iniquitie seeing our Sauiour so plainly saith that a Mat. 7.18 Luk. 6.43 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite no more then we can gather grapes of thornes or figges of thistles S. Paul telleth vs that b Tit. 2.15 to them that are vncleane nothing is pure their mindes and consciences being defiled Which made S. Bernard to say that c Bern. in Cant. Ser. 71. Si fuerit nâ—â—us in conscientia nec quod ex ea prodieriâ— carebit naeuo if there be a blemish or blot in the conscience nothing that commeth from it shall be without a blot How then can it stand good which M. Bishop saith that sinfull and wicked men do good workes which are free from all spots of iniquitie But thus he turneth all vpside downe and according to the present occasion letteth goe whatsoeuer commeth next to hand without feare or wit But vpon the place I neede not to stand I referre the Reader to that that hath bene d Seâ—t 3. before said thereof where it hath bene shewed that the Prophet by way of prophecie endited the praier in the name of the faithfull that were to liue in the desolations of Ierusalem and the Temple that the praier of the Prophet Daniel at that time fully expresseth the effect of the same praier of Esay and therefore that it is the confession of the faithfull godly that their righteousnesse is as a stained cloth and that the auncient Fathers haue vsed the place for proofe thereof 49 W. BISHOP 3. There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him and such like I answer that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is onely enquired whether the good workes that the iust do be free from sinne and not whether they at other times do sinne at the least venially This is all which M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter but because some others do alledge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the besieged minde of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnesse is ouerthrowne vp starts lechery and so forth Answer All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his owne frailty he may be somtimes foiled Dial. 1. cap. Pelag S. Hierome affirmeth That then we are iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners Answer That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne Epict. 29. S. Austine hath these words Most perfect charity which cannot be encreased is to be found in no man in this life and as long as it may be increased that which is lesse then it ought to be is faulty of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man who doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do and consequently doth not so well but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Woe be to the laudable life of a man Lib. 9. confess cap. 13. if it be examined without mercy All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life do many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath bene proued They alledge yet another place out of S. Austine Lib. 3. con duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else-where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faults Now come we vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of whose sweet words ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob Lib. 9. moral cap. 1. because he did see all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be straightly examined of the inward Iudge doth rightly adde if I will contend with him I cannot answer him one for a thousand I answer that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue which we haue of our owne strength without the aide of Gods grace which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice that S. Gregory so tooke it appeares by the words both going before and following before he writeth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For whosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good which he had receiued for he that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God with his owne gifts And after thus To contend with God is not to giue to God the glory of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of
this our vertue which commeth not of God but is attributed vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good workes all which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God dwelling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot attaine vnto perfect purity such as shall be in heauen reade the beginning of his first and second booke of Morals and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skies as a good and holy man by his temptations not foiled but much aduaunced in vertue R. ABBOT These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his owne head there being none of ours that alledgeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warriour he maketh himselfe a man of straw to fight with and with all his might bestirreth himselfe against a shadow But the worth of his answers is first to be seene in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle a Psal 32.2 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The best men sinne venially saith he and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiuenesse or not imputing of sinne there spoken of to be the imputation of righteousnesse But the forgiuenesse of their veniall sinnes is not the imputation of righteousnesse because without any forgiuenesse of veniall sinnes a man continueth righteous and iust as wherein there is no breach of iustice and righteousnesse and notwithstanding the same a man is iust in the sight of God as out of the Romish doctrine was shewed in the section last sauing one Therefore forgiuenesse of sinnes spoken of in that place cannot be vnderstood of veniall sinnes Againe he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction that forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh not away the temporall punishment of sinne How then is a man happie when those veniall sinnes be pardoned if for want of satisfaction he remaine still to pay deare for them as he speaketh in his Epistle in Purgatory fire He bringeth in a place of Cyprian as idlely as he did the former texts To that which he saith we answer him that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiuenesse of sins that the wounds which the faithfull man receiueth be not mortall His foiles and wounds of themselues are such as that he must say with Dauid b Psal 130.3 If thou O Lord be extreame to marke iniquities who can stand c Aug. in Psal 129. Vidit propè totaÌ„ vitaÌ„ humanaÌ„ circuÌ„latrari peccatis suit accusari omnes coÌ„scientias cogitationibus suis non inueniri castum cor praesumens de iustitia sua Si ergo cor castuÌ„ non potest inuenirs quod praesumat de sua iustitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei dicat si c. He saw saith S. Austine the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on euery side with his sinnes all consciences to be accused by their owne thoughts that there is not a cleane heart found that can presume of it owne righteousnesse If then therâ— cannot be found a cleane heart which may presume of it owne righteousnesse let the hearts of all presume vpon the mercy of God and say If thou markest iniquities O Lord who shall abide it Let Maister Bishop marke it well that in this warfare there is no heart cleane that can presume of it owne righteousnesse and that we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely Gods mercy To the place of Hierome he saith that all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially But iust men confesse their sinnes in the same meaning as they say Forgiue vs our trespasses They say Forgiue vs our trespasses as S. Austin saith the Apostles did as we heard before for those sinnes for which they say also Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified They confesse therefore such sinnes as hinder them from being iustified in the sight of God which M. Bishop saith his veniall sinnes do not The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome is a sufficient answer to him the latter part whereof he concealeth because it taketh away his glose vpon the former d Hieron cont Pelag li. 1. Tunc iusti â—umus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur et iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia Then are we iust when we coÌ„fesse our selues to be sinners and our righteousnesse standeth not vpon our owne merit but vpon the mercy of God If our righteousnesse consist in the acknowledgement of our sinnes and in the mercy of God pardoning and forgiuing the same then is there in vs no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of neither can any worke come from vs that can haue the title of absolute and perfect righteousnesse before God And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alledged out of Saint Austine who noting diuers degrees of charity saith that e Aug. epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iaÌ„ augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine QuaÌ„diâ— autem augeri potest profectò quicquid minus est quà m â—ebet ex vitio est the most perfect charity no further to be increased is in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of a corruption or default Now hereto Saint Austine addeth not onely that which Maister Bishop mentioneth though he mention it also by halfe f Ex quo vitio 〈◊〉 est iustuâ— c. By reason of which g Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Aug. de li. aâ—â—iâ— lib 3. cap. 14. corruption there is not a man iust vpon earth which doth good and sinneth not but also another sentence which he concealeth h Ex quo vitio non iustificaâ—â—tur c. By reason of which corruption no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God Now if by reason of a corruptioÌ„ remaining in vs there be such an imperfection of charity which is the substance of inherent iustice as that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight then can no good worke proceede from vs which can be said to be perfectly and entierly goâ—d For from an vnperfect cause cannot come a perfect effect i Bern in Cant. ser 71. Si radix in vitio ramus If the roote be faulty the braunch also must be so A lame legge cannot yeeld an vpright and stedfast gate Therefore needes must there be a lamenesse and blemish in all the good workes that issue from vs. For charity is not such as it ought to be till we loue the Lord our God with all our soule But k Aug. de perfect iustit
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
Esuriuâ— c. Quid tam vile quid taÌ„ terrenum quà m frangere panem esueriente Tanti valet Regnum coelâ—ruÌ„ Si non habes facultateÌ„ frangendi paneÌ„ c. da calicem aquae frigidiae mitte duo miâ—uta in gazophylacium TaÌ„tuÌ„ emiâ— vidua duobâ—s minuus quantuÌ„â—mit Petrus relinquens reâ—â—a quantum emit Zachâ—us dando dimidium patrimonium Tanti valet quantum habueris for what thing He answereth I was hungry and ye gaue me to eate What is there so base saith he what so concerning the earth as to breake bread to the hungry At so much is the Kingdome of heauen valued vnto thee If thou haue no ability to breake bread to the hungry c. yet giue a cup of cold water cast two mites into the treasury The widow for two mites bought as much as Peter forsaking his nets as Zachee did in giuing halfe his goods It is valued vnto thee at so much as thou hast Thus the purpose of this iuditious Doctor is directly against Maister Bishops cause of receiuing the Kingdome of heauen shewing how base and of how little woorth the things are whereto God notwithstanding of his vouchsafing grace returneth the Kingdome of heauen that we may know that it is not for our merits sake that he bestoweth the same As for the imputation of Christes merits M. Bishop knoweth no vse of it because he yet knoweth not himselfe but he will then know the vse of the merits of Christ when he commeth to know how vainly and fondly he hath presumed of his own To the true Church of Christ it was neuer strange tidings that Christes merits should be imputed vnto them whose hope hath alwaies bene to finde fauour at Gods hands by vertue of that merit that he hath performed for them 16 W. BISHOP Here by the way M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that we take away a part of Christes mediation For saith he if Christes merits were sufficient what neede ours It hath bene told them but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it I will yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings which haue or shall be bestowed vpon all men from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it yet his diuine will and order is that all men of discretion hauing freely receiued grace from him do merit that crowne of glory which is prepared for them not to supply the want of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good works he best knew that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards vnto all them that would diligently endeuour to deserue them The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation I will therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life in the two first points we do for the most part agree to wit that our sinnes are freely pardoned through Christes passion and that we are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although we require other preparation then they do yet we as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause of either as they do Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen we differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christes righteousnesse and merits but we say that Christes righteousnesse and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth powre into euery true Christian a particular iustice whereby he is sanctified and made able to do good workes and to merit eternall life Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift through Christes merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits which he hath appointed to be the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeede vnder colour of magnifying Christes merits to vndermine and blow out all the vertue of them But saies Maister Perkins what should we talke of our merits who for one good worke we doe commit many bad which deface our merits if we had any True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may hap to do euil that is a faire perswasion and well worthy a wise man R. ABBOT To say that they take away a part of Christes mediation is no slaunder but truth as by M. Bishop himselfe appeareth in this very place To M. Perkins saying that if Christ did sufficiently merit eternall life for vs then he should do more then is needefull in making vs able to merit for our selues he answereth that though Christes merits be of infinite value and haue deserued of God all graces and blessings yet his diuine will and order is that we also merit that crowne of glory But to what end when he hath merited it already Marry not to supply the want of his merits but as being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting Thus we must thinke that M. Bishop is like vnto Christ in this point of meriting or rather we must think him an impious wretched man thus in meriting to consort himselfe and his with the Sonne of God and to bring in these prophane nouelties into the Church which neither Scripture nor councell nor father nor any antiquitie was euer acquainted with Where hath he euer read that Christ would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting What is this but to affirme him in a kinde of generality * Our conformity and likenesse to Christ wherin it standeth see of satisfaction Sect. 2. onely to be Iesus Christ but that otherwise he hath left it to euery man to be a Iesus Christ a Redeemer and Sauiour for himselfe because it is his will to haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting by which it is that he is become Iesus and a Sauiour vnto vs It is by meriting I say that Christ is vnto vs Iesus a Sauiour and therefore if we be like vnto him in meriting it cannot be auoided but that we also are Sauiours Yea and for this matter of meriting necessary it was that he that should be our Redeemer should be God because none
but God no Angell no Archangell no creature whatsoeuer could merit at the hands of God and yet this man sticketh not blasphemously to affirme that in this point of meriting we are like vnto the Sonne of God And all this meriting for ought he saith remaineth still needlesse and causelesse because for shame he dareth not deny that in words which indeed he doth deny that Christs merits are inestimable and haue deserued all graces and blessings for vs. Which being graunted to what end should we be like vnto Christ in meriting Nay we rightly conclude thereof because God doth nothing idlely that therefore he doth not appoint vs to merit that for our selues which Christ hath already merited in our behalfe Wheras he saith that God desirous to traine vs vp in all good workes best knew that there is no better spurre to pricke forward our dull nature then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards we acknowledge that so farre he saith truly but where he addeth that they are proposed to such as wil endeuour to deserue them I must remember him of the sentence of Marke the Hermite before alledged that a Marc. Herem Supra sect 14. some keeping the commandements expect the Kingdome of heauen as a wages deserued or due vnto them and that these faile of the Kingdome of heauen Now here M. Bishop in his brauery sitteth him downe in his chaire and taketh vpon him to teach M. Perkins as a man much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation but if M. Perkins had knowne it in no better sort then he teacheth him we might haue taken him indeede for a very simple and ignorant man True it is which he saith that the office of Christes mediation consisteth in reconciling man to God and that he performed this by paying the ransome of our sinnes by purchasing Gods fauour and ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life But he saith very vntruly that in the two first points for the most part we agree for they are farre from agreeing therein with vs or with the truth of the Gospell of Christ They do not hold that our sinnes are freely pardoned or that we are freely iustified albeit he is ashamed to confesse that they hold it otherwise For what is it to say freely but b Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end for nothing as his Rhemish Maisters haue expounded it and they do not hold that our sinnes are pardoned or we iustified for nothing but for works And that appeareth by that he addeth next although we require other preparation then they do For the workes of preparation they make to be the cause of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and iustification as he himselfe hath c Of Iustification Sect. 21. before disputed onely he thinketh the matter handsomly salued that workes are the cause of iustification but not the merit of works and with this iugling deuice he addeth that they as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause thereof as we do Wheras the Scripture saith nothing of the merit of workes but absolutely excludeth workes from being any part of the cause of our iustification before God neither opposeth each to other grace and merits but grace and workes not saying If it be of grace it is not of merits but d Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace were no grace Therefore these words of his are but words of hypocrisie and falshood and vsed onely to blinde the vnskilfull Reader and to conceale that venime and poison that would otherwise easily be espied Albeit his maister Bellarmine sticketh not to tell vs that e Bellarm. de iustificat lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustificat per modū meriti suo quodā modo meretur remissionē peccatorum faith which is one of their preparations doth iustifie by way of merit and doth in some sort merit forgiuenesse of sinnes that we may know that very vntruly and against his owne knowledge M. Bishop affirmeth that they as fully deny merit to be the cause of forgiuenesse of sinnes or iustification as we do About the meanes of attaining to heauen he saith we differ altogether For they say saith he that God requires no iustice in vs. Where as he hath sought to cleare his owne part with a lye so doth he with a lye seeke to disgrace ours We do not say that God requireth no iustice in vs we only deny that the iustice which God requireth in vs is the cause of our iustification before God or can yeeld vs any merit towards God and therefore in this respect we desire f Phil. 3.9 to be found in Christ and by faith to stand vnder the couerture of his merits and righteousnesse and in the imputation thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life Now against this he saith that Christes righteousnesse and merits are not communicable vnto anie meere creature But he saith he knoweth not what for what should hinder but that what Christ hath done for vs should be communicated and imputed vnto vs And is not Christ himselfe communicated vnto vs g Esa 9.6 borne vnto vs giuen vnto vs become h Iohn 17.23 one with vs Accordingly therefore he is i 1. Cor. 1.30 of God made righteousnesse vnto vs euen k Ierem. 23.6 the Lord our righteousnesse that we may say l Psal 71.14 I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God and will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely But he will haue it that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes and to merit eternall life One part whereof we acknowledge to be true that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes because good workes are the way wherein we are to walke to that eternall life which he hath merited and purchased for vs. But the other part thereof is false and we denie that he hath appointed vs by our good workes to merit for our selues eternall life It is a Romish fancie which we maruell they so busie themselues to cōmend to others when none of them dare presume of it in himselfe M. Perkins by sound argument hath confuted it and M. Bishop is content againe barely to affirme it without either proofe of his owne part or disproofe of that that is said against it In a word we do not finde in Scripture that Christ died for our good workes that they might merit but onely for our sinnes that they might be pardoned This is the auncient receiued faith of the Church of Christ but the other is a nouelty which antiquity neuer imagined but is lately deuised in the Church of Rome He saith that they by this doctrine of Merits do much more magnifie Gods grace and Christes merits then we do And why For the greater the gift is saith he the greater is the glory of the giuer But I answer him that the gift is greater in that Christ giueth himselfe to be
faults vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painful works done to appease Gods iustice were works of satisfaction M. Perkins answereth many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God as these words also do witnesse Leuit. 4. ver 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it R. ABBOT M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place Ilfauouredly it is propounded and ilfauouredly maintained but yet such learning it is as he with great paines hath brought from Rome The foundation that he layeth is a lie and the building that he setteth vpon it a ridiculous consequence He telleth vs that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices according the diuersitie of the sinnes But where is that ordinance why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith where do we find in Moses law that for such or such a sinne greater or lesse shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price was framed according to the same law of Moses and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices as in sinnes of ignorance a Leuit. 4.3 for the Priest a yong bullocke b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same c Ver 22.23 for a ruler a he goate for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goate e Chap. 5.15 for any consecrate thing by errour withholden a ramme of two shekels f Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done the same for g Chap. 6.6 sinne wittingly committed the same also for the high h Chap. 16.3 Priests yearly offering for himself and his house a bullocke and a ramme and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goates and a ramme This diuersitie we reade and some few other such like but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price according to the diuersity of the sinnes we reade nothing it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew Well let that go let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults saith he vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull workes done to appease Gods iustice were workes of satisfaction O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after Vaine man was this a paines to be spoken of for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne But to let this passe if k Of the certaintie of saluation sect 2. the honest man of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before should out with a litle Latin and tell him here M. Doctor negatur argumentum how foully wold he be grauelled and so set at a Nonplus that he could not tell which way to turne him What because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes The honest man would tel him Good sir you erre by assigning a wrong cause for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned but for his faith in Christ He laid not his hand vpon himselfe as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe but l Leuit. 1.4 he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast as in figure of Iesus Christ m Esa 53.6 vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all Therefore his sacrifice if he offered it aright was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him and he reciting the answer by halues asketh What is this to the purpose Very much it is against his purpose if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ n Heb. 10.1 The Law had the shadow of good things to come and not the liuely or substantiall image of the things themselues Therefore no satisfaction indeed but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein For o Ver. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin And therfore the Law was p Chap. 7.18 abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it How should it be said to be weake or why should it be called vnprofitable if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction not to God but to the Church of God as testimonies of their repentance and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men What needed that saith M. Bishop when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth I answer him that because all men are sinners euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe and to shew his care to be reconciled to God either for publike or priuate offences whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe Vpon the doing whereof men were accounted to the Church and with men as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture
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.
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