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
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
f Aug. in Psa 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuoruÌ„ in hoc nido operare opera tua the nest wherein we are to lay our workes that we may hatch them vnto God Faith is g Prosp de voc gen l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis iustae actionis est genitrix the mother of a good will and iust and righteous conuersation Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est Christ in vs and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me saith Ambrose according to my faith In a word S. Austin telleth vs that k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Vnde mors in anima Quia fides noÌ„ est Ergo animae tuae anima fides est faith is the soule of our soule what is that to say but the life of all our life It is faith then and not charitie that giueth influence to all the rest euen to charitie it selfe as faith increaseth so other graces are increased as faith decreaseth so other graces decrease the life of faith is our life the strength of faith is our l Cyprian ad Quirinum lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus quantum credimus strength if our faith be weake there is nothing else wherby we can be strong Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry yet no otherwise then he is wont to do in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith when as it is by faith that we m Galath 3.14 receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace on which all our state dependeth towards God 24. W. BISHOP The fourth reason if faith alone do iustifie then faith alone will saue but it wil not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therfore this first shift was very friuolous Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shal also be saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time wil reÌ„der vnto euery man according to his works But of this more amply in the question of merits R. ABBOT Tertullian rightly saith a Tertul. de poenit Horum bonorum vnus est â—itulus salâ—s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place If saluation be the whole and iustification but a part then more is required to saluation then to iustification because more is required to the whole then to a part Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world life and blisse eternall in the world to come The first act of our saluation is our iustification but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light To iustification belongeth only faith to sanctification all other vertues and graces wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14 holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme is very idle They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctified by the spirit of grace neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification But as touching the verie point his minor proposition is false We say that we are saued also by faith onely according to that that before I alledged out of Origen that d Origen in Ro. cap. 3 sup sect 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman Thy faith hath saued thee Hath saued thee saith he as a thing alreadie done according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe For so it is said of Zacheus e Luk. 19.9 This day saluation is come to this house So saith the Apostle f 2. Tim. 1.9 He hath saued vs and called vs with a holy calling g Tit. 3.5 of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is because in iustification as I haue sayd our saluation is begun and in that we are iustified we are saued Christ therein being giuen vs and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone we are saued by faith alone the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily coÌ„sequent not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued but as the processe of Gods worke for accomplishment of that saluation whereto in iustification we are begotten and in way of inheritaÌ„ce intitled by faith alone We are saued by faith alone saith M. Perkins because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who onely is our saluation Where obserue gentle Reader what M. Bishop maketh of that speech that for faith alone we are saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Os impudens Where doth M. Perkins say that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement What a Doctor of diuinitie to lye wilfully to lye What is this but meere varletrie to abuse his Reader not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke but taking it vpon his word But if thou haue M. Perkins booke I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection thou shalt find these words In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man who doubteth not here with manifest falshood to affime that M. Perkins saith that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement And by the same words the solution is
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
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
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
our good workes directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob a Rom. 9.11 Before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not by works but by him that calleth it was said the elder shall serue the younger as it is written I haue loued Iacob and haue hated Esau b August Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed diâ—â—ret ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quastionem c. Where saith S. Austine if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood he would not haue said Not of works but would haue said for the workes that were to come and so would haue put the matter out of question c IdeÌ„ epist 105. Ideo inquiunt Pelagiani nondum natorum alium oderat alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat Quit istum aâ—utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur The Pelagians said as he obserueth that of them being not yet borne God therefore hated the one and loued the other because he did foresee their workes to come Who would not wonder saith he that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle But his resolution euery where is that Gods election is the cause of our good workes not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle d Ephe. 1.4 He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him through loue e De praedest sanct ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramuâ— sed vt essemus Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae c. not saith he because we would be but that we should be not because he foreknew that we would be so but that we might be so by his election of grace The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe f 1. Cor. 7.25 Aug. epist 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull but by his mercy made him so to be It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it deferreth the rest to the question of merits where he saith nothing directly to it It seemeth he was ielous of the matter and therefore was loth to wade too farre least it should too plainly appeare that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit 35. W. BISHOP The fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can do a good worke and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification and hauing before discussed the first and the second now remaining and expecting you why did you not say one word of it the matter being ample and well worthie the handling Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments as we bring to proue a second iustification Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification but these degrees must be made downward of euill worser and worst for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold Pag. 76. else-where let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse which can neuer after be either loosed or increased Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you well coursed read S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory Lib. 2. con Iouin Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against which I will put downe these reasons following R. ABBOT If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation What are they vertuous and yet are they not good Nay he hath called them a Sect. 30. 32. before good qualities good dispositions good preparations and what were they good then and now are they not good Tell vs M. Bishop your mind are your works of preparation good workes or are they not good If they be not good then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good If they be good then it is vntruth that you say here that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse that you haue said amisse Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand which is as he saith of the second iustification whereas Maister Perkins though noting their distinction of first and second iustification yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification whence it must follow that they haue no place in any second iustification And the argument here propounded directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatioÌ„ though he would not see so much For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified theÌ„ can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice Iustice is not full and perfect so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it There is still something to be added in their second iustification till it come to his full terme Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified Now the iustice that is not perfect if it be respected in it selfe cannot be pleasing vnto God It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands There can therefore be no good workes whereby a man should merit their second iustification M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument and hauing so done very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion graunting it in one sort when the premisses inferre it in another and yet braueth and faceth as if the matter were wholly cleare for him
h Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omniuÌ„ materia pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis mundum nihil innocens obtinâ—mus whereby being polluted and filthie saith Hilary we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane They are good then but yet not perfectly good yea if God should strictly and narrowly deale with vs he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy and pure and good from him Now therefore whereas he saith that it can be no good worke wherein is any defect he saith vntruly because good and euill haue their latitude and degrees and accordingly as contraries expell each other the one alwaies growing by the impairing of the other accordingly as S. Austine saith i August de verb. Dom ser 11. Non nâ—bis infâ—rt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra in tantuÌ„ illa crescunt inquantum ista mi nuuntur nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur God doth not bring his good gifts into vs except he take away our euils and so far do the good things increase as the euill are diminished neither shall the one be perfected till the other be fully ended Now in this mixture of contraries that giueth the name that preuaileth most so that k Hier ad Ctesiphont Iusti non quod omni vitio careant sed quod maiori virtutum parte commendâ—ntur men are called iust as Hierome saith not for that they are without all vice but in that they are commended for the greater part of vertues That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good worke in some measure and degree of goodnesse which yet entirely and perfectly and wholy cannot be called good But that we may see how vainely and idlely he talketh his conclusion is diligently to be obserued that there may be many good workes free from all infection of sinne There be many such but all good workes then it seemeth be not free from all infection of sinne And if all be not so then let him tell vs how those good workes which be not free from all infection of sinne be called good workes as he importeth seeing no worke can be called good as he hath told vs before that faileth either in substance or in circumstance or hath any fault or defect in it Let him answer vs for those some and his answer shall serue vs for all the rest 45 W. BISHOP In lieu of the manifold testimonie of Antiquity which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellencie of them I will set downe one passage of S. August wherein this very controuersie is distinctly declared and determined Lib. 3. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth The iustice through which the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the which although it be worthily called in some men perfect according to the capacitie of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater which man made equall to Angels shall receiue Which heauenly iustice he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that was in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that which he wanted But certainly this lesser iustice or righteousnesse breedeth and bringeth foorth merits and that greater is the reward thereof Wherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from al iniustice and iniquitie then that it is also perfect not failing in any duty which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth foorth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs froÌ„ all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath S. Augustin hath the like discourse where he saith directly De spir lit vlt. cap. that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity that many workes of a iust man are without sinne R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin and maketh him in stead of all antiquitie a witnesse of that which he oppugneth euen in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set downe Which that we may the better discerne let vs examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words First that the iustice that we haue in this life is true iustice We acknowledg the same euen as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found drosse euen as it is a true pearle which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or staine It is true righteousnesse a Bernard de verb. Esa Ser 5. Humilis iustitia sed non pura but not pure saith S. Bernard b Idem in fest sanct Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicetâ—r iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra â—â—nùs habens it will be found vnrighteousnesse and scant if it be strictly iudged Therfore M. Bishops exposition of true iustice is false where he maketh the same to be pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Secondly he maketh S. Austin to say that our righteousnesse in this life is perfect not failing in any duty which we are bound to performe But how lewdly doth he therein deale with S. Austin who plainely teacheth that c Aug. de Ciu. Dei lib. 19 ca. 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life standeth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Yea in the Chapter cited by him he saith d Idem contra 2. Epist Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne iusto hactenus perfecta nomina tur vt ad eius perfectioneÌ„ pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista pâ—rua iustitia quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit Ideoque Apostolus imperfectum perfectum sedicit imperfectum cogitando quantum illi ad iustitiam desit cuius plenitudinem adhuâ— esurit sitiâ— Perfectum autem quòd suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit vt peruentat bene procedit The vertue which is now in the iust man is thus farforth called perfect as that to the perfection therof belongeth both the knowledge in truth and in humilitie the confession of the imperfection of it
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
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
blindly proposed by M. Perkins I will confirme the first with such texts of holy Writ as specifie plainly our good workes to be the cause of eternall life Mat. 25. Come vnto me ye blessed of my Father possesse a kingdom prepared for you And why so For when I was hungry ye gaue me meat so forth the like is in the same chapter of the seruants who employed all their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue bene faithfull in few things I will place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdome of heauen Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler that doth seek to peruert such euident speeches and would make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth onely signifie an order of things But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it let him reade S. Augustine In Psal 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text Come ye blessed of my Father receiue what shall we receiue a kingdome for what cause because I was hungrie you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there was no tidings in those daies and that iudicious Doctor found that good works was the cause of receiuing the kingdom of heaueÌ„ R. ABBOT M. Bishop to helpe the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ which specifie plainely as he saith our good workes to be the cause of eternall life To this purpose he alledgeth the words of Christ as touching the last iudgement a Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father possesse or rather b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inherite ye the kingdome prepared for you before the foundations of the world for I was hungry and ye gaue me meate c. Where the very place it selfe disproueth that that he intendeth to proue by it for by that that he saith Inherit ye the kingdome it is plainely gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth c Ambros de abitis Theodosij Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt â—â—bis We receiue as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised vnto vs. And if we receiue the kingdome by way of inheritance then it is not by merit as hath alreadie bene declared Againe when he saith prepared for you from the foundations of the world euen as S. Paule saith d Eph. 1.4 God hath chosen vs in Christ before the foundations of the world he sheweth that the kingdome was prepared for them that inherite it before they had any works and therfore to reason in the same maner as the Apostle doth e Rom. 9.11 not by workes but by the grace and mercie of him that calleth it is said Come ye blessed inherit the kingdome c. For to say that God f August contra Iulian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi seâ—utus est adiunxit si autem gratia c. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdome for them vpon foresight of their workes is the heresie of the Pelagians long agone condemned It must needes be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works and that their workes are alledged not as the proper cause fot which the kingdome is giuen vnto theÌ„ but as signes and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared euen as before we heard out of S. Bernard that g Bernard de grat lib arb Occultae praedestinationis indicia futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noâ— causa regnandi they are tokens of our predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining it No more can be argued out of the other place Reward we find there but Merit we find none neither can the one of these be euicted by the other It onely sheweth how God graceth his faithfull seruants by assigning vnto them vnder the name of reward that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth vpon them A most cleare example whereof we ha◠〈◊〉 our father Abraham to whome God made at first an absolute promise that he would h Gen. 12.2.3 make of him a great nation and would blesse him and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed and yet afterwards vpon the triall that he made of him for the offering of his sonne Isaac taketh occasion to renew the promise as if he would do it for his obedience therein i Cap. 22.16 Because thou hast done this thing and hast not spared thine onely sonne therefore will I surely blesse thee and I will multiply thy seede after thee c. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeied my voice The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God k Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio ne promisit sine lege dâ—nauit without any caution or condition as Prosper well saith but he would haue Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done that the promise before freely made should inuiolably without any impeachment stand good vnto him Euen so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises thereto for our assurance tieth the performance therof vnder the name of reward when as the true cause of all is his mercy in Iesus Christ by whom onely it is that the worke is accepted in his sight Now if God vouchsafe to honour vs let not vs thereby take occasion to dishonour him or chalenge proudly to our merits that for which we should sing praise onely to his mercy Neither do we herein wrangle or peruert the Scripture but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called vs l Ephe. 1.6 that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace m Aug. cont Pelag Celest lib. 2. cap. 24. NoÌ„ enim Dei gratia gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo which is not grace in any sort except it be free in euery sort we endeuour that this glory may be yeelded entirely vnto God and that to this end it may alwaies be acknowledged that n Rom. 6.23 eternal life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he alledgeth S. Austin to his purpose he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited but vsing the words Come ye blessed of my Father receiue ye a Kingdome goeth on hereupon to demaund not as Maister Bishop saith For what cause but o Aug. in Psal 49. Quid percipite Regnum Pro quare
Christians may suffice to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirme the doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop will giue vs to vnderstand that not onely S. Austin but all antiquitie teacheth the doctrine of merites so that M. Perkins might blush to call it the inuention of Satan But M. Perkins had no cause to blush in that respect He knew well that antiquitie is more vanted by Papists then followed He knew well that in this doctrine of merits they wickedly bely antiquitie and the Fathers And indeede neuer any Father spake of merits as they haue done Iustly therfore did he call it as it is the inuentiō of Satan seruing only to delude men to put them in vaine hope to lift them vp in pride with opiniō of gaining heauen that they may by their pride be cast downe to hell But for the cleering of this point it is to be vnderstood that the name of merits is indeed very vsuall amongst the fathers of the Latin Church but with no such meaning as the church of Rome hath fancied therof For they only intended therby briefly and in one word to signifie good workes workes that please God that are accepted in Gods sight that find fauor with God obtain reward at his hands They dreamed not that in good workes there shold be a iust desert of heauē that they shold deserue it worthily that they shold be fully worthy of euerlasting life that good works shold as wel be the cause of saluatiō as euil works are the cause of damnatiō that good works are so far meritorious so far I say meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for them as in the beginning hath bin shewed that now is the language of the church of Rome These speeches or the like were neuer heard of amongst the Fathers They vsed the word merite according to the signification wherein commonly they vsed the verbe mereri which with them imported to obtaine to find fauour for any thing to be giuen or done so as that wicked men are said sometimes mereri not surely to deserue but to receiue or to find the fauour of benefits at Gods hands yea and good men are said mereri not to deserue but to receiue or to finde euill vsage at the hands of the wicked But by examples the matter will be plainer then by words S. Austine saith a August de ciu Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Huius vitae solatia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt Some who haue bin worshippers of diuels haue merited that is haue found the fauour to receiue the comforts of this life Againe b Idem in Psal 35. Apostolià suis ciuibus occidi meruerunt The Apostles merited that is found such vsage as to be killed of their owne people c Cont. lit Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6. Pro actione gratiarum flammas meruimus odiorum In steed of thankes we haue merited that is we found at their hands the fire of hatred d De anima eius orig lib. 2. cap. 12. Caueat homo ne ab illo miserecordiam mereatur homo contra eius sententiam à quo factus est homo Let man take heed that man do not merite that is obtaine mercie of him against the sentence of him by whom man was made So doth Ambrose vse the same word e Ambr. de Cain Abel lib. 2. cap. 10. Iniquus Cain longaeuam duxit aetatem duxit vxorem hoc meruit promissione diuina Wicked Cain liued long and maried a wife and this he merited that is obtained or receiued by the permission of God f Idem ser 53. Non debemus mirari quòd Ioannes tantam gratiam nascendo meruerit We are not to wonder that Iohn in his birth merited that is obtained so great grace So Hilary speaketh g Hilar. epist apud Aug. tom 7. Libros quaeso habere mereamur I pray you let vs merit that is find the fauour to haue those bookes So Hierom h Hieron praefat in Abdiam Veniam mereri debeo I am to merite that is to obtaine pardon So Gregorie Bishop of Rome i Gregor Moral lib. 9. cap. 17. Paulus cum redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere eius verba de coelo meruit audire Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of Christ vpon earth merited that is found the mercy fauor to heare his words from heauen In another place O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantū meruit habere Redemptorem O happy sin of Adam that merited that is found the mercy to haue such and so great a Redeemer S. Austin applieth the word also to beasts and cattell k August in Psal 35. Homines habent aliquid apud Deum exceptum quod iumenta non merentur Men haue somewhat excepted with God which beasts merit not that is obtaine not Thus the word hath grown also into translations where in the originals there hath bin no occasion of it Where Cain saith Mine iniquitie is greater then can be pardoned the vulgar Latin translateth l Genes 4.13 Maior est iniquitas mea quam vt veniam mereà r Mine iniquitie is greater then that I can merit that is obtaine pardon Where S. Paul saith m 1. Tim. 1.13 I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly c. S. Austine out of some translation readeth n Aug. de Bapt. con Donat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Misericordiam merut I merited mercy but importing nothing but the obtaining thereof In an Epistle of Ignatius we haue it commonly translated o Ignat. epist ad Romanos I am in loue with none of the things that are seene vt Iesum Christum merear adipisci that I may merit to obtain Christ wheras in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Hierom translateth it p Hieron in Cat. Eccles Script vt Iesum Christū inuentam that I may find Iesus Christ Againe in the next period the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same translator readeth as before the words being translated by Hierome q Jbid. tantum vt Christo fruar onely that I may enioy Christ. And thus in infinite places haue they made the Greeke Fathers to speake of merit where they neuer meant any such thing But to make it plainly to appear that by merit they meant not any such worthines or desert as M. Bishop speaketh of let one sentence of Ambrose fully suffice r Amb. epist. 22. Omnia quae patimur minora sunt indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum quae reuelabitur in nobis cùm ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam eius facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus All the things that we suffer are
too little and vnworthy for the paines whereof there should be rendered to vs so great reward of future good things as shal be reuealed in vs when being reformed to the image of God we shall merit that is attaine to see his glorie face to face Where to take merit properly to import desert and worthines shold be to make Ambrose in one sentence absurdly crosse contrary to himself to say that we deserue to see God face to face when he hath first affirmed that euen our sufferings for Christs sake are vnworthy to haue so great glorie yeelded vnto them The same is more plaine by that that before hath bene alledged out of Gregorie Å¿ Of iustificatioÌ„ sect 49. ex Gregor Moral lib. 9. cap. 18. If we be iudged without mercy our work is worthy to be punished which we expect to haue rewarded therefore the teares of expiation saith he are required that humilitie of prayer may lift vp the merite of our good worke to the obtaining of eternall reward Where we see he vseth the name of merit as vsually they were wont but sheweth that it is so far from being truly merit as that in extremitie it is worthy to be punished and that it needeth teares of expiation that is earnest intercession and prayer to God for Christs sake to remit the spots and blemishes thereof and that it is thus by prayer onely that is by fauour that any reward is yeelded vnto it But to this place most properly belongeth that of S. Bernard before mentioned that t 〈◊〉 in Aâ—â—â—â—ne ser 1. Neque enim taliae sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam faceret nisi eam donaret the merits of men are not such as that eternal life is due for them of right or as if God should do wrong if he did not yeeld the same vnto them u Idem de grat et lib. arb Si propriè appellentur ea quae nostra ditimus merita c. vta regni sunt non causa regnand If saith hee we will properly name those which we call our merites they are the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Where most plainly he giueth to vnderstand that the name of merits is vnproperly abused and howsoeuer custome had taken it vp to call good works by the name of merits yet that we are not to conceiue that good workes for themselues can challenge any thing by any right or that we can truly and properly be said thereby to deserue at the hands of God And this is fully confirmed by Alfonsus de Castro who mentioning reward due to workes saith x Alphons cont haer li. 7. tit Grat. Debetur inquam non ex operis natura quia vt ait Paulus Non sunt condignae c. sed ex iure promissionis Hanc enim legem nos naturae docuit vt quod quisque promisit debere se credat It is due not by the nature of the worke for the sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the future glory which shal be reuealed vpon vs but it is due by right of promise for nature hath taught vs this law that euery man should take himselfe to ow that which he hath promised Surely if the debt of the reward arise not froÌ„ the nature of the work but onely by vertue of promise then merit is no merit properly because merit properly so called ariseth from the nature of the worke being in it selfe iustly worthy of that that it is said to deserue To come then to the testimonies cited by M. Bishop the first therof which he citeth out of a Ignat. epist. ad Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinite me bestiarum escam esse per quas DeuÌ„ assequi licet Ignatius is a false translation there being nothing in the Greeke to import merit but only the getting or gaining or obtaining of God as hath bene said Suffer me saith he to be the food of beasts that by them I may obtaine God And how far Ignatius was from any such opinion of his owne merit appeareth towards the end of the same Epistle where he saith b Jbid. Ego erubesco ex ipsis dici Non enim sum dignus esse vltimus aut purgamentum sed miserecordiam consecutus sum vt sim aliquis si Deum adipiscor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am ashamed to be named one of them the Pastors of the Church for I am not worthy to be the very last or the very outcast of them but I haue found mercie to be some body if I obtaine God He reckoned not of merit or worth but held it a matter of mercie to him to come to God How hardly then was M. Bishop bestead that in the forefront wold put Ignatius when the words that he citeth are nothing for him and his words in the same Epistle are altogether against him The words of Iustinus Martyr also are very lewdly abused in the same manner The words meritis suis by their merits are meerly foisted in neither is there any thing that can be construed to that purpose c Iustin Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui si dignos consilio illius se operibus ostenderint coÌ„uersatione cum ipso dignatuÌ„ iri accepimus vt vna regnent incorruptibiles à perturbatione immunes effecti They saith he who by their workes shall shew themselues to the counsell of God worthy or as M. Bishop translateth out of Bellarmine who by their workes shew themselues worthy of the counsell and will of God we haue receiued that he doth vouchsafe them to haue companie with him to raigne with him being made immortall and free from all perturbation Where he nameth worthinesse in no other sort then the Scripture doth as hath bin before shewed comparatiuely not simply by acceptation not by perfection according to the phrase of men whereto the holy Ghost is content sometimes to submit himselfe not according to the exact censure of the iudgement of God not as a matter of Popish merite whereto God in iustice is bound but to which God in fauour vouchsafeth as he saith to haue company with him And this he maketh very plaine when in the next words he addeth d See the same of Freewil sect 14. For in like sort as he created vs when we were not so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and dwelling with him who willingly make choise to do those things that are pleasing vnto him Now to haue being at first it was not of our selues In like sort to chuse and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs it is by his perswading and mouing of vs to the faith Whereby he teacheth that our being in God following of those things that are pleasing to him is no more of our selues then our first creation and
the reward God hauing so ordained the one to be the way whereby he will bring vs to the other But when we looke to the true cause of all we truly teach that it is God that giueth vs both good life and eternall life both the worke and the reward not the one properly for the other but the one to follow the other onely for his mercies sake Thus the fathers also conceiued hereof as appeareth by that that hath bene alledged from them We speake as they spake and they as we and the Papists do them absurd wrong to wrest straine their speeches as they do Whatsoeuer M. Bishop hath cited from them vnderstand it according to S. Bernards rule before set downe as of the way not as of a cause and they differ nothing at all from that that we say CHAPTER 6. OF SATISFACTION 1. W. BISHOP MAster Perkins acknowledgeth first ciuil satisfaction that is Pag. 117. a recompence for iniuries or damages any way done to our neighbour such as the good Publican Zacheus practised Luk. 19. who restored fourefold the things gotten by extortion and deceit This is wittily acknowledged by him but little exercised among Protestants for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as one fold for their extortion bribes vsury and other eraftie ouerreaching of their neighbours But of this kind of satisfaction which we commonly call restitution we are not here to treate nor of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly but of such priuate penance which is either enioyned by the confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here R. ABBOT We wil neuer beleeue you M. Bishop that your vpstart sacrament of Confession hath any such effect as you pretend for satisfaction and restitution of euill gotten goods vntill we shall certainly vnderstand that your maisters the Iesuites haue made restitution of those goods which you and your fellow Seculars by Watson your proctor haue charged them to haue embezelled by cosinage and villanie in drawing them by their notable imposture of spirituall exercise to sell their whole estate and to put the money into their hands I might write here a pretie story to shew what fruites your sacrament of confession hath yeelded in that behalfe but the occasion no further requiring then it doth let that one example now suffice But in M. Perkins words you might haue taken knowledge of a Protestant namely Zacheus without any sacrament of confession offering restitution to them to whom he had done wrong and doubt not you but the rest who faithfully are that which they professe to be are alwayes ready to do the like and that more holily and religiously then you are wont to do But to the purpose the satisfaction here spoken of is the yeelding of a sufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for the trespasse that we haue done vnto him The very naming whereof may be sufficient to make vs detest the doctrine of these wretched men who doubt not to the singular impeachment and dishonor of the crosse of Christ to attribute vnto men a power for the performance of any such satisfaction vnto God We may well maruell that any taking vpon him to be a Christian man should haue his heart so senslesse and dead as not to abhorre to think that a man should be said to giue a worthy recompence to God for his owne sinne By which meanes they make that a matter of our merite which neuer any faithfull man imagined to be any other but Gods meere mercie and teach men to seeke for that in themselues which they should find only in the blood of Christ and take away the true conscience of thankfulnesse to God for the remission of our sinnes whilest we can pleade that he doth not so forgiue vs but that we are faine to make him amends and giue him ful satisfaction for the wrong Nay it taketh away also the true conscience of sinne it selfe whilest it is hereby conceiued to be a matter of so small moment as that our beggerly deuotions and obseruations should be thought to be an effectuall expiation and redemption thereof Yea and it argueth a very base conceit of the high maiestie of God to thinke so base trumpery such baggage deuices as they haue forged to be a fit and sufficient recompence for an offence to him But herein the Church of Rome hath renewed another point of the Pelagian heresie who taught a August Epist 106. Quod poenitentibus venia non detur seâ—undum gratiam misericordiam Dei sed secundum meritum laborem eorum qui per poenitentiam dignificerint misericordia that pardon and forgiuenesse is not giuen to penitents according to the grace and mercie of God but according to the merite and labour or paines of them who by repentance shall be worthy of Gods mercy Thus the Pelagians affirmed and thus the Papists affirme the fathers and the children still accord in one Against the Pelagians the ancient Church defined as we do now against the Papists b Ibid. Fateatur secundum gratiaÌ„ misericordiaÌ„ Dei veniam poenitentibus dari non secundum merita ecrum quandoquidem etiam ipsam poenitentiam donioÌ„ Dei dixit Apostolus c. that it is to be confessed that pardon is granted to the penitent or repentant by the grace and mercy of God not according to their merits in as much as the Apostle telleth vs that repentance it self also is the gift of God Here is no interposing of merit or satisfaction here is nothing but grace and mercy c August conc Pelag. Celest lib. 2 cap. 24. which is not grace in any sort as we haue heard before out of S. Austin except it be free in euery sort Arnobius derided in the Pagans this opinion of their satisfactions to their gods and out of the nature and disposition of the true God telleth theÌ„ what the behauiour of their gods should be if they were indeed as they are called Gods d Arnob. adu gentes lib. 7. Ergone iniurias suas Dij venduÌ„t atque vt paruuli pusiones quo animis parcant abstineantque ploratibus passerculos pupulos equuleos panes accipiunt quibus auocari se possint ita Dij immortales placamenta ista sumunt quibus iraâ— atque animos ponant in graetiam suis cum offensoribus redeant Atqui ego rebar Deos c. Do the gods then saith he sell their own wrongs and as litle children to appease them and to make them leaue crying do take birds and puppies and hobbihorses and cakes to withdraw them froÌ„ the things they minded so do the immortall Gods receiue these pacifications wherby to put away their anger
verie shamefull and miserable shifts to giue shew of answer to it Do thou learne hereby to loue the truth which thus triumpheth in the aduersaries owne campe and euen in their owne bookes insulteth ouer them whilest either perforce they subscribe it or shew themselues so exceedingly distressed to resist or stand against it Take no offence whosoeuer thou art at the continuance of this fight because the order must stand which God set downe in the beginning betwixt the Woman and the Serpent a Gen. 3.15 I will put enmitie betwixt her and thee betwixt her seede and thy seede and therefore there shall neuer want b 2. Thess 3.2 absurd or vnreasonable men * 1. Tim. 4.2 hauing their consciences seared with a hote Iron with whom no euidence of truth shall preuaile to make them desist from oppugning the seede that is contrarie to them The beginning of which absurditie is to be seene in wicked Cain towards his brother Abel whom the voice of God personally speaking to him could not diuert from that malice whereby hee had intended the destruction of his brother The succession whereof we may behold in the Scribes and Pharisees and Elders of the Iewes whom neither the innocencie of the life of Christ neither the authoritie of his doctrine neither the glory of his miracles nor any euidence of the hand of God working with him could any way moue but that they were stil cauilling and quarelling against him stil accusing and condemning him and neuer ceasing euen against their owne consciences to fight against him What maruell is it then that the voice of God speaking to vs in the scriptures and testifying what the faith and religion is that we are to yeeld vnto him doth not end the quarel and appease the fury of our aduersaries against vs but that in a mad conceit of themselues and of their Church they go on still to make of religion what they list and with impudent faces labour to perswade men that howsoeuer in plaine words the Scriptures seeme to make for vs yet in meaning they are against vs. And surely incredible it were but that we see it that men hauing vse of wit and will should dare in that sort as they do to mocke and delude the word of God At their pleasure they bring in their abhominations into the Church and when the Scriptures are alledged against them they tell vs by lame distinctions which stand one legge in the Scriptures the other quite beside that the Scriptures meane thus or thus but in no sort touch that which is done by them though the verie letter of the text do apparently contradict them As if the adulterer should say that the Scripture condemneth not his adulterie with a Christian woman but onely that which is with Infidels and Pagans or the drunkard should alledge that it meaneth nothing of his drunkennesse but onely of the drunkennesse of them who haue not wherewith to maintaine their drinking How many distinctions haue they whereof there is no greater reason to be giuen then may be giuen of these answers Now what heresie what idolatrie what damnable fancies haue there euer beene in the world which may not finde meanes for their defence if this licencious kinde of distinctions and deuices may take place If these mockeries be deemed intolerable in the laws of men what impiety what wickednesse is it thus to dally with and to mocke the word of God But the light of the Scripture doth plainly discouer the vanitie of these shifts and that is the cause why they hate and shun the Scriptures as the theefe doth the gallowes and the Beare the stake What a worke do they make how many deuices do they vse how readie are they to apprehend euery pretence to discourage the people from medling with the Scriptures and to breed in them an vncertaintie and doubt of resting their faith there But there is no cause for thee to be moued at such bugs and scar-crowes wherewith these malignant aduersaries seeke to fright thee out of the garden of Iesus Christ desiring to haue thee rather to continue vpon their stinking dunghils then to gather the sweete and delightsome flowers that yeeld the sauour of life vnto eternall life Assure thy selfe that the most absolute assurance of truth is in the voice of truth it selfe and thou mayst be secure that howsoeuer men may speake partially and may deceiue thee yet God who speaketh to thee in the Scriptures which the aduersary himselfe dareth not denie will neuer deceiue thee They pretend great difficulties and obscurities in the holy Scriptures but is it a reason for thee to forbeare to drinke and to wash thy selfe in the shallow places of the riuers of God because there are also gulfes and depthes the bottome whereof thou art not able to search or sound c August epis 3. In ijs quae aperta sunt tanquam familiaris amicus sine fuco loquitur ad cor indoctorum atque doctorum In those things which are manifest in the Scriptures saith Saint Austine d Idē de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae apertae posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi In which are contained or found all things that belong to faith and behauiour of life God speaketh as a familiar friend without glosing or guile to the hart both of the learned vnlearned e Hieron in Psal 86. Non vt pauci intelligerent sed vt omnes not that a few saith Hierome but that all may vnderstand the Scripture being f Gregor ad Leand. de exposit lib. Iob. Fluuius in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet a riuer saith Gregorie wherein both the lambe may wade and the Elephant may swimme g August de vtil cred ca 6. Planè ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum deuotè ac pie vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof being so tempered saith Saint Austine againe as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him so that he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do When they then seeke to barre thee from the vse of this heauenly light what canst thou conceiue but that they are the agents and factors of the Prince of darknesse The h Tertul. contra Marcion Sepia or Cuttle-fish Tertullian saith when he is in danger to be taken casteth about him a blacke inkie matter wherewith he darkeneth the water that the fisherman cannot see him What is the reason why those men in that sort seeke to compasse themselues about with the blacke and dark clouds of ignorance of the scriptures but that their owne consciences tel them that their deuotions must needs be descried to be superstitious and damnable if they come to be viewed and surueyed by
by faith only In which sence the Apostle S. Tim. 4. Paul sayth to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiours infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more as large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may stood them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith That for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy to thousands as is expresly said in the end of the first Commandement In like manner I answer vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall paine due vnto our sinnes and to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kind and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we will may and ought to do not onely because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionalle to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth Rom. 2. that we s ffer here with Christ before we raigne with him in his kingdome In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to God thinking out of your simplicitie that therein we much magnifie him and sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no 〈◊〉 â—â—â—agement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Int rcessor 〈…〉 to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe in all we can demaund being as well God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanitie of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphisicall conceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not bene practised by Catholikes who alwayes pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption R. ABBOT The second instance giuen by M. Perkins to proue that the Church of Rome maketh Christ but euen as an Idol giuing him a name without the substance and effect thereof is this that they call him a Sauiour and yet make him a Sauiour onely in vs and by vs not in himselfe or immediatly by himselfe For this is all that they attribute vnto him that he putteth vs in case and state to saue our selues and to become our owne Sauiours The meaning of the instance being plaine M. Bishops question is very idle In whom he should be a Sauiour if not in vs. He should be a Sauiour in himselfe and by that that he doth himselfe and not in vs or by that that we do for our selues But to the matter he telleth vs that it is a phrase vnheard of among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour Which we confesse as touching the phrase and word but yet by their doctrine they do in truth make a man his owne Sauiour If they should so say in words they well know that all Christian eares would abhorre them and many that now admire them would spit in their faces and account them accursed and damnable hypocrites who vnder pretence of doing honour vnto Christ do rob him of his honour and bereaue him of the truth of that name wherein the Soueraigntie of his glory doth consist therefore they forbeare the words though that which they teach is the same in effect as if they sayd so It is commonly knowne that the effect is alwayes attributed to that which is the immediate and neerest efficient cause We say in Philosophie Sol homo generant hominem The sunne and a man do beget a man because by the vegetation and influence of the Sunne and heauenly powers it is deemed that a man hath power to beget a man Yet we know that the Sunne or the heauen is not called the father of the child but onely the man by whom the child is begotten So is it therefore in the matter that we haue here in hand M. Bishop saith that God a Of merits sect 1. freely bestoweth his grace vpon vs in Baptisme but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death God then giueth vs whereof to doe it but we our selues of that which God giueth must effect and deserue our owne saluation Therefore M. Bishop againe compareth the grace of God to a b Ibid. sect 3. Farme which the father bestoweth vpon his sonne who of the commodities that arise of the good vsage thereof groweth to be able to make a further purchase at his fathers hands euen of any thing that his father will set to sale In which case the father cannot be said to be the purchaser or to make the purchase for the sonne but the sonne is the purchaser for himselfe though by that which his father gaue him through the well ordering of it he became able to make the purchase Seeing then that Christ doth onely giue vs that whereof we our selues are to raise merits to deserue and purchase saluation as they teach it must needes follow by their doctrine that Christ is made the more remote and antecedent cause but we our selues are properly and immediatly the true causes of our owne saluation Howsoeuer therefore they vse not the phrase yet they teach the thing it selfe that Christ is not our Sauiour properly but we our selues by the good vsage of his gifts are the Sauiours of our selues Which absurditie M. Bishop saw that standing to their owne grounds he could by no meanes auoide and therefore is content with Pighius as it seemeth for a present shift to retire into our harbour albeit I verily thinke he vnderstandeth not himselfe nor can tell what meaning to make or that he saith The thing that followeth of the assertion of meritorious works he saith is this that by good workes we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus as saith he the Protestants auouch they do by faith onely But he should here haue told vs how his meaning is that this saluation is in Christ For if he meane as commonly he doth that it is in Christ because God for Christs sake giueth vs grace whereby to merit and deserue our saluation then he dallieth altogether and mocketh his Reader as if he should say It followeth not of the position of meritorious
In this respect was it that Luther said that Free will is Res de solo titulo a matter of name only and a bare title because of man himselfe it is nothing and by it or in it there can nothing be attributed vnto him For a August de bono perseu cap. 13. cont 2. ep Pelag lib. 4. ca. 6. we will indeed it is true but God worketh in vs to will we worke but it is God that worketh in vs to worke we walke but he causeth vs to walke we keepe his commaundements but he worketh in vs to keepe his commandements so that nothing is ours of our selues but all is his onely And this M. Bishop in some shew of words here seemeth to affirme but indeed he wholy ouerthroweth it He saith that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is first stirred and holpen by grace and therefore that M. Perkins either doth not vnderstand them or else doth wrongfully accuse them in that he chargeth them to say that mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power But M. Perkins vnderstood them well enough and doth no whit wrongfully accuse them For Andradius the expounder of the riddles of the councell of Trent doth plainely tell vs b Andrad orthodoxar explicat lib. 4. Libere nostri arbitrij motto atque ad institiam apâ—licatio non magis a gratia Deipendet quam à diuina virtute stipitis exultio c. Cum diuina gratia iacentem libertatem erigat confirmet viresque illi addat quibus oblata iustitiae ornamentae complecti possit non secus quidem sui ad iustitiam applicationis causa efficiens dicenda est ac ea quae natura constant earum omnium operationum ad quas naturae impulsione feruntur that the motion of Free will and applying of it felfe to righteousnesse doth no more depend vpon the grace of God then the fires burning of the wood doth depend vpon the power of God that grace lifteth it vp being fallen downe and addeth strength vnto it but that it is no lesse the efficient cause of applying it selfe to grace then other naturall things are of all those operations whereto by force of nature they are caried Therefore he compareth c Ibid. Non secus ac ligneis soleâ— deuincti qui incedendiquidem facultatem habent etsi ingredi nullo modo possit ni vincula rumpantur priùs quae motum reprimunt ac retardam Free will to a man made fast in the stockes who hath a power and ablenesse in himselfe to go if he be let go out of the stockes and the bonds be broken that held him before that he could not stirre Whereby he giueth vs to vnderstand their mind that as the fire and other naturall things being by the power of God vpholden in that which naturally they are do of themselues worke their proper and naturall effects and as a man vnbound and let go out of the stockes walketh and goeth not by any new worke that is wrought in him but by his owne former naturall power so Free will though entangled in the delights of sinne and bound with the bonds thereof yet hath a naturall power whereby it can apply it selfe to righteousnesse if grace by breaking the bonds and abating the strength of sinne do but make way for it to vse and exercise it selfe so that grace hauing wrought what concerneth it they leaue it to the will by it selfe and by it owne naturall power to adioyne it selfe to worke therewith And this Bellarmine plainely testifieth when he affirmeth d Bellarm de grat lib. arb lib 6 cap 15. Sicut auxilium generale ita concurrit cum omnibus rebus in actionibus naturalibus vt tameÌ„ non impediat libertatem contiâ—geÌ„tiam ita speciale auxil um adâ—â—uans ita concurrit ad omnes actiones supernaturales vt non impediat hominis libertatem quoniam eodeÌ„ prorsus modo auxilia ista concurrunt that grace doth no otherwise concurre to supernaturall actions then vniuersall causes do to naturall so that it doth no more in the worke of righteousnesse then the Sunne and heauenly powers do in the act of generation or the producing of other naturall effects yeelding an influence and inclination but leauing the very act to the will and worke of man All which in effect M. Bishop himselfe afterwards expresseth teaching that man after the fall of Adam hath still a naturall facultie of Free will which being first outwardly moued and inwardly fortified by the vertue of grace is able to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation therby giuing to vnderstand that there is still an abilitie left in nature howsoeuer for the present ouerwhelmed and oppressed which being excited and stirred vp though in it selfe it be not sufficient to produce the effects of spirituall actions yet hath a sufficiencie to apply it selfe to grace for the producing thereof Which Costerus the Iesuite declareth by the similitude of e Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Sit quispiam lapsus in foueam tenebricosam ex qua neque cogitete gredinec exire solus possit sed in ea securus obdormiat accedat ad eum amicus qui hominis miserius de somno exertatum ad egressum moneat multisque rationibus vt assintiatur inducat tum ei manum vel funem potrigat simul coâ—antem educat in lumen a man fallen into a darke and deepe pit whence he cannot get out by himselfe nor hath care to get out but sleepeth securely therein till his friend come who awaketh him out of his sleepe and wisheth him to get out and by reasons perswadeth him to be willing thereto and so giueth him his hand or reacheth to him a cord which he taketh and layeth fast hold on it and yeeldeth his owne vttermost strength that he may be pulled out To which purpose also he vseth another example of a man f Ibid. Homo languidus qui ab igne vel à lumine solis facie auersus se ipse solus non potest coÌ„uertere sed si accedat amicus qui iuuet languidus ipse conatum aliquens adhibeat sit tandem vt conuersus calore solis aut ignis fruatur extremely faint and weake lying with his face turned away from the fire or the Sunne who is not able to turne himselfe to the fire or the Sunne but if he haue one to helpe him vseth his owne strength also for the turning of himselfe about to enioy the warmth thereof Which comparisons do plainely shew that they attribute vnto Free will a proper and seuerall worke beside that that is done by the grace of God Whereby we see how guilefully M. Bishop speaketh when he saith that the wil is made able by grace to bring forth spiritual fruit being of it self vtterly vnable therto because he meaneth not hereby that grace doth worke in the wil that whole ability that it hath but that to
before we may so obtaine grace that God may incline our heart whither he will And this is also the very selfe same dotage that now possesseth the Church of Rome For if M. Bishop will except that they do not affirme their workes of preparations to be without any helpe of grace onely of Free will I answer him that no more did Pelagius who accursed them as hath bene said who held not the grace of God to be necessarie to euery act But yet in that meaning wherein S. Austine speaketh of z See after in Sect 15. the helpe of God as whereby the thing it selfe is wrought in vs wherein we are said to be helped they say as S. Austine chargeth Pelagius to haue said that their preparations are without any helpe of grace and onely of Free will because there is for the time of this preparation no inhabitant or renuing grace no habitual qualitie or gift of grace that should be the worker thereof They onely teach as Pelagius did a grace though internall in respect of the man yet to the will onely externally assistant mouing and directing it for the doing of these things but meerely the will it selfe is the doer of them Which hereby also is apparant for that if they were properly the effects of they should by their doctrine be meritorio us ex condigno whereas now they are denyed so to be and therby are denied to be the proper effects of grace And hence M. Bishop thinketh to haue another difference betwixt the Pelagians and them because Pelagius affirmed merits before the grace of iustification and they do not so But this will not serue his turne because Bellarmine confesseth as the truth is that the Fathers in condemning Pelagius for affirming grace to be giuen in respect of merits did vnderstand merit a Bellar. de grati lib. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5 GratiaÌ„ Dei secundum merita nostra dari intolligunt Patres cùm aliquid fit propriâ—s viribus ratione cuius datur gratia etiamsi non sit illud meritum de condigno when any thing is done by our owne power in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not merit ex condigno Such are their workes of preparation which are done by our owne power in that meaning as the Fathers spake as hath bene said because they are no proper effects of renewing grace and are defended by theÌ„ to be the cause for which God bestoweth his grace vpon vs. They defend therfore that which was condemned in the Pelagians that the grace of God is giuen according to our merits b August contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 6. Priores vtique dore quod libet ex libero arbitrio vt sit gratia retribuenda pro proemio that we first giue somewhat by Free will for which grace is to be rendred for reward They say as the Pelagians did c Ibid. Nos facimus vt mereamur cum quibus faciat Deus We worke to merit that God may worke with vs. Yea they professedly teach that their preparations are merits though not ex condigno yet ex congruo because by the rule of their schooles d Thom. Aquin. 1. 2. q 114. art 6. in Corp Congrutem est vt dum homo bene vtitur virtute sua Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentiùs operetur it is meete or standing with reason that whilest a man well vseth his owne power God according to his more excellent power do worke more excellently They thinke themselues well discharged for that they put no merits before the first grace as they call it whereas therein they say no more then Pelagius did He made the first grace e Aug. Epist 106. Haec intelligitur doctore ipso gratia Dei quae Paganis atque Christianis napüs pijs fidelibus atque infidelibus communis est a thing common both to the wicked and to the godly to Pagans and Christians to beleeuers and infidels consisting in motions and illuminations offered to all and left to euery mans Free will to accept or reiect them euen f Bellar. de grat lib. arbit lib. 2 cap. 3. Lumine gratiae nemo omnine priuatur so do they They say that before that first grace there are no merits at al precedent euen so said he affirming the calling of God whilest he findeth vs giuen to earthly lusts and like bruite beasts louing onely present things as his own words haue told vs. But the first grace or preuenting grace before which the Fathers say there are no merits is iustifying grace g Aug contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 6. Ille facis vt ambulemus vt obseruemus vt faciamus Haec est gratia bonos faciens nos haec miscricerdia praeueniens nos the grace whereby he maketh vs to walke to obserue to do what he commaundeth whereby he himselfe worketh the effect of that which either by outward instruction or inward motion and illumination he doth commend vnto vs. Before this grace they place their merits or workes of preparation thereby to obtaine it contrarie to the words of the Apostle as S. Austin witnesseth h Contr. Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 23. Not of workes lest any man should boast and againe If it be of grace it is not of workes And herein their iniquitie is the greater in that they borrow the termes of a distinction of i Enchir. cap. 32 grace preuenient and subsequent from S. Austin and apply it otherwise then he meant it to the maintenance of an heresie which he oppugned by it Thus M. Bishop for his life cannot imagine a better accord then there is betwixt Pelagius the Heretike and their Councell of Trent both auouching and by fraudulent deuices maintaining the power of nature and Free will against the truth of the grace of God And to assure vs that they attribute thereto as much as Pelagius did k August dena grit cap. 39 Poâ—â—â—at item humoâ—ae naturae ita â—â—stâ—dis vt homo per Liberum arâ—â—erium etiam sine Christi nomine salu a esse posse credatur who so defended the power of nature as that a man without the name of Christ might be saued by Free will Andradius telleth vs out of the secrets of that Councell that they also hold l Andrad Ortho. expli aedi 3. Sine lege Mosâ— Euangelit vnobis per Christura data sola lige naturae permâ—iltos puisse Dei gratia iustificatos saluatos prius vmeum Deum religioâ—è venerati sunt in ipso spes suas omnes collocarum illi perpetuo placere studuerunt ab illo virtutum remunerationem sperarunt that heathen Philosophers hauing no knowledge of the law or of the Gospel of Christ were iustified and saued onely by the law of nature that they religiously worshipped one God put all their trust in him hoped for reward of their vertues from him yet all this by
purpose but expecteth our will to make good that grace to our selues he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will but cannot endure to say that it is God that worketh in vs to will He answereth yet further that the whole may be attributed to God because the habits of grace infused be froÌ„ him as sole efficient of theÌ„ our actioÌ„s endued also with grace being onely dispositions no efficient cause of those habits But herein he absurdly trifleth by altering the state of the questioÌ„ For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace We say that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will they say that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat li. 4 Ex gratia libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuaÌ„ applicationis one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof They say that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil but we say that God without putting vs to condition of our wil worketh in vs to will and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same i Aug. Confess lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod â—ubes giuing what he commandeth and k De Praedest sanct cap. 11. Deus facit vt illa faciamus himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done The words of the Apostle are plain for vs and as plaine against theÌ„ But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby 9. W. BISHOP One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Answ Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giues his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting As for example a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring foorth apples therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes to which alludeth S. Iames Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word which can saue our soules Againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it what maruel then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely feed do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite R. ABBOT This obiection M. Bishop saith he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason He wold haue kept due order and haue answered the rest as well as this but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking and cutteth off what he list If man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins a Ephes 2.1 When we were dead in sinnes M. Bishop answereth sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent Which answer who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe Man must giue his free consent to grace that he may be quickened thereby and yet man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened by grace If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening because that that cometh after cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause And this is indeed the very truth iustified by M. Bishops owne words against his will But his whole discourse driueth the other way that a man not yet quickened must by Free will giue consent to grace and concurre with God that he may be quickened because though grace be offered yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie for asking the question againe How can that be namely that man should giue his free consent to grace if he were then dead he answereth Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions But what is this to the purpose seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting Where he doth but runne in a ring and in other words repeateth the same answer still sticking fast in the briars wherein he was tangled before For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection He hath told vs before by grace and that to grace man must giue his free consent So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection and yet it cannot be fortified by grace and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except it first concurre with grace I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is
perseuerantèr proficiat siue vt ad bonuÌ„ sempiternum peruentat The sound Catholike faith saith he neither denieth Free will vvhether to euill life or to good neither attributeth so much to it as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace either to be conuerted from euill to good or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good or to attaine to the euerlasting good Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme according to the true meaning of S. Austin that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will and if he be willingly that that he is it is by Free vvill because the vvill is alwayes Free and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill to that that is good q Retract lib. 1. cap 15. IntantuÌ„ lâ—bera est 1 quatum liberata est it is so farre onely Free as it is made Free r Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept grat cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus neither can any man in this respect be free vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free We say therefore that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace that is in S. Austins construction auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it either for conuerting vnto God or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh Å¿ Epist 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntateÌ„ per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire ante Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coeâ—iâ— est doâ—uit esse poscenda ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good and to preserue the same when it hath so made them and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell least presuming of Free vvill vve fall away from the grace of God If all things then are we to begge of him to open to yeeld to assent to receiue his grace and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin as if he had meant that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse but that this power is not sufficient is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace whatsoeuer the will of man doth so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do t De verb Apos ser 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliquâ—d sumus si tameÌ„ in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus â—ihâ—l nobis arrogemus ne quod accepimus perdamus sed in eo quod accepimus illi gloriam demus Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ how much soeuer it be we may take nothing to our selues but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill and detest also Pelagians and Papists for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace I haue before shewed that he saith vntruly and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd Free vvill and grace are not the one excluded by the other neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other if we make the one the cause of the other as Austin doth and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace For u De corrept grat ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate coÌ„sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill and though it be in the will and by the will that we receiue grace yet x Prosper de vocat gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God 16. W. BISHOP Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names But misapplyeth them First obiection That man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice speake the truth c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it And his answer here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the vvorke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure heart and a faith vnfained and also in the end which is not the glorie of God Answer It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the heart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie God his Creator and Maister is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto R. ABBOT It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians a Prosper de lib. arbit Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctoruÌ„ merita referamus vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemuâ— naturae that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill This caution
the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued R. ABBOT It was not M. Perkins intent here to set downe any exact or formall description of Originall sinne but onely so to touch it as might serue to leade him to the point that was to be disputed of But out of that which he saith it ariseth that originall sinne is a common guilt of the first sinne of man inferring as a iust punishment an vniuersall distortion and corruption of mans nature and euerlasting destruction both of bodie and soule Concerning the matter therfore he propoundeth three things in Originall sinne to be considered the sinne the guilt and the punishment Where M. Bishop being like a man of glasse afraid of being crackt where he is not touched would for more assurance giue vs a note and I warrant you it is a wise one We say not saith he that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I haue heard concerning an outlandish Mathematicke Reader whose tongue hauing out-runne his wits and making a discourse of he knew not what asketh his hearers at length Intelligitisne Do ye vnderstād me they answered him No. Profectò nihil miror saith he neque enim ego intelligo meipsum Marrie I do not maruel for neither do I vnderstand my selfe Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here reade which no man else vnderstandeth nor he himselfe If he had vnderstood what Originall sinne is and that concupiscence being a part of Originall sinne is also a punishment thereof corruption of nature which is one part arising from the guilt of the first sinne which is the other part he would not so vnaduisedly haue denied that the punishment of Originall sinne is also a part thereof especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming that concupiscence is in such sort a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne and of what sinne but that which Adam in person committed by action and is ours originally by propagation But that either this punishment of Original sinne which is the corruption of nature or the following punishment thereof which is the first and second death should be called expulsion of Originall sinne we lacke some Oedipus to resolue vs sure I am that M. Bishop vnderstood not what he said nor can giue vs anie answer to make it good Such learned men haue we to do with which are so deepe in their points that they know not what they say Now he that vttereth such riddles himselfe might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him yet in it selfe verie easie to be vnderstood What a stirre doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith that in the regenerate the guiltinesse is remoued from the person but not from the sinne in the person The meaning is plaine that the sinne is pardoned to the man regenerate and therfore cannot make him guiltie but yet in it self and in it owne nature it continueth such as that setting aside the pardon it were sufficient still to make him guiltie and to condemne him as shall be afterwards auouched out of Austin to euerlasting death The pardon acquitteth the man but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sinne it setteth a barre against the effect but take away the barre the cause is as strong as it was before His idle and wast words and fighting with a shadow I let passe if he were not a senslesse man that that M. Perkins saith in the plaine meaning thereof would neuer seeme to him any senslesse imagination But he goeth further How can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Why M. Bishop what hindereth I pray you Can there be two contraries saith he in one part of the subiect at once And why not What hath not his Philosophie taught him that contraries are incompatible onely in their extremes Did he neuer reade that contraries when they striue to expell one another do it not in a moment but by degrees and though one be stronger then then the other yet the weaker stil hath that latitude which the strōger hath not gained Thus are there in the regenerate man a Rom. 7.23 the law of sinne and the law of the mind the former rebelling against the latter b Gal. 5.17 the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other as the Apostle speaketh and that in one part of the subiect as shal appeare Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding saith he Why did M. Bishop neuer reade of c Zephan 1.15 a darke day or will he reason therof if it be day it cannot be darke or if it be darke it cannot be day And if he can see that light and darknesse may meete together in a day can he not see that light and darknesse may also be together in the vnderstanding One where our Sauiour Christ commēdeth the light of his Disciples d Matth. 13.16 Blessed are your eyes for they see another where he condemneth their darknesse e Mark 8 18. Haue ye eyes and see not By light of vnderstanding Peter saith f Matth. 16.16 Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Blessed art thou Simon saith Christ for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee but my Father which is in heauen The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darknesse of vnderstanding giuing Christ occasion to say vnto him g Ibid. vers 23 Get thee behind me Satan for thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men h Orig. in Mat. tract 3. Contraria sibi adhu erant in Petro veritas mendaecium De veritate dicebat Tu es Christus c. Ex mendacio dixit Propitius tibi esto c. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro There were contraries as yet in Peter saith Origen truth and falshood he spake by truth one way he spake by falshood another way In a word the Apostle telleth vs that i 1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part we prophecie but in part we see through a glasse darkly or as the maisters of Rhemes translate it in a darke sort How can that be but that there is still some darknesse in the vnderstanding which yet in part hath receiued light He goeth further Can there be vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Yes M. Bishop for whatsoeuer is wanting of perfect vertue k August epist 29. Id quod minus est quà m debet ex vitro est ex vitio est saith S. Austin it is by reason of vice So long therefore as there is not perfect vertue there is vice remaining together with vertue The inner man wherein is the will of man is renewed as the Apostle telleth vs from day to day S.
blindnesse of heart is properly sinne therfore concupiscence is so also Rebellion against the law of the mind wherby is meant the law of God is properly sinne as before is shewed But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne saith it is therefore called sinne because it is the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne but otherwise also sinne and therefore properly and truly sinne But M. Bishop telleth vs that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne as anone shall appeare He saith further that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne we say is the proper taking of it and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne But the motions and enticements to sinne being the same with concupiscence we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne as sinne is taken largely so as to comprehend concupiscence A learned note But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught he should haue giuen vs here a better reason why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood when concupiscence is called sinne He telleth vs that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill and indeed it is true that very often he so calleth it but yet such an euill as maketh a man euill so that by reason thereof a Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis quamuis Propheta quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though a man be a Prophet a Patriarch an Apostle yet saith Hierome it is said vnto them by our Sauiour If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill but that which is properly sinne Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin But of this shall be spoken more at large anone Onely here it is to be obserued how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill because it prouoketh vs to euill So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill then it is called sinne It is sinne because it prouoketh to sinne and so euill because it prouoketh to euill and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill as shall appeare To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason and giueth to it a very vnproper answer b August in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris tuâ—s So long as thou liuest saith Austin of necessitie sinne must be in thy members sinne is there also taken vnproperly saith M. Bishop And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn c 1. Iob. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs alledging the one and concluding the other by occasioÌ„ of the words of our Sauior Christ d Ioh. 8.34 He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne and the seruant abideth not in the house for euer For hereupon he asketh the question What hope then haue we who are not without sinne and answereth at large that sinne though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne make our selues seruants vnto it because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation is the seruant of sinne that is to say of inward corruption Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith that if sinne be properly taken it may be truly said of some men that they are without sinne because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken that so long as a man liueth it must needs be in him as S. Austin speaketh Now he will proue that sinne is there vnproperly taken because S. Austin placeth it in the members For according to S. Austin and all the learned the subiect of sinne properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance Why M. Bishop is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie but onely by the soule Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse but that he knew that e Aug. contra Julian lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit the flesh is said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh which S. Austine confirmeth and saith that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem rursuâ— motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum ideò dicitur â—are concupiscere aduersus spiritum c. it is the soule it selfe which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to to the flesh and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to the spirit and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit and the spirit contrarie to the flesh Who knoweth not this saith he to Iulian which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs And what doth not M. Bishop know it that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome Let me tell him once againe that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence which the bodie is not of it selfe but onely by the soule and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie but that S. Austin by sinne in the members doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne to say nothing of that I haue before declared that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe thrall and subiect vnto sin For conclusion of this point he
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
Christ had imposed vpon him Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon alledgeth as Gregorie doth the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man not moued with the l 2. Cor. 5.11 terrours of the Lord and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at We know it well saith he Yea do but what is then your refuge and defence Marrie seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne as saith he M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame For neither the Apostle nor M. Perkins do teach that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned so that though it continue still in vs yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned Surely they that rightly know themselues do know that in themselues there is that still being for which God might iustly cast them away if he should iudge them in themselues but their comfort hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise There is no condemnation because there is nothing worthie of condemnation all iustice all innocencie no impuritie or vncleannesse no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day We are purged from Originall sinne saith he vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd as we heard before n August epist 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabâ—tur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne What hope then is there saith he vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement And what in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge no sinne no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of We haue seene before that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes S. Austin saith very well o Aug. in Psal 42. Quiâ—unque hic viâ—it quantum libet iuste viuaâ— vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith p Greg. Moral li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant nequaquam sibi ad iustâ—tiam vel electi sufficieÌ„t si districtè in iudicio requirantur Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice shal be able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome q Hieron in Esa l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissolueÌ„tur omnes manus quia nâ—llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur c. Omne quoque corâ—siue anima hominis tabescet pauebit conscientia peccati sui When the day of iudgment or of death shall come all hands shal be dissolued because there shal no worke be found vvorthie of the iustice of God neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight Whereupon the Prophet saith O Lord if thou markest iniquities who shall endure it euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge The best is that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified Yet to make his matter good he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith that he had runne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie as well in the r Rom. 3.27 law of faith as in the law of workes but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth he considereth with fauour and Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not and all this he doth as a iust iudge because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26 the vttermost farthing nothing pleaseth but what is exact and perfect and fully answerable to the rule S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne not by the law of workes but by the law of faith wherein God u Psal 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse because this crowne is a crowne of iustice x Bernard de grat lib. arbit sub finem Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae JustuÌ„ est quippe vt reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus promissio
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâ—ttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ— remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ— plura meruissâ—t to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâ—s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌ„t iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌ„plete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
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
perfection of a man whereof if anie be wanting it is an imperfection so that a Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium quà m propemo duâ— nihil corpori quà m multuÌ„ detrahitur pulchritudini if but one ey-brow be shauen as S. Austine saith though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it Euen so is it in the iustified man faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life because as the quickening facultie power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith or in our hearts by faith but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man to which as to the other members from the heart so from faith life is imparted and communicated that in them we may be aliue to God Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification but by occasion of commending faith and loue that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine misquoteth Ep. ad Philippâ—nses faith is the beginning of life c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him For if faith be the beginning of life then by faith we first liue By faith therfore we are iustified for to be iustified as M. Bishop confessed in the former section is to be translated from death Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption as hath bene before shewed so faith wherein is our new birth giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life the summe whereof is charitie because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together do make perfect the man of God The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same and needeth no further answer With Chrysostome we say that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely though faith alone suffice to iustification Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man but he is not by them made a iustified man Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham c Chrys ad Rom. hom 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae eâ— verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri hoc scilicet admirabile est quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith it should be no strange matter but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith this is wonderfull and doth greatly set forth the power of faith S. Austin in the place by him alledged if it were S. Austin auoucheth good workes to iustifie theÌ„ that are iustified that is to approue them iust but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification and purposely in that place disputeth against it d August Hypognost lib. 3. Ex operibus noÌ„ iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt Ideò subiungens inquit Iustificatè gratu per gratiaÌ„ Dei. Noli â—i praeponere opera propria neâ— exâ—â—â—eÌ„ gloriari quâ— ex operibus non c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy through the faith of Iesus Christ is apparent vpon all that do beleeue Therefore the Apostle saith we are iustified freely by the grace of God Put not thine owne workes before it nor glorie thereof because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him If no workes go before iustification then M. Bishops cause as too weake must go to the wals because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes for being iustified before we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after and if neither by works before nor after then not at all It followeth therefore that when S. Austine saith in that place that men of God are iustified by good workes he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man not any causes of iustification Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after f Aug. vt supr Iustificatio per fideÌ„ Iesu Christi data est datur dabitur crâ—dentâ—bus Iustification hath bene giuen is giuen and shall be giuen to them that beleeue by the faith of Iesus Christ Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop he saith it not as to the Protestant but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi c. Thou wilt say Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes If so why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes To which he answereth h Audi haeretice stulte inimice fidei veritatis Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparaÌ„tur per gratiae praeâ—entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente gubernante perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna mâ—â— quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt iustificantur iustifiâ—abuntur in Christo Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur ex his tanquâ—m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith We condemne not the good works of free will which that they may be done are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will and the same preuenting grace causing directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil because by such men of God haue bin are and shal be iustified in Christ But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification from
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.
for it selfe or as it is an act or worke as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse but as the heart giueth life to the body not by the substance of it selfe which is but flesh as the rest of the body is but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein and as the hand feedeth the body not as being it selfe the foode of the body but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life in him d Act. 26.18 receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life But M. Bishop telleth vs that the Apostles meaning in those places is to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of theÌ„selues so thought that by theÌ„ they had deserued to be made Christians A goodly toy Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time they began to dispute reason the matter whether it were for the works that before they had don that they were made ChristiaÌ„s whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians wheÌ„ e Ephe. 2.3 they had their coÌ„uersation in the lusts of the flesh in fulfilling the wil of the flesh of the mind walking according to the course of this world and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles before they were partakers of the grace of Christ Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous so senslesse and absurd deuices Who would thinke that M. Bishop a Doctor of Diuinitie by title should be so simple a man as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale The matter is plaine After that men had accepted the faith of Christ and were become f Act. 15.1.10 brethren and disciples there came vnto them the false Apostles and preached vnto them g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saued They sought to perswade men that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law Here was no question whether by any deserts they were become Christians but being now Christians what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles and hauing before h Gal 1.9 receiued the Gospell i Cap. 4.27 hauing bene baptized into Christ k Cap. 3.2 hauing receiued the spirit yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified thereby This the Apostle inueyeth against and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification but concerning iustification wholy concerning men beleeuing alreadie and in the state of grace that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28 Gal. 3.11 iustified by faith and not by the works of the law yea without the workes of the law yea and saith n Gal. 2.16 we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law The Papist saith we beleeue in Christ that we may be iustified by the works of the law but the Apostle saith we beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law giueth a reason why we that beleeue in Christ cannot be iustified by the works of the law o Jbid. because by the works of the law no flesh shall be iustified And whereas the Papist againe saith that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby the Apostle peremptorily denounceth p Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified saith thereof q Hieron ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moysâ— tantum dictum puâ—es non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur ideÌ„ Apostolus scribit dicens coÌ„sentio legi c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses that is the ceremoniall law but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law or delight in the law of God as touching the inner man But of that before in the third section Hereby then it appeareth that being members of Christ and baptized into him our iustification still consisteth not in workes but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop by a new qualification telleth vs that all works both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification Not then from being any cause but onely from being any meritorious cause For he hath r Sect. 21. before told vs that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh is the cause of iustification But if they be causes how then is it true that he saith here that the first iustification is freely bestowed For Å¿ Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end Gratis freely as the Rhemists tell vs is as much to say as for nothing and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake then it is not bestowed for nothing but for hope for charity c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way and can finde nothing whereupon to stand Saint Austine giueth it for a rule that t August cont Pelag. Celest li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueriâ— gratuita omnimodo the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort except it be free in euery respect And how is it free in euery respect if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs And what is it but a mockery to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification onely that they are not meritorious causes
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
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
distinction is very plainly intimated by S. Paul when he saith r Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioice but not with God He denieth not but Abraham was iustified by workes and that he had wherein to glory and to stand vpon his iustification but yet not with God He might do it in respect of men but with God he could not do it So saith Origen vpon those words hauing first put difference betwixt iustification by faith seene onely to God and iustification by works which may be approoued of men ſ Origen in Rom. ca. 4. Abraham si ex operibus iustificatus est habet quidem gloriam ex operibus venientem sed non illam quae apud Deum est If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath the glory which commeth by works but not that which is with God And this distinction is apparant also by S. Austine who speaking as touching inherent iustice and righteousnesse of workes saith t Aug. de Temp. ser 49. Quamdiu viuitur in hac vita nemo iustificatus est sed In conspectu Dei. Nō frustrae addidit In conspectu tuo nisi quia potest esse iustificatus in cōspectu hominū Referet in conspectu Dei Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens So long as we liue in this life no man is iustified but in the sight of God Not without cause was it that Dauid added In thy sight For it may be that a man may be iustified in the sight of men but let him speake as touching Gods sight and no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Where sith S. Austine as touching iustification by workes denieth that any man in this life is iustified in the sight of God it must necessarily follow that that iustification which is by workes must not be vnderstood in the sight of God but onely in the sight of men Now then to speake of iustification before men as S. Iames doth it is true that both faith and workes do concurre and ioine in the act of iustification The faith that inwardly in the heart iustifieth to God and is outwardly professed with the mouth to men is not sufficient to approoue a man outwardly to men and to the Church of God to the sight and conscience whereof euery faithfull man is bound to acquit and cleare himselfe vnlesse it be accompanied and adorned with vertuous and vpright conuersation In this respect therefore it may be said that the better part in some sort is attributed to workes that faith is made perfect by workes that faith is as the body and good workes as the soule and that faith without workes is dead euen as the body is dead without the soule Men specially haue an eie to workes and thereto attribute more then to words He is taken for a halting and halfe Christian that maketh shew of faith and liueth not accordingly Men account him as a carion a dead carkasse lothsome detestable he is euery mans byword as I said before and his name continually carieth reproch with it Hereby it appeareth also that faith though haply it be in the heart yet is here respected onely as it is professed to men For it cannot be that the worke of the hand should giue life to the faith of the heart but rather receiueth life from it Yea M. Bishop himselfe telleth vs that charity within is the life of faith within and therefore workes which are without cannot be said to be the life of faith but as faith it selfe also is without There may be workes whereby a man outwardly may u Luk. 16.15 iustifie himselfe to men as the Pharisees did which yet are dead workes because there is neither faith nor charity to giue them life from the heart Now S. Iames must so be vnderstood as that not charity which is habitually and inuisibly within but works which are outward and apparent must be the life of faith He speaketh therefore of faith as it is outwardly professed which hath it life and grace and honour amongst men by the outward fruites of good workes correspondent to it selfe Very guilefully therefore doth M. Bishop turne his speech from workes whereof S. Iames speaketh to charity there being here so different a consideration to be had of the one and of the other yea he himselfe naming charity the fountaine of good workes and thereby importing that charity as the fountaine differeth from the good workes that issue therefrom The place that he alledgeth to the Corinthians x 1. Cor. 13.2 Though I haue all faith c. is nothing to this purpose because we speake here of a faith that is common to all the faithfull but the Apostle there speaketh of a faith that is peculiar onely to some whereof he hath said the chapter going before y Cap. 12.9.10 To one is giuen the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge to another is giuen faith meaning the faith whereby miracles are wrought as he himselfe addeth Though I haue all faith so that I could remooue mountaines c. His purpose is to teach men not to be proud of speciall gifts of the spirit but to respect the end and vse thereof which is performed by loue without which they are onely idle shewes As touching the comparison of faith and charity there hath bene enough said z Sect. 22. before For our present state faith hath the preferment and all in all hangeth vpon our faith which is the heart and life of whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God It is faith that giueth God his glory that acknowledgeth him to be that that he is that so setteth him before vs as to draw all our affections vnto him our loue our feare our hope our delight our selues wholy both body and soule The promises of God in speciall manner are made to them that beleeue and trust in him Therefore that God esteemeth more of our charity then of our faith is not the Apostles assertion but M. Bishops fond collection and that which the whole course of Scripture doth gainsay But supposing it to be so the consequence that M. Bishop draweth therefrom is very ridiculous If God esteeme more of charity then of our faith a man is more iustified by charity then by faith As if he should say A man esteemeth more of his eies then of his eares therefore he heareth better with his eies then with his eares A thing may simply absolutely be preferred before another and yet the other in some respect vse may be preferred before it Thus may it very well be said as touching this comparison of faith with charity as before is said Further he alledgeth that God to shew how acceptable Abrahams fact was to him saith Now I know that thou louest me The true text is a Gen. 22.12 Now I know that thou fearest me but thus M. Bishop shufleth and shifteth the best he can to gaine somewhat to charity against faith
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
by a iust iudge M. Perkins answereth that it is called a crowne by resemblance because it is giuen in the end of the life as the crowne is giuen in the end of the race Reply If that were all the cause and that there were no respect to be had to former deserts it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance because that also is giuen in the end of life and in their opinion more properly because all their workes are defiled like a menstruous cloth and a halter is the end of such wicked workes But as a halter is due to a theefe so is a crowne of glorie the iust reward of the righteous man Secondly he answereth that it is called a crowne of iustice because God hath bound himselfe by his promise to giue it here then at length we haue by his owne confession that by Gods promise eternall life is due debt vnto the righteous but as hauing ouer-shot himselfe he addes not for any desert of theirs but onely for the promise sake But as you haue heard before out of S. Matthew Math. 20. that promise was made for working the time of his life in our vineyard and so there was some desert on their part and the seruants were rewarded because they employed their talents well and in this very place Math. 25. Saint Paule reckoneth vp his good seruices for which the iust iudge would render him a crowne of iustice and therefore the iustice is not onely in respect of Gods promise And if you will not beleeue me prouing that I say out of the very text rather then M Perkins on his bare word let S. Augustin be arbitrator between vs Li. 50. Hom. hom 4. who most deepely considereth of euery word in this sentence Let vs heare saith he the Apostle speaking when he approched neare vnto his passion I haue quoth he fought a good fight I haue accomplished my course I haue kept the faith concerning the rest there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice which our Lord will render vnto me in that day a iust iudge and not onely to me but to theÌ„ also that loue his coming he saith that our Lord a iust iudge will render vnto him a crowne he therefore doth owe it and as a iust iudge will pay it For the worke being regarded the reward cannot be denied I haue fought a good fight is a worke I haue accomplished my course is a worke I haue kept the faith is a worke There is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice this is the reward So that you see most clearely by this most learned Fathers iudgement that the reward is due for the worke sake and not onely for the promise of God See him vpon that verse of the Psalm Psal 100. I will sing vnto thee O Lord mercy and iudgement Where he concludes that God in iudgement will out of his iustice crowne those good workes which he of mercy had giuen grace to do R. ABBOT To the obiection of this place M. Perkins answereth that euerlasting life is called a crowne onely in resemblance For as he which runneth a race saith he must continue and runne to the end and so be crowned euen so must we continue to walke in good workes vnto the end and then receiue eternall life Now for reply to this answer it seemeth M. Bishop had some conference with the hangman and learning of him that a halter is the end of a wicked course let him remember his owne wicked course and feare the iudgement of the iust God he thought good to draw that obseruatioÌ„ to serue him for one shift And first to giue way to his hangmans deuice he curtalleth M. Perkins his answer as if he had said no more but thus that eternall life is called a crowne because it is giuen in the end of the life as the crowne is giuen in the end of the race Whereto he replyeth that if that were all and that there were no respect to former deserts it might then as well be called a halter But M. Perkins answer expresseth plainly as we see that the crowne hath reference to them that continue to the end to walke in good workes and therfore left no occasion or place for this hangmanlike and vnciuill reply But his mind it seemeth was strongly set vpon the halter and therfore by head and shoulders he would pull it in onely to please himselfe and his table companions with a forced and witlesse iest He addeth further that in our opinion it should more properly be called a halter because all our workes are defiled like a menstruous cloth and an halter is the end of such wicked workes Now we know no reason but that M. Bishop by most right because he hath set downe the sentence should keepe the halter to himself for that we are wel assured that his best works are defiled as well as ours But what will he say I maruell to Pope Leo the third of whom Mathew of Westminster reporteth that a Math. Westm lib. 1. anno 798. Mulier quaedam ad quaÌ„ aliquaÌ„do accâ—ssum habuit vt â—â—cebatur manum eius comprimit inter celebraÌ„ dum comprimendo deosculaÌ„s incentiuum libibinis in Papa excitauit being at Masse about a good worke no doubt a woman of his good acquaintance comming with her offering crushed and kissed his hand and therewith stirred vp in the Pope a holy father I warrant you some motions of the flesh Now was this no defilement shall we thinke to so good a worke Surely if M. Bishop had liued then he would haue giuen iudgement of the Pope that he should be hanged because a halter is the end of such wicked Masse But tel vs M. Bishop do all your works go so currantly and cleanly from you as that you can presume to be free froÌ„ the halter that you haue here made Haue you neuer offended at Masse in some such like sort as the Pope did Doth not your mind often wander when you seem to pray Do not sinister thoughts and respects many times interpose themselues and make you to go crooked when you thinke to go vpright Take heed that hereafter it be not said vnto you Patere legem quam ipse tuleris Be tried by the law which thou thy selfe hast made a halter is the end of such wicked workes But of the condition of our workes more hath bene said before then euer M. Bishop will be able to disproue Here he concludeth that as a halter is due to a theefe so is the crowne of glorie the iust reward of the righteous man True say we but yet not by the vertue of his righteousnesse and desert but by the mercifull promise of Almightie God In respect of which promise it is called as M. Perkins answereth a crowne of iustice because God by his promise hath bound himselfe to giue it and in the performance of his promise he is approued iust And this is the
de proposito Dei firmior suppetit securiorque gloriandi ratio c. NoÌ„ est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam Non propter vos c. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita c. Merita habere cures habita data noueru fructum speraueris misericordiam Dei c. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est To what end is the Church carefull as touching merites which hath a more sure and secure ground of reioycing by reason of the purpose of God It is not for thee to aske by what merits we hope for good things seeing thou hearest by the Prophet Not for your sakes but for mine owne sake will I do it saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merite to know that merits are not sufficient Be carefull to haue merits when thou hast them know them to be giuen thee but for fruite thereof hope for the mercie of God The waâ—t of merits is a pernicious pouertie Thus vnder the name of merites he commendeth the hauing of good workes and our care to be rich therein shewing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof and to be men fruitlesse in the Church of God But yet when we haue them he teacheth vs to conceiue the vnsufficiency thereof and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof onely vpon Gods mercie who hath promised to performe it not for our sakes but for his owne sake and so fully bereaueth them of that nature of merite which M. Bishop doth assigne vnto them Thus doth he euery where giue vs to vnderstand his mind g Ibid. ser 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini My merit saith he is the mercie of the Lord. h Ibi. ser 73. Opus habent sancti pro peccatis exorare vt de misericordia salui fiant propriae iustitiae non fidentes Euen the Saints haue need to intreate for their sinnes that by thy mercie they may be saued not trusting to their owne righteousnesse And againe i In Psal Qui habitat ser 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu suiâ— sperant periculosa quia ruinosa Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous k Ibi. ser 16. Hoc totum hominiâ— meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluuÌ„ fecit This is the whole merite of man to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saued man Many other such like speeches of his might be alledged whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethinke himselfe whether he haue not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits which the Church of Rome now maintaineth Let him duly consider whether he haue done well to take a little aduantage of a scrap of a sermon and to vrge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place and his perpetuall doctrine other where For conclusion we are assaulted with a whole generall Councell that saith neuer a word against vs. The Arausican Councell saith l Concil Arausic cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant Reward is due for good works if they be done but grace which is no due goeth before that they may be done Euen so say we we also confesse that there is a reward due vnto good workes which God taketh vpon him to owe vnto vs but we say it with that limitation that before we haue heard out of S. Austin from whom that Councell boroweth almost all that they haue set downe that m Supra sect 17 God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs not for any thing that he hath receiued of vs but by promising all things vnto vs. It is due then to the worke not simply in respect of the worke it selfe or for the merite and worth thereof but by vertue of the promise that God hath made to them that so worke And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishops antiquitie which we may see doth pitifully faile him in that out of all antiquitie he could bring no stronger proofes then he hath done his doctrine of merits being expresly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it But as touching Antiquitie gentle Reader for thy further satisfaction and the better arming of thee if need require against the fraud of these vndermining Sophisters it shall not be amisse to aduertise thee thus much that as we do so did the auncient Fathers vpon diuers occasions speake diuersly of good workes and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our saluation they referre the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God and wholly to his gift they vilifie as we do the workes and worth of men and acknowledge that there is nothing in vs in the confidence whereof we may offer our selues to God nothing in strength whereof we can stand before God or whereby we should merite and deserue any thing at Gods hands Here workes are considered meerly as they are and as God instrict and precise iudgement findeth them to be and therefore are pronounced of accordingly But when occasion requireth to speake only of good works and of the end thereof and we look no further but to inforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called vs to walke to that saluation that he hath promised or when we haue in hand to commend any speciall point of godly and vertuous conuersation we presse the same with all instance as the Fathers do we shew how necessarily God requireth the workes of our obedience how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercie to accept them how he hath promised of his bountie to reward them We forbeare not to say that eternall life is the stipend of our warfare the hire and wages of our workes that God hath not appointed heauen for idle persons and loiterers but for such as labor for it that because God rendereth heauen we must haue that whereto it is to be rendered if we haue not there is no heauen for vs. We say it is a crowne or garland win it and weare it it is a haruest labor for it if thou wilt enioy it it is a field of treasure if thou wilt possesse it thou must purchase it Such kind of speeches euery man may obserue who is either a hearer of our sermons or a reader of our bookes Now if any man will hereof conclude that we teach the merit of workes it is his ignorance and mistaking and he doth vs wrong We teach what followeth of what we teach the dependance and consequence of good life and eternall life of the work and
adde a supply of humane satisfaction ergo they make it no satisfaction at all Answ This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon which hath both propositions false The first is childish for he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of theÌ„ makes some satisfaction which satisfaction is vnperfect yet cannot be called no satisfaction at al as euery child may see His second is as vntrue mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction but to apply it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his will and ordinance God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sins and taketh fully away all paine due to sinne so that he who dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if we do afterward vngratefully forsake God and coÌ„trary to our promise transgresse against his commandements then lo the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor but he vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable vnto the fault committed not to supply Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall but that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoyd sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Gal. 6. Euery man do beare his owne burden R. ABBOT M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction because in the one he intendeth that euery man is to make satisfaction for his sins either by himselfe or by a Mediator and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction or any part thereof by himself Though the phrase were not so easie of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another yet his meaning was very plaine There must be a satisfaction yeelded to the iustice of God which is done onely in Iesus Christ a Rom. 3.25 whom God himselfe hath set foorth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud Here is therefore no broken rubbish but a sure foundation laid and the building setled vpon it standeth firme and fast the wind wherwith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his owne breath And because b 1. Cor. 3.11 there is no other foundation to be laid but only that which he hath laid which is Iesus Christ therefore not like a blind man but vpon good discernement and sight he hath made the outcry that the Papists laying another foundatioÌ„ in the merits and satisfactions of men do erre in the very foundation and life of Christian faith To shew this he argueth in this sort A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they adde a supply of humane satisfactions therefore they make Christs satisfaction no satisfaction at all A substantial argument saith M. Bishop well if it be not so we expect that M. Bishop make it appeare to vs by a very substantiall answer He telleth vs that both the propositions are false yea the first saith he is childish but well we wot that he hath giuen vs a very childish reason why he so saith He that satisfieth for halfe his debts or any part thereof saith he makes some satisfaction But we tell him that therein he fondly misapplyeth the name of satisfaction which is a word of perfection and therfore cannot be rightly vsed of that that is vnperfect It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to giue full contentment to the party to whom it is done and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done vnto him Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say that by the tender of a penny a man offereth a satisfaction when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds Yea and howsoeuer the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of meere debt yet he should remember that in their schooles it is resolued that because Satisfaction as here it is spoken of is c Thom. Aquin. Supplement q. 14. art 1. c. Cùm per satisfactioneÌ„ tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae diuinae restitutio quaeper quoduis peccatuÌ„ impeditur sieri non potest vt homo de vno peccato satisfaciat alto retento Vide in corpâ—art the taking away of displeasure and offence and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and loue and there cannot be restitution of friendship and loue so long as any impediment therof coÌ„tinueth therfore there can be no satisfaction for one sin that is for one part of a mans debt so long as there is a remainder of another M. Bishop might very well conceiue that God receiueth not recompence of his wrongs by pence and halfpence nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the sauing of a soule But it is the 2. proposition that specially concernes the point To that he answereth that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction Where we see it to be with them as Tertullian mentioneth of the Valentinian heretickes d Tertullian aduers Valent. Nihil magis curant quà m occultare quod praedicant si tamen praeditant qui occuliant c. Negant quicquid agnoscum They care for nothing more then to hide that which they preach if at least they preach who conceale and hide they deny it howsoeuer they well know it They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ vnperfect our satisfactions to be the supply of his want but yet because that soundeth odiously they will not haue it knowne or taken that they do so Yet M. Perkins brought proofe thereof out of one of their great Schoolemen Gabriel Biel who plainly saith that although the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which is conferred grace and the opening of the kingdome and glory yet it is neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause It is manifest saith he because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason Here it is expresly affirmed that the passion of Christ is not a totall meritorious cause and if it be not a totall cause then it wanteth a supply that that is
added for the producing of the effect must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ as not being a totall and perfect cause our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie it cannot be denied but that our satisfactioÌ„s are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes why doth M. Bishop answer nothing but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction for it implieth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a totall cause and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect M. Bishop telleth vs that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction and to fulfil his will and ordinance A goodly and witty deuice I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing healing of my wound I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound which I must apply and lay to the former medicine My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt and I must my selfe pay the debt againe that my sureties paiment may stand good for me A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction is a toy so improbable senslesse as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts that could find no better cloke to hide their shame Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end bring into the Church what they list lewdly to deuise and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit passion of Christ The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ But here M. Perkins noted that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs and our receiuing of him God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word SacrameÌ„ts we receiue him by faith He required it to be proued that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part or receiued on our part Why did M. Bishop omit to do this why doth he neither bring reason example nor authority to shew vs that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application or in what sort it should be said to apply We haue shewed e Of Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before that faith is as it were the hand of the soule an instrument properly seruing for apprehending receiuing laying hold of and applying to our selues why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction But why do we require him to do more then he can do But here is a secret gentle Reader which I wish thee to take knowledge of and if thou be acquainted with him aske him if occasion serue the solution of this doubt He telleth vs through all this discourse that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin the eternal punishment therof that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins But now after the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactioÌ„s follow after how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ As for example M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him a release froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope What do we here then with applying the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance But his declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—at They thrust in words of truth that the poison of their falshood may find entrance It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—figurant They fashion their most vaine filthy deuices to the holy names and titles and arguments of true religion He telleth vs that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin and taketh fully away all paine due to sin But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge but yet did we neuer find but that baptisme for pain outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him sicke and diseased before sicke and diseased still lame before lame still blind before blind still We see that infants baptized who he saith haue no sin to satisfie for yet haue many pangs and frets and sicknesses and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin He who dieth in that state saith he goeth presently to heauen but he who dieth in that state dieth he without pain We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy not by reason neither do his eyes look which way his feet go Well let this passe What after baptisme If after we transgresse saith he then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized h 1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation or satisfaction for our sins What is the difference then if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement satisfaction for our sinnes Yea saith M. Bishop God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ but doth
exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable to the fault committed But this cannot be i Hieron in Esa cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas ex parte mendaciū◠eredatur in Christo least as S. Hierome saith in another case it be partly a truth and partly a lye which we beleeue in Christ For then as touching eternall punishment it shall be a truth that Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes but as touching temporall satisfactions it shall be a lye and we shall be said to be the propitiation and attonement for our owne sinnes Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirme neither hath the Scripture taught vs any such diuision betwixt Christ and vs therfore we must confesse that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement vnto God we do nothing for our selues but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sinnes Christ did not onely beare the infinite wrath of God to acquit vs of eternall punishment but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Euangelist k Esa 53.4 Math. 8.17 He tooke vpō him our infirmities and beare our sicknesses that is our temporall punishments which what doth it import but that in respect of temporall punishments also Christ is our Redeemer Christ is our satisfaction vnto God And if not so why do we then pray to God to be deliuered from temporall calamities and afflictions for Christes sake Nay see how wickedly this deuice is framed The bloud of Christ serueth not to acquit vs from temporall punishments but the bloud of S. Peter doth and the bloud of Paul and the bloud of the Martyrs these all are helpfull to free vs from temporall satisfactions They pray by one Saint against the toothach by another against the falling sicknesse by another against the plague c. their merits are auaileable in this behalfe but the merit of Christ auaileth nothing And yet they tell vs that the conclusion of all their praiers is Per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ if Christ in this respect haue done nothing for vs If Christ haue left the burden of temporall satisfactions to lie wholy vpon vs why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof This the Church of the faithfull hath alwaies done and in all times The Church of Rome therefore dealeth vnfaithfully to retaine the words of the faithfull and to giue checke to the meaning of them by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God whereby temporall afflictions and punishments are laid vpon vs. As for vs we resolue that as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam to answer that in sauing which the other had done in destroying hath made satisfaction to God for both so that the faithfull penitent soule beleeuing receiuing in Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes beleeueth it selfe to be perfectly reconciled vnto God reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made vnto him Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christes satisfaction is of infinite value therfore that our satisfactiō is not to supply his But if it be of infinite value why doth he restraine abridge the effect thereof in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong why doth he make the value therof in respect of the temporall punishments of sin altogether idle of no vse and if it might haue freed vs from doing satisfaction for our selues why doth it not He giueth vs reasons that by the smart therof we may be feared and made carefull to auoid sin that by suffering we may be cōformed as mēbers to Christ our head You say wel M. Bishop but yet we heare nothing here concerning satisfaction We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions for that Christ we say hath yeelded a full satisfaction for vs you tell vs of being frighted from sin made cōformable vnto Christ which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction The Scripture teacheth vs these vses of the sufferings of the faithfull but it saith nothing to vs concerning satisfaction But for the better vnderstanding of this whole matter it is to be obserued that the temporal calamities euils of this life are of thēselues and in their own nature the punishments of sin the effects of Gods curse the beames of his euerlasting fury wrath the forerunners of his dreadful iudgment preparations to death death it self the vpshot of all the rest as it were a gulfe swallowing vs vp into feareful darknesse and vtter destruction both of body soule Now Christ being l Iohn 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world in taking away our sins taketh away consequently the effects of sin because the cause being remoued the effects cannot remaine But in sin as hath bene before declared we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt of which the guilt being taken away the corruption may stil remaine and the effects of sinne haue reference to both these Being then reconciled vnto God through Iesus Christ by the not imputing of our sins we see that the temporal afflictions and grieuances of this life are stil continuing lying vpon vs. Hereupon the question is our sins being forgiuen in what nature they continue We say not as satisfactions to the wrath of God in respect of the guilt of sin but as cautions and prouisions of his loue for the destroying of the corruption of it The guilt of sinne is the foundation of satisfaction and where no guilt is there is no satisfaction to be demaunded When therefore forgiuenes hath taken away the guilt there can be no requiring of satisfaction the afflictions thenceforth lying vpon vs are of another nature and to other ends vses then that either we should be said thereby to satisfie God or that God should be said thereby to satisfie himselfe of vs. The vses thereof the Scripture noteth m Rom. 6.6 the destroying of the body of sin n Heb. 12.10 the making of vs partakers of his holinesse o 2. Cor. 4.16 the renewing of the inner man from day to day p Col. 1.12 the making of vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light q 1. Cor. 11.32 We are chastened of the Lord when we are iudged that we should not be cōdemned with the world r Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata velad exercendam probandamque iustitiam vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriā vt illa vbi erit beatitudo vera atque perpetua desideretur ardenriùs instantiùs inquiratur Vide in Ioan. tract 124. They serue saith Austine
is shed for the remission of the sinnes of the brethren which Christ hath done for vs and in that hath yeelded vs not any thing to imitate and follow but what to reioyce of For if any man will compare himselfe to the power of Christ in thinking himselfe to heale the sin of another man it is too much for him he is not capable thereof He is the rich man saith he who being not subiect to any debt either hereditarie or of his owne is both iust himselfe and iustifieth others euen Iesus Christ. Do not aduaunce thy selfe against him being so poore as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a begger of the forgiuenesse of sinnes There is no forgiuenesse of sinnes then by the bloud of Martyrs there is no ablenesse in one man to heale the sinne of another or to pay anothers debt euery man is poore euery man a begger crauing from day to day the release and remission of owne debts This was S. Pauls case thus he praied daily as Christ had taught him and why then doth Maister Bishop make him so rich as that he should be able to make paiment of our debts that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sinnes that he should take vpon him y Tho. Aquint supplem q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedaÌ„ illatae iniuriae recoÌ„pensatio Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae art 1. in corp to make recompence for the wrongs that we haue done to God and to take away our offence towards God or Gods offence and displeasure towards vs as their name of Satisfaction doth import It was a farre other matter that the Apostle intended in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Churches sake It was to confirme vnto the Church the truth of the Gospell of Christ to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached in that he yeelded himselfe for the testifying thereof to hazard and bestow his temporall life to encourage comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ according to the example that they had seen in him to embolden other men to preach the word notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it And thus doth the Apostle expresse the ends and vses of his afflictions z Phil. 1.7 the confirmation of the Gospell a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ d 2. Cor. 1.6 If we be afflicted saith he it is for your coÌ„solation and saluation which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer Not then as to purchase any thing towards their saluation by his afflictions but as to hearten and comfort them to the patient bearing of afflictions in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their saluation to effect Thus Thomas Aquinas where his eies were open coÌ„ceiued both of this text of that to the Colossians which is here in question who writing vpon the words of the Apostle Was Paule crucified for you vseth these words e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect 2. Hoc proprium est Christo vt sua passioâ—e morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit c. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit nâ—bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiaÌ„ per modum meriti efficaciae inquaÌ„tuÌ„ eius sanguine redempti iustificati sumus c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per moduÌ„ exempli secundum 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur c. This is proper to Christ that he by his passion and death hath wrought our saluation But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith Col. 1. Now I reioyce in my sufferings for you c. But we are to say that the passion of Christ was the cause of our saluation not onely by way of example but also by way of merit and effectuall working in that by his bloud we are redeemed and iustified but the sufferings of others is furthering to our saluation only by way of example according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted it is for your comfort and saluation c. Againe in another place propounding by way of obiection that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art 5. arg 3. Non soluÌ„ cassio Christi sed etiam alioruÌ„ sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram vt Col. 1 Gaudeâ— in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctoruÌ„ proficiunt Ecclesiae non quideÌ„ per modum redemptionâ—â— sed per modum exempli exhortationis secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur c. not onely the passion of Christ but also of other Saints was helpfull to our saluation according to the saying of the Apostle Col. 1. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you c. and therefore that Christ onely cannot be called our Redeemer but also other Saints he answereth thus We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church not by way of redemption but by way of example comfort or encouragement according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted c. So where the Apostle saith g 2. Tâ—m 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus he asketh h In â— Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio Dicenduâ— quòd siâ— effectiâ—â— sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat Primo quia dabat exâ—mplum perfistendi in fide Seâ—undo quia confirmabatur fides ex hoc indâ—cebantur ad salutem what was not the passion of Christ sufficient Yes saith he as touching the working of saluation but the Apostles suffering was two waies expedient First because he gaue example thereby of continuing in the faith Secondly because thereby the faith was confirmed and by that meanes they were induced and drawne on to saluation Thus then we haue example confirmation comfort encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints but we cannot finde any satisfaction for our sinnes And that M. Bishop may know that we speake this from better authority then onely Thomas Aquinas let S. Ambrose tell in what sence the Apostles suffered for the Church i Ambrosâ—n Psal 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa toleraâ—â—it Multa etiaÌ„ Paulus raeterique Apâ—stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur vâ—rgis cùm lapidarentur cùm in carceres truderentur Illa enim tolerantia amurtaruÌ„ vsu periculorum Doâ—â—ni fundatus est populus ecclesia incrementum est consecâ—â— cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apostâ—lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiaÌ„ propter hanc breâ—em
to seeke of that vse which M. Bishop maketh of it that this anger of ours against our selues is a price of satisfaction for the appeasing of Gods anger To this being the very point he saith neuer a word he telleth vs of reuenge but he prooueth not that this reuenge is a matter of satisfaction We say that to this reuenge of true and faithfull repentance God graunteth remission of sinnes but we say he graunteth it because we seeke it not in the merit of our reuenge but onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ 15 W. BISHOP Lastly saith M. Perkins They make three works of satisfaction Prayer Fasting and Almes-deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to think that a man by prayer can satisfie for his sins it is all one as if you had said that a begger by asking an almes can deserue the almes or a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt That Prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnesse Psal 49. saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and I will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without faith in Gods power and hope in his goodnesse and therefore must needes be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his â—mnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testifie water his couch with teares making them his foode day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he â— Paral. 33. King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his fathers and prayed and intreated earnestly and God heard his prayers brought him back againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome Now to M. Perkins Similes A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needy man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goods highly esteemeth of an humble contrite heart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon Math. 18. To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besoughtest me R. ABBOT Maister Bishops arguments are like the foxes whelpes neuer a one better then other and all starke naught It is strange to see what shuffling and shifting he vseth to make some good shew of a bad cause The question is whether prayer be a worke of satisfaction that is a worke of that woorth and price as that by the merit thereof we make God a iust and sufficient recompence for the offence that we haue done For the proofe hereof he alledgeth the sentence of the Psalme a Psal 50.15 Call vpon me in the time of trouble and I wil heare thee So then his reason is this God hath promised to heare vs when we pray vnto him therefore prayer is a worke of satisfaction As much as if he should say the prince promiseth a traitour vpon his submission and intreatie to giue him his pardon therefore his submission and intreaty is a sufficient recompence for his treason We may see how maruellously the Romane religion sharpeneth mens eye-sight that they can see mans satisfaction there where God onely signifieth his owne merciful disposition Yea but God doth thereby witnesse that prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon Yea but what need a pardon when the sin is already pardoned for prayer is made a worke of satisfaction after the forgiuenesse of the sinne as I haue shewed before A very ridiculous deuice that God first remitteth the trespasse and we afterwards for a punishment and to make God amends and satisfaction must say Forgiue vs our trespasses Therefore when he speaketh of obtaining pardon he doth but seeke by words of truth to colour absurd dotages of falshood and error The vse of prayer is indeed not to make satisfaction but to craue pardon It appeaseth Gods iustice by the intreating of his mercie whilest we beseech him to heare vs not for our prayers sake but for Christs sake not by the merit of our satisfaction but by vertue of his intercession not for the works sake which we do but for his truths sake for that he hath promised so to do to them that call vpon him By our prayer we request him to forgiue vs that is not to vrge vs to satisfaction and is it not an absurd fancy to affirme prayer it selfe to be a satisfaction And what do men in this case but mocke and dally with God in asking him forgiuenesse when in the meane time they thinke to make him a full and iust requitall of his wrongs so that there shall be nothing to be forgiuen For what remaineth to be forgiuen where there is yeelded a sufficient recompence for the offence done M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs that prayer cannot be made without faith It is true by faith it is that our prayer obtaineth all things at Gods hand But of faith it is true which S. Ambrose saith that b Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 8. Tanquam ex syngrapha fides impetrat noÌ„ tanquam ex debito it obtaineth as by deed of gift not by way of debt It looketh not to our satisfaction but to the promise of God through the mediation of Iesus Christ Further he alledgeth idlely and impertinently that prayer is pleasing vnto God that by it we humble our selues before him acknowledging his omnipotencie and our owne infirmitie that thereby we lament and bewaile the grieuousnesse of our sinnes He mentioneth king Dauid watering his couch with teares and making them his food day and night Manasses greatly humbling himself as the text saith not doing great penance as he translateth intreating the Lord so as that the Lord heard him c. Now all these things are according to the Prouerbe Pro rastris ligones we cal for rakes and he sends vs mattocks we demand one thing and he answereth another We say that prayer is pleasing to God we confesse all these vses and effects thereof but what is all this to the proouing of satisfaction how doth hee make it appeare that that which Dauid and Manasses did they did it with opinion or purpose to make satisfaction for their sinnes I would aske him here with what face he could thus set himselfe to delude his Reader with empty shadowes and shewes of vaine discourse but that I see his whole booke in a manner is made of such delusions But here to shew the absurdity of this assertion of theirs that prayer is a matter of satisfaction M. Perkins had said that it is
all Christians but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life The question that he moueth to Christ is l Mat. 19.16 Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life Our Sauiour answereth If thou wilt enter into lift keepe the commaundements He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth and addeth what lacke I yet What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed If thou wilt be perfect that is lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come and follow me That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of appeareth by the two other Euangelists who thus set downe the answer of Christ m Mark 10.21 One thing is lacking vnto thee n Luke 18.22 Yet lackest thou one thing sel all that thou hast c. Wherto did he lacke one thing but to that whereof he made the question to the obtaining of eternal life Christs words then in effect are Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto go sel all that thou hast c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said For the thing that he desired was to haue eternal life and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches it would haue fully satisfied him But by M. Bishops doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others must so do but if he would rest in a lower degree he might continue as he was and yet obtaine eternall life But the yong man conceiued not so he knew that Christs words imported a conditiō of obtaining eternal life according to the question that he had moued to him and therefore was very sorowfull And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing Verily I say vnto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God Why doth Christ vse these words but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him not from a state of perfection aboue others as M. Bishop dreameth but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion had no knowledge of the faith of Christ our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession He was as yet no disciple of Christ he beleeued not in him and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash of a ruler according to M. Bishops vnderstanding to become a Monke Nay it appeareth plainly that whereas the man had a zeale of God and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life but he must be content vpō his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things and to become one of his disciples and followers In a word he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself o Philip. 36.8 As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I haue counted all things losse and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is that morall workes whether of Iewes or of Gentiles are not auailable in the sight of God they want their forme and life and perfection vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ p Ambr. in psal 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt videntur virere sed 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 Vertues without faith are bu◠leaues saith S. Ambrose they shew greene but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof and to trust onely vpon him This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man as if he should haue said vnto him Thou doest well in that which thou doest but that is not enough if thou wilt haue good of it become my disciple and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast and come and follow me Where to know how these words do belong to vs it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had Thus the Apostles had partly done already and were afterwards fully and wholly to do being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same But our following of Christ now cōsisteth not in changing of our places but in giuing him our affections neither is performed by the foote but by the heart neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him As is then our following of Christ so is our selling of all that we haue a matter of the heart and affection whilest in the midst of all that we haue we haue our minds so vntied free from the loue and respect of worldly things as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not For by Bellarmine we vnderstand that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae status religiosorum est status
Yet we haue heard how Bellarmine maketh them u De iustificat lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo in some sort meritorious also and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be so that in this respect also they do but dally with the Apostle But tell vs M. Bishop are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace or onely of free will If they be of grace as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them what hindereth them from being meritorious seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes If they be of free will then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification which before you say the Apostle intendeth If he say that free will is helped by grace let him tell vs what he meaneth therein by grace and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike as before is said He goeth on further and saith that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith no more doth it exclude the rest How so Marry faith is as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest But that is false as we haue already seene and againe faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke as both faith hope and charity do with them but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby All the rest saith he are of grace as well as faith But being before iustification how should they be of grace seeing before iustification there is no infused grace and why are they not meritorious as hath bene said Againe he saith that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle who affirmeth that x Rom. 3.27 boasting is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith And the thing is plaine for he hath somewhat to boast of who doth any thing for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him but in faith there is nothing to boast of because the act of faith is to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake it is it selfe wholy the gift of God and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs but all wholy vnto God But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting in as much as he must confesse as hath bene before said that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God yea so farre as that man hath to glory that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect it being in his power either to accept or to refuse the same Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke y Luk. 8.50 onely beleeue as nothing to the purpose he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof Let S. Austine teach him that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod noÌ„ est transituruÌ„ neque in fine abituruÌ„ post Per ista teÌ„poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur all the miracles which Christ did corporally do serue for our instruction that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away nor go from vs in the end that by these temporall things which were seene he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life doth instruct vs that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace The man indeede was bid as M. Bishop saith to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life but therein he was bid also to beleeue that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle but I answer him that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith for the obtaining of bodily health doth also referre vs to faith for the obtaining of soules health Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said As for the places of Austin if his sight had not failed him I suppose he would not haue alledged them the one of them being nothing at all against vs and the other directly against himselfe We say a August de grat lib. â—â—bit cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill and haue no good workes Nay we say further God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill and haue no good workes We haue often enough said that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life and that faith that is without good workes is onelie called faith with men but indeede and with God it is not so In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle saying b De praedest sanct cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith that a man is iustified by his workes as well as by his faith By faith and not by works saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle both by faith and works saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines S. Austine giueth the reason c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetreÌ„tur caetera qua propriè opera nuÌ„ cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained which are properly called works in which a man liueth righteously Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen that thereby we may be iustified and thence follow good works in which we liue well according to his rules before deliuered d De fide et operib cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum non praecâ—dunt iustificandum They follow a man being iustified they go not before to iustification e Epist 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur noÌ„ quia praecesserunt iustificamur then they begin when we are iustified we are not iustified for them going before Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement that iustification is the beginning of good works and if iustification be the beginning of good workes then by no meanes can it be said that good workes are any cause of