BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towards God beleeuing those things to be true which God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus And when knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgements they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a new life and to keepe all Christs commandements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and mans owne Iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Iesus Passions the instrumental is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onely formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification Of the Iustification by faith and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is iustified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnesse for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnesse which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formal cause of Iustification is our iustice that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience whereas obedience if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hands R. ABBOT The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification is the very heresie of the Pelagians as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace b Coster Enchirid cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum motio spiritus s adhuc foris degentis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed mâ—uâ—nus adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem not any intrinsecall or infused but only outwardly assisting grace which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged they deriue faith hope loue repentance the feare of God the hatred of sinne and purpose of new life whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith hope charity and other gifts of the holy Ghost then to be powred into his soule Whereby though they will not seeme so to do yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that which if Pelagius had not denied condemned he had bene condemned himselfe c August epist 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits In which sort Bellarmine saith that d Bellarm. de Iustificat lib. 1. cap. 1â— Fides â—ustificat per moduÌ„ dispositioâ—is merin meretur remissionem peccateruÌ„ suo quodam modo faith iustifieth by way of merit that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes applying thereto some speâ—ches of Austine which to that purpose were neuer meant In seâ—â—ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell he committeth an absurd errour in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification as if it selfe could be the final cause of â—â—eâ—fe whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life Whereâ—â— he saith that they agree with vs in this point that Iustification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God through his in◠〈…〉 our Sauiours Passion he doth but sop◠〈…〉 For if Iustification be of the free grace of God then it is not of works according to that of the Apostle e Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace But he afterwards professedly disputeth that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God and therefore formally he nameth it but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith shall be proued vnto him God willing by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note in which he telleth vs that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience whereas obedience saith he if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hand Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle in that he saith f Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous For to him he might likewise say that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience that many by it are made righteous whereas by his obedience if it had bene without charity many could not haue bene made righteous But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie whereas charity is the very mother of obedience neither is there any true obedience but what issueth therefrom And therefore M. Perkins well noted though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes 2. W. BISHOP And whereas M. Perkins doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is
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
excluded all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required but not charitie Vaine man what had S. Bernard here to do either with Iewes or Gentiles He spake to Christian and faithfull brethren to whom he had no occasion to giue any caueat either against Iewes or Gentiles but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieued with sinne euen to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse not meaning by righteousnesse inherent righteousnesse as M. Bishop doth but that righteousnesse which consisteth as he had before expounded it in the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therfore he teacheth to beleeue in Christ who is our righteousnesse l Justitia donaÌ„s delecta sub fineÌ„ a righteousnesse as he speaketh againe that forgiueth sinnes the forme of which righteousnesse he expresseth thus m Delicta iuueÌ„tutu meae ignorantias meas ne memineris â—â—stus sum Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances and I am righteous or iust Thus S. Bernard saith that a man is iustified by faith alone and shall we be so mad as to thinke that in saying a man is iustified by faith alone his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth that a man is iustified by faith and charitie that is to say not iustified by faith alone And did S. Bernard thinke that a man hath charitie before he haue charitie For seeing as M. Bishop telleth vs the gift of charitie is infused and powred into vs in iustification surely to say that by charitie a man is iustified is to say that by charitie the gift of charitie is powred into him Which if it be absurd then let him be content that S. Bernards meaning be as indeed it is that a man is iustified by faith alone let him take charitie for a gift of the iustified not for any fore-running cause of iustification Now that the righteousnes there spokeÌ„ of is not meant of inherent righteousnesse it is very plaine in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth seuerally therof vnder the name of sanctificatioÌ„ His counter-places are impertinent What S. Bernard therein saith we say n In Cant. ser 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae noÌ„â—peratur ex dilectione A mans beleeuing aright except it worke by loue doth not set him right or straight and againe o Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem Neither faith without workes nor workes without faith do suffice to the rectitude or straightnesse of the mind True it is as I haue often said that to the full rectifying and perfecting of a man belongeth not onely iustification by the forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctification to charitie and good workes but what doth this hinder but that notwithstanding both the worke of iustification and the obtaining also of sanctification may be performed by faith alone Chrysostomes words are p Chrysost ad Gal. ca. 3. Illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse They sayd he who rested on faith alone is accursed but Paul saith that he is blessed that resteth vpon faith alone M. Bishops answer that faith alone there excludeth onely the ceromonies of Moses law is alreadie shewed to be vaine But here it further appeareth in that Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle maketh speciall choice of Abraham who was so long before the Law for an example of being iustified without workes and that q Ibid. AbrahaÌ„ producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse iustificatioÌ„ Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide iustificatus est idque quum operibus bonis floreret multo magis vos Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom 8. supra sect 26. when as he abounded in good workes For if he in that case were not iustified by his workes but by his faith then it is manifest that not onely the ceremoniall workes of Moses law but all other workes are excepted from that iustification that is described to be by faith alone We are to be iustified as Abraham was Abraham though he abounded in good workes yet was not iustified thereby Therefore we also though we haue good workes yet are not iustified thereby but by faith alone The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins when as by himselfe it is altogether marred His words saith he truly repeated are these Let no man acknowledge c. putting in a sentence of his owne making vnder the name of Basils wordes truly repeated What a shamelesse man is he thus to mocke his Reader thus grosly and palpably to forge a matter and yet to pretend truth Basil hauing mentioned the wordes of S. Paul that r 1. Cor. 1.30 Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption saith hereupon thus Å¿ Basil ser de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè apud Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactat sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iustitiae indigum sola autem fide in Christum iustifâ—catum for that is perfect and full of reioycing in God when a man is not lifted vp because of his owne righteousnes but knoweth that he himselfe is destitute of true righteousnes and is iustified by faith onely which is in Christ Thus he spake to a Christian auditorie and instructed them to acknowledge themselues to be void wanting destitute of true righteousnes to be iustified only by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our owne but no necessary good disposition but he should remeÌ„ber I say that Basil spake to them that were past dispositions and preparations it being a Sermon not ad Catechumenos such as were yet to be baptized but ad fideles to the faithfull as they were tearmed after Baptisme and them doth he teach to acknowledge themselues to be iustified by faith alone But whosoeuer they had bene how crossely doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils words Basil saith Let a man acknowledge himselfe destitute of true righteousnesse and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith a man is not destitute of true righteousnesse but hath vertuous good dispositions and preparations by which he is to be iustified and not by faith alone But no maruell that they crosse others who are so tangled with the truth as that they know not how to speake but to crosse themselues still blowing both hot and cold freely and yet for workes for nothing and yet for something no merit and yet in some sort merit of meere mercie and yet somewhat to moue God beside his mercie But to giue some colour to that that he saith he telleth vs that Basil in his Sermon de Fide proueth by many texts of Scripture that charitie is as
deliuered from the body of death For i De nat et grat ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat sed contracta exillo vitia cohaeâ—ent quibus iusta poena debetur the death of the body separateth the wicked from the body when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do sticke fast to which iust punishment remaineth due Therfore when he praieth to be deliuered from this body of death k Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit he meaneth it of the vitious affections of the body l De Temp. ser 45. Per concupiscentiam dictuÌ„ est hoc nostrum mortis corpus By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called So Oecumenius saith that the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from m Oecumen in Ro. ca. 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt the concupiscences which are in the body and which are death vnto vs and do cause a spirituall death n Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatuÌ„ quod mortis est causa It is a body of death saith Origen wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death Ambrose saith that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death o Ambros apud Aug. cont IuliaÌ„ lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est c. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat c. because we all are borne vnder sinne and our very beginning is in trespasse acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin that what it was in the beginning the same in part it continueth still Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith that the Apostle here meaneth p Method apud Epiphan haer 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit c. sinne dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations thoughts whereof he wished to be deliuered accounting the same death and destruction it selfe Bernard saith that it was q Bernard in Cant. ser 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia c. Hoc sanè vnointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino Vnde optabas clamans Quis me liberabit c. the law of sinne euen concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him that made him crie out who shall deliuer me from the body of this death In concupiscence then standeth this body of death and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himselfe miserable it is concupiscence that maketh him miserable which therfore S. Austin calleth r August de Tempore ser 45. miseram legem the miserable law of sin not as being it self capable of misery but per metonymiam because it maketh vs miserable or because we are miserable by it Thus therfore the Apostle acknowledgeth himselfe miserable in himself not as holding himselfe to be in disgrace with God but as finding in himself that for which he deserueth so to be and should be but that God in Christ is mercifull vnto him not to impute the same And what is it but a miserie to haue as it were a filthy carion tied fast to him still breathing out noysome stinke to be continually troubled with an importunat enemy giuing him no rest wearying his soule from day to day nay to cary about with him Å¿ Idem cont Iulian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum queÌ„dam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat euen an army of diuerse and sundry lusts drawing one this way and another that way fighting against him on the right hand and on the left bereauing him of his ioy whilest in most earnest meditations they cary him away whether he will or not from that wherin his delight is If outward crosses do make a man miserable much more this inward destraction affliction which galleth the strings of the hart vexeth the very spirit and soule more then the bitternesse of death it selfe If M. Bishop knew this affliction he would thinke there were cause enough therein to make him crie out Miserable man that I am c. But his benummed heart feeleth it not and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schooles without any conscience or sence of that he saith and to a formall argument as he calleth it giueth these mis-shapen and deformed answers 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second Infants Baptized die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them any other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom 5. Rom. 5. death entred into the world by sinne Ans The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happie exchange of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it sayd most truly of S. Paul Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entred into the world by sinne But the other place The wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wages whereof if they had not repented them had bene hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Original sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of actuall sinne is either to shew great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it R. ABBOT The example of infants dying after Baptisme before they come to yeares of discretion is rightly alledged to proue that sinne remaineth after Baptisme because where there is no sin there can be no death To this M. Bishop sendeth vs a most pitifull and miserable answer that the cause of the death of infants is not sin but either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence Thus he would maintain a priuiledge to infants against the words of S. Iohn a 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues that they may say we say we haue
diuell beleeueth and knoweth as well as he But to see the giddinesse of his head reeling and staggering he knoweth not whither he saith we find Christ we hold him and see him we eate him we digest him by beleeuing thus and thus when he hath plainely giuen vs before to vnderstand that for all his beleeuing he cannot tell whether he haue any thing to doe with Christ whether he haue receiued the grace of Christ whether he haue anie true repentance hope charitie and such like without which Christ is neither holden nor had at all But such darknesse is fit for them who leaue the wayes of God and make choise to tread the Labyrinthes and maze-rounds of their owne brain-sicke imaginations To his question where it is once sayd in any of these sentences that we are assured of our Saluation I answer him that it followeth of that for proofe whereof these sentences were alledged For if the office of true faith be not onely generally to beleeue but also particularly to apply that which it beleeueth as hath bene shewed and all those speeches alledged do import then it followeth that according to the measure of it it yeeldeth a particular assurance of Saluation to euerie one that doth beleeue We beleeue saith he these points and many more but yet we shall be neuer the nearer our Saluation vnlesse we obserue Gods commaundements But if we beleeue as the Scripture teacheth vs to beleeue we are thereby the nearer our Saluation though we do not obserue Gods commandements in that sort and to that end as he intendeth For therefore do we beleeue in Christ therefore do we seeke him take hold of him eate him drinke him digest him that in him we may find the comfort of Saluation which otherwise we cannot find for want of the keeping of Gods commandements Therefore saith the Apostle c Gal. 2.16 Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law not by our keeping of Gods commandements because that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified And in this respect we are not vncertaine of performing Gods commaundements as M. Bishop speaketh but verie certaine that we neuer do or can performe them hauing continually cause to demaund pardon of our wants and therefore neuer finding any assured trust of Saluation so long as we ground it hereupon But although we denie any such keeping of Gods commandements as may serue for the purchase of our iustification and Saluation yet we acknowledge a keeping thereof as a fruit of our iustification and a part of the worke of our Saluation because d Ephes 2.10 we are Gods workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which he hath prepared for vs to walke in And this keeping of Gods commandements our Sauiour hath recommended vnto vs as M. Bishop alledgeth and of it S. Iohn saith e 1. Iohn 2.4 He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandements is a lyar and the truth is not in him But this keeping of Gods commaundements cannot be seuered from the finding and receiuing and holding and eating and digesting of Christ because no man receiueth or eateth Christ by faith but who liueth by him and in whom he liueth that he may say f Gal. 2.20 Not I now but Christ liueth in me and that I now liue in the flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Verie idlely therefore in this behalfe doth M. Bishop tell vs that by the one we are neuer a whit the nearer without the other when the one can no where be without the companie of the other Now of this keeping of Gods commandements and perseuerance therein true faith as before hath bene shewed resteth assured because God hath so promised and so farre are we from being doubtfull of Saluation by any doubt thereof as that we rather gather hence greater strength of assurance by that we perceiue the beginning of that good worke of God in vs whereby he fitteth and prepareth his vnto euerlasting life 17. W. BISHOP The second reason is Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that certainely by faith we must beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our Saluation ergo The first proposition is true The second is proued thus S. Paul saith Rom. 8. the spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God The Papists to elude this reason alledge that it doth indeed witnesse our adoption by some comfortable feeling of Gods fauour toward vs which may often be mistaken whereof the Apostle warneth vs when he saith beleeue not euerie spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God or no. 1. Iohn 4. But saith M. Perkins by their leaue the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare feeling of Gods grace For it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts And therefore it takes away all doubting as in a bargaine the earnest giuen puts all out of question 1. Cor. 1. I answer first out of the place it selfe that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed which M. Perkins thought wisedome to conceale For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God stands free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receiued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of Saluation This is the direct answer to that place although the other be verie good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and ioy which breedeth great hope of Saluation but bringeth not assurance thereof This M. Perkins would refute by the authority of S. Bernard in the place before cited see the place and my answer there Epist 107. R. ABBOT To shew that the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie our adoption and Saluation and therefore that we are by faith to beleeue the same M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 8.15.16 We haue receiued the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God Which words so expresse and plaine might be sufficient to stoppe the mouthes of these brabling sophisters but that they measure the portion of Gods children by their owne carnall sence and conceipt and being destitute of true faith and of the spirit of God are no more fit to iudge hereof then blind men are to iudge of colours It is apparent that the faithfull haue a testimonie of the holy Ghost bearing witnesse with their spirit that
trecherously and falsly he dealeth in saying that the best learned of our side do confesse that the Fathers be all against vs hath bene shewed before and it shall appeare God willing throughout this whole booke that there is no cause for them so to say 15. W. BISHOP The second difference about the manner of Iustification VVE all agree in generall that faith concurreth to our Iustification but differ in three points First how faith is to be taken Secondly how it worketh in our iustification Thirdly whether it alone doth iustifie Concerning the first point Catholikes hold a iustifying faith to be that Christian faith by which we beleeue the articles of our Creed and all other things reuealed by God The Protestants auerre it to be a particular faith whereby they apply to themselues the promises of righteousnesse and of life euerlasting by Christ This to be the true iustifying faith M. Perkins saith he hath proued alreadie he should haue done well to haue noted the place for I know not where to seeke it but he will here adde a reason or twaine 1 Reason The faith whereby we liue is the faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue is a particular faith whereby we apply Christ to our selues as Paul saith I liue Gal. 2 â—0 that is spiritually by the faith of the Sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the words following Who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly Answer The Maior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith whereby we apply Christes merits vnto our selues making them ours in the proofe Saint Paul saith onely that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christes iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ died as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue was so exceeding great towards mankinde that he would willingly haue bestowed his life for the redemption of one onely man But hereupon it doth not follow that euery man may lay hands vpon Christes righteousnesse and apply it to himselfe or else Turkes Iewes Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make very bold with him but must first doe those things which he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them heartily of their sinnes to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. Perkins also confesseth that all men haue not onely promised Pag. 152. but also vowed in Baptisme Now because we are not assured that we shall performe all this therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse and life euerlasting although we beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular That which followeth M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that Saint Paul in this manner of beliefe that is in applying to himselfe Christes merits was an example vnto all that are saued See the places good Reader 1 Tim. 1.16 Phil. 3.15 and learne to beware the bold vnskilfulnesse of sectaries For there is not a word sounding that way but onely how he hauing receiued mercy was made an example of patience R. ABBOT That the act of true faith is particularly to apply hath bene handled before in the question of the Certaintie of Saluation but yet the place so requiring M. Perkins thought fit here to set downe some few reasons for further proofe thereof The first whereof is grounded vpon the words of S. Paul a Gal. 2.20 I liue by the faith of the Sonne of God who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me M. Bishops exception is that S. Paul speaketh not of faith wherby we apply Christes merits or iustice vnto our selues making them ours but saith onely that Christ died for him in particular But what is not the death of Christ a part yea and a principall part of the merit of Christ With vs it is so and M. Bishop we suppose when he is well aduised conceiueth no otherwise If then the Apostle speake of faith apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ he speaketh of faith apprehending and applying vnto vs particularly the merit of Christ And all parts of the merit of Christ are parts also with vs of the righteousnesse of Christ As his obedience in b Ambros in Ps 118. ser 8. Baptizatus pro nobis being baptized for vs was his c Mat. 3.15 righteousnesse so his d Phil. 2.8 obedience in dying for vs was his righteousnesse also Therfore faith applying vnto vs particularly the death of Christ applieth vnto vs particularly the righteousnesse of Christ Now M. Bishop telleth vs that all Catholikes beleeue with S. Paul that Christ died as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular of his exceeding great loue towards mankind But tell vs further M. Bishop was that all that S. Paul meant that Christ loued him as he loued all men he died for him as he died for all men Was this S. Pauls faith Christ loued me as he loued Iudas the traitour he died for me as he died for Simon Magus It is written concerning Esau e Rom. 9.13 I haue hated Esau and in him a patterne of all reprobates is set forth vnto vs and might Esau say as well as Paul Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Indeed as S. Austine saith f â— August ad articul sibi falso imposit art 1 Quod ad magnitudineÌ„ et potentiaÌ„ pretuÌ„ quod ad vnaÌ„ pertinet causam generu humani sanguis Christi redemptio est totim mundi c. Redemptionis proprietas haud dubiuÌ„ penes illos est de quibus princeps hâ—ius mundi missus est foras et â—am non membra diaboli sed vasa sunt Christi Cuâ—us mors non impensa est humano generi vt ad redemptionem eius etiam qui regerandi non erant pertinerent c. as touching the greatnesse and sufficiencie of the price and one coÌ„mon cause or condition of mankind the bloud of Christ is the redemption of the whole world but yet as he further addeth there is a propriety of this redemption on their part from whom the Prince of this world is cast forth and who are not now vessels of the diuell but members of Christ neither did he bestow his death vpon mankind that they also that were not to be regenerated should belong to his redemption Christ in his death intended a price of such extent in value and woorth as should be of power and ablenesse to saue all and therefore should be offered indifferently to all but yet in loue he paied this price onely for them to whom of loue he intended
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
perfection of a man whereof if anie be wanting it is an imperfection so that a Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium quà m propemo duâ— nihil corpori quà m multuÌ„ detrahitur pulchritudini if but one ey-brow be shauen as S. Austine saith though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it Euen so is it in the iustified man faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life because as the quickening facultie power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith or in our hearts by faith but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man to which as to the other members from the heart so from faith life is imparted and communicated that in them we may be aliue to God Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification but by occasion of commending faith and loue that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine misquoteth Ep. ad Philippâ—nses faith is the beginning of life c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him For if faith be the beginning of life then by faith we first liue By faith therfore we are iustified for to be iustified as M. Bishop confessed in the former section is to be translated from death Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption as hath bene before shewed so faith wherein is our new birth giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life the summe whereof is charitie because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together do make perfect the man of God The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same and needeth no further answer With Chrysostome we say that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely though faith alone suffice to iustification Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man but he is not by them made a iustified man Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham c Chrys ad Rom. hom 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae eâ— verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri hoc scilicet admirabile est quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith it should be no strange matter but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith this is wonderfull and doth greatly set forth the power of faith S. Austin in the place by him alledged if it were S. Austin auoucheth good workes to iustifie theÌ„ that are iustified that is to approue them iust but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification and purposely in that place disputeth against it d August Hypognost lib. 3. Ex operibus noÌ„ iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt Ideò subiungens inquit Iustificatè gratu per gratiaÌ„ Dei. Noli â—i praeponere opera propria neâ— exâ—â—â—eÌ„ gloriari quâ— ex operibus non c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy through the faith of Iesus Christ is apparent vpon all that do beleeue Therefore the Apostle saith we are iustified freely by the grace of God Put not thine owne workes before it nor glorie thereof because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him If no workes go before iustification then M. Bishops cause as too weake must go to the wals because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes for being iustified before we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after and if neither by works before nor after then not at all It followeth therefore that when S. Austine saith in that place that men of God are iustified by good workes he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man not any causes of iustification Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after f Aug. vt supr Iustificatio per fideÌ„ Iesu Christi data est datur dabitur crâ—dentâ—bus Iustification hath bene giuen is giuen and shall be giuen to them that beleeue by the faith of Iesus Christ Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop he saith it not as to the Protestant but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi c. Thou wilt say Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes If so why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes To which he answereth h Audi haeretice stulte inimice fidei veritatis Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparaÌ„tur per gratiae praeâ—entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente gubernante perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna mâ—â— quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt iustificantur iustifiâ—abuntur in Christo Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur ex his tanquâ—m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith We condemne not the good works of free will which that they may be done are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will and the same preuenting grace causing directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil because by such men of God haue bin are and shal be iustified in Christ But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification from
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.
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
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
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
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
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
but somewhat at least to the free will of man Againe it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth but Å¿ Sest 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men as he hath before expressed Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice yet he maketh no exception but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heaueÌ„ vnto him as iustly deserued which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth that t Aug Hypog lib 3. Intellâ—ge in miseratione misericordiae non in factione meritorum animam coronari not for performance of merits but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned and to say with Hilary u Hilar in Psal 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus quòd erimus quòd non sumus causam â—â—am non habet nisi misericordiae Dei That we are what we were not that we shall be what we are not it hath no other cause at all but onely the mercie of God Againe he will not haue vs boast and say that God needed vs for our selues but we must needes say with Tertullian x Tertul. aduer Hermog Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur There is none but needeth him of whose he vseth any thing Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe but at our will It is in the power of our free will either to helpe it or hinder it either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise God must stand in neede of our will to consent to his worke or else it succeedeth not For the auoiding of which absurdity we must confesse that God vseth nothing in vs for the effecting of our saluation but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting our beleeuing our willing our working all is of God and nothing is there therein that we can call ours Now therefore it is plaine that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians y Ephe. 2.8 By grace ye are saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ taketh exception generally against works and giueth to vnderstand that they are effects not causes of saluation because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus vnto good workes M. Bishops exception is that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues before we be iustified But that his exception is very vaine appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith Not of workes least any man should boast addeth in the next words For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do For what sence were it to say we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification But the Apostles meaning is very euident we are not saued by any good workes that we do for our good workes are none of ours but they are his workmanship in vs by whom we are saued who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in to the same saluation It was not then M. Perkins ignorance to take two distinct manner of workes for the same but M. Bishops absurd shifting to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth that there is no difference at all But we would gladly know of him to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions To the latter he cannot because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus which we are not till we be iustified and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification If to the former then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification So in neither place doth he say any thing of them and because he knew them not he hath wholy left them out He was vndoubtedly to blame to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions as not to think them worth the speaking of But it is woorth the noting to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle Not by workes least any man should boast that is not by workes that are of our selues but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation which are partly of God and partly of our selues and yet as I haue before said they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation to be onely of our selues because as yet there is z Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriuÌ„ auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed moueÌ„tis adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem noÌ„ solum patiendo sed operando agendo no infused or inhabitant grace whence they should proceede and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle But see the singular impudencie of this man who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions who hath not in the place alledged by him so much as any seÌ„blance or shew for proofe thereof Note with S. Austin saith he that faith excludeth all merits of our works but no vertuous dispositions for preparatioÌ„ to grace Lewd Sophister where is that note found in S. Austine in what words is it set downe What still lye and nothing but lye S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but not all workes for there are workes of preparation which Doctor Bishop no simple man I warrant you defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes vnderstanding by merits any thing going before iustification that should be vnto God a motiue or cause
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
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
Austin in Psal 102. hath these words o August in Psal 102. Ergo coronat te quia donae suae coronat non merita tua He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Which is the same in effect with that which M. Bishop putteth in place of it very often repeated by S. Austin either in the same or very neare the same words that God when he crowneth vs p IdeÌ„ epist 105. et in Ioan. trac 5. de grat et lib. arb cap. 6. 7. crowneth his owne gifts not our merits But he answereth hereto very vntruly and deceitfully It is true indeed that S. Austin there speaketh to him that thinketh he hath merits of his owne and of himself that God wil not crowne those because they are onely euill and he giueth not the crowne to euill workes but he crowneth onely his owne gifts because in vs there is no good worke to which onely the crowne is giuen but onely by Gods gift q De grat et lib. arb ca. 6. Prorsus talia cogitanti veriffimèdicitur dona tua coronat Deus non merita tua si tibi teipso non ab illo sunt merita tua Haec enim si talia sunt mala sunt quae autem mala sunt non coronat Deus Si autem bona sunt Dei dona sunt To him that so thinketh sayth he it is rightly said God crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits if thou haue thy merits of thy selfe and not of his gift for if they be such they be euill and God crowneth not those that be euill but if they be good they be the gifts of God Now to those words M. Bishop addeth in the same letter as if it were S. Austins whether by the Printers fault or by his owne lewd falshood he can best tell himself this animaduersion But if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then may we as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits But M. Bishop did S. Austine tell you so Will you so wilfully abuse him and peruert his words and meaning Surely in the beginning of the next Chapter which is but ten lines after the words cited S. Austine saith thus r Jbid. cap. 7. Siergo Dei donae sunt merita tua non Deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua If then thy good merits be Gods gifts God doth not crowne thy merits as thy merits but as his owne gifts In which words he plainely denieth that there is any respect of our merit or that God accounteth vs as hauing merited but that he giueth the crown and reward onely as to his owne gifts which he himselfe hath bestowed vpon vs. How bad a man then is M. Bishop to make S. Austin say that God crowneth our good workes proceeding from his grace as our merits when S. Austin expressely and flatly denieth the same But there is yet some further poison hidden in his words for when he nameth merits proceeding from grace working with vs he diuideth betwixt God and vs that which S. Austin maketh entirely the gift of God The worke is not meerely of the grace of God in vs but of grace working with vs because we also as well as grace are partakers of the worke So then S. Austin must not say that God crowneth his owne gifts not our merits but God crowneth partly his owne gifts and partly our merits because the good workes which he crowneth are partly of his grace and partly also of our owne freewill By this meanes Maister Bishop will hold it very absurd which the same Saint Austine saith in the other place Å¿ Epist 105. Câ—â—â— Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quà m namerae sua When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts for if he crowne nothing else but his owne gifts if he crowne nothing at all of ours then what part of the câ—owne is it that we can say is merited and deserued by vs His answer to the last words of Austine is excluded by the very words themselues t Aug Psal 14â— Propter â—â—men tuum D â—â—ine viuificabis â—eâ—in tua iustitia non in mea noÌ„ quia ego merut sâ—â— quia tu miseritis Lord for thy names sake thou wilt quicken me in thy righteousnesse not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou art mercifull This place he saith appertaineth to the first iustification of a sinner but it seemeth he gaue the answer somewhat too early in the morning before his eyes were well opened for otherwise he might haue seene that these are the words of a man alreadie iustified vttered in the name of the Prophet of God not in the preterperfect tense as of a thing past but in the future tense as of a thing to come Thou shalt or wilt quicken me and therefore cannot be vnderstood of any first iustification The Prophet being alreadie in part reuiued to the life of God prayeth stil to be reuiued and quickened more and more and promiseth to himselfe by assurance of faith through the holy Ghost that God will so do not in my righteousnesse saith he as Austin expresseth it not because I haue deserued it but for his owne names sake for his owne mercies sake giuing to vnderstand that not onely the beginning of the worke of God but also the proceeding thereof is not for any merit of man but by the mercie of him by whom it was first begun And whereas he saith that they confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie he doth but blind his Reader with a concealed distinction of merit hauing himselfe u Of Iustification Sect. 21. before taught that his workes of preparation are the cause of the iustification of a sinner as he hath corruptly argued out of the words of Christ Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much So that the terme of meere mercie is vsed only colourably and for fashion sake neither doth he acknowledge the meere mercy of God in any sort but as the Pelagian heretickes did in the first offer of his grace 14. W. BISHOP Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alledged against Merits let vs see what can be said for them following as neare as I can M. Perkins order Obiections of Papists so he termeth our reasons First in sundry places of Sâ—ripture promise of reward is made vnto good works Gen. 4. Prou. 11. Eccl. 18. Mat. 5. If thou do well shalt thou not receiue To him that doth well there is a faithful reward Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the reward of God remaineth for euer and When you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen and a hundreth such like therfore
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
Yet we haue heard how Bellarmine maketh them u De iustificat lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo in some sort meritorious also and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be so that in this respect also they do but dally with the Apostle But tell vs M. Bishop are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace or onely of free will If they be of grace as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them what hindereth them from being meritorious seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes If they be of free will then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification which before you say the Apostle intendeth If he say that free will is helped by grace let him tell vs what he meaneth therein by grace and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike as before is said He goeth on further and saith that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith no more doth it exclude the rest How so Marry faith is as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest But that is false as we haue already seene and againe faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke as both faith hope and charity do with them but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby All the rest saith he are of grace as well as faith But being before iustification how should they be of grace seeing before iustification there is no infused grace and why are they not meritorious as hath bene said Againe he saith that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle who affirmeth that x Rom. 3.27 boasting is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith And the thing is plaine for he hath somewhat to boast of who doth any thing for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him but in faith there is nothing to boast of because the act of faith is to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake it is it selfe wholy the gift of God and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs but all wholy vnto God But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting in as much as he must confesse as hath bene before said that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God yea so farre as that man hath to glory that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect it being in his power either to accept or to refuse the same Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke y Luk. 8.50 onely beleeue as nothing to the purpose he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof Let S. Austine teach him that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod noÌ„ est transituruÌ„ neque in fine abituruÌ„ post Per ista teÌ„poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur all the miracles which Christ did corporally do serue for our instruction that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away nor go from vs in the end that by these temporall things which were seene he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life doth instruct vs that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace The man indeede was bid as M. Bishop saith to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life but therein he was bid also to beleeue that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle but I answer him that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith for the obtaining of bodily health doth also referre vs to faith for the obtaining of soules health Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said As for the places of Austin if his sight had not failed him I suppose he would not haue alledged them the one of them being nothing at all against vs and the other directly against himselfe We say a August de grat lib. â—â—bit cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill and haue no good workes Nay we say further God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill and haue no good workes We haue often enough said that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life and that faith that is without good workes is onelie called faith with men but indeede and with God it is not so In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle saying b De praedest sanct cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith that a man is iustified by his workes as well as by his faith By faith and not by works saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle both by faith and works saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines S. Austine giueth the reason c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetreÌ„tur caetera qua propriè opera nuÌ„ cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained which are properly called works in which a man liueth righteously Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen that thereby we may be iustified and thence follow good works in which we liue well according to his rules before deliuered d De fide et operib cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum non praecâ—dunt iustificandum They follow a man being iustified they go not before to iustification e Epist 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur noÌ„ quia praecesserunt iustificamur then they begin when we are iustified we are not iustified for them going before Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement that iustification is the beginning of good works and if iustification be the beginning of good workes then by no meanes can it be said that good workes are any cause of
iustification He excludeth not then good workes which proceede from Gods grace as M. Bishop saith but he denieth that there are any good workes before iustification because he knoweth no grace but iustifying grace and therefore directly crosseth Maister Bishops assertion of good workes before iustification which are the causes for which we are iustified 29. W. BISHOP Maister Perkins third argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this end of apprehending but faith onely Answer Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries must needes know little But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnesse according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours onely by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but onely the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them ours thē faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him But charity doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship A micorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertues we take such hold on Christes merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying De nat gra cap. vlt. That Charity beginning was Iustice beginning Charitie encreased was Iustice encreased great Charitie was great Iustice and perfect Charity was perfect Iustice R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledgeth that very reason may teach vs that faith onely iustifieth because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiuing but faith onely To this M. Bishop answereth that mans reason is a blind mistresse in matters of faith Wherein he saith truly and indeede is the cause why he himselfe writeth so blindly as he doth and measureth high mysteries by carnall and base conceipts And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blinde who gaue so blinde a reason against that which Maister Perkins saith being spoken not out of the reason of man but as the reason of a faithfull man may esteeme by direction of the word of God No man entreth into the possession of any thing saith he by beleeuing that he hath it for if a man beleeue that he is rich doth he thereby become rich I answer him no but though a man by beleeuing himselfe to be rich do not become rich yet if to a poore begger a great man say If thou wilt take my word and referre thy selfe to me and depend vpon my fauour and good will I will make thee rich doth he not by giuing credit to his word commit himselfe to him entertaine his fauour accept his offer and become owner of that that is promised vnto him What is it whereby we accept of promise but onely beliefe Now all that our question is of consisteth of promise in all the benefits of God we are a Gal. 4.28 the children of promise b Cap. 3 29. heires by promise c Heb. 6.17 heires of promise expecting all things by the gracious promise of God d 2. Pet. 1.4 by promise to be partakers of the diuine nature e Gal. 3.14.16 the blessing by promise f Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise g Gal. 3.18 the inheritance by promise h Tit. 1.2 life eternall by promise i 2. Pet. 3.13 by promise a new heauen and a new earth wherein righteousnesse dwelleth all which k 2. Cor. 1.20 promises in Christ are yea and in him Amen for his sake first made and for his sake to be performed also Now seeing God hath taught vs that l Heb. 11.33 by faith we obtaine the promises that m Gal. 3.14 we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith that n Ibid. ver 22. the promise of blessing is giuen by the faith of Iesus Christ to them that beleeue that o Mat. 8.13 as we beleeue so it shall be vnto vs that p Mat. 11.24 whatsoeuer we desire when we pray if we beleeue that we shall haue it it shall be accordingly vnto vs why is it strange to M. Bishop that in beleeuing according to the word and promise of God to be partakers of those things which he hath promised we should be said to become partakers thereof In those mad presumptions fondly alledged by him there is no beleeuing because there is no ground whereupon to beleeue but when God promiseth and tieth the effect of his promise to the beleeuing of it not to beleeue that in the beleeuing of it we are partakers of that which we beleeue is to make God a liar and to frustrate that which he hath promised Sith then God hath promised Christ vnto vs to be q Ierem. 23.6 our righteousnesse and that r Rom. 3.22 by the faith of Iesus Christ that is by beleeuing