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
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
excluded all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required but not charitie Vaine man what had S. Bernard here to do either with Iewes or Gentiles He spake to Christian and faithfull brethren to whom he had no occasion to giue any caueat either against Iewes or Gentiles but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieued with sinne euen to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse not meaning by righteousnesse inherent righteousnesse as M. Bishop doth but that righteousnesse which consisteth as he had before expounded it in the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therfore he teacheth to beleeue in Christ who is our righteousnesse l Justitia donaÌ„s delecta sub fineÌ„ a righteousnesse as he speaketh againe that forgiueth sinnes the forme of which righteousnesse he expresseth thus m Delicta iuueÌ„tutu meae ignorantias meas ne memineris â—â—stus sum Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances and I am righteous or iust Thus S. Bernard saith that a man is iustified by faith alone and shall we be so mad as to thinke that in saying a man is iustified by faith alone his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth that a man is iustified by faith and charitie that is to say not iustified by faith alone And did S. Bernard thinke that a man hath charitie before he haue charitie For seeing as M. Bishop telleth vs the gift of charitie is infused and powred into vs in iustification surely to say that by charitie a man is iustified is to say that by charitie the gift of charitie is powred into him Which if it be absurd then let him be content that S. Bernards meaning be as indeed it is that a man is iustified by faith alone let him take charitie for a gift of the iustified not for any fore-running cause of iustification Now that the righteousnes there spokeÌ„ of is not meant of inherent righteousnesse it is very plaine in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth seuerally therof vnder the name of sanctificatioÌ„ His counter-places are impertinent What S. Bernard therein saith we say n In Cant. ser 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae noÌ„â—peratur ex dilectione A mans beleeuing aright except it worke by loue doth not set him right or straight and againe o Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem Neither faith without workes nor workes without faith do suffice to the rectitude or straightnesse of the mind True it is as I haue often said that to the full rectifying and perfecting of a man belongeth not onely iustification by the forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctification to charitie and good workes but what doth this hinder but that notwithstanding both the worke of iustification and the obtaining also of sanctification may be performed by faith alone Chrysostomes words are p Chrysost ad Gal. ca. 3. Illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse They sayd he who rested on faith alone is accursed but Paul saith that he is blessed that resteth vpon faith alone M. Bishops answer that faith alone there excludeth onely the ceromonies of Moses law is alreadie shewed to be vaine But here it further appeareth in that Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle maketh speciall choice of Abraham who was so long before the Law for an example of being iustified without workes and that q Ibid. AbrahaÌ„ producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse iustificatioÌ„ Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide iustificatus est idque quum operibus bonis floreret multo magis vos Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom 8. supra sect 26. when as he abounded in good workes For if he in that case were not iustified by his workes but by his faith then it is manifest that not onely the ceremoniall workes of Moses law but all other workes are excepted from that iustification that is described to be by faith alone We are to be iustified as Abraham was Abraham though he abounded in good workes yet was not iustified thereby Therefore we also though we haue good workes yet are not iustified thereby but by faith alone The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins when as by himselfe it is altogether marred His words saith he truly repeated are these Let no man acknowledge c. putting in a sentence of his owne making vnder the name of Basils wordes truly repeated What a shamelesse man is he thus to mocke his Reader thus grosly and palpably to forge a matter and yet to pretend truth Basil hauing mentioned the wordes of S. Paul that r 1. Cor. 1.30 Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption saith hereupon thus Å¿ Basil ser de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè apud Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactat sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iustitiae indigum sola autem fide in Christum iustifâ—catum for that is perfect and full of reioycing in God when a man is not lifted vp because of his owne righteousnes but knoweth that he himselfe is destitute of true righteousnes and is iustified by faith onely which is in Christ Thus he spake to a Christian auditorie and instructed them to acknowledge themselues to be void wanting destitute of true righteousnes to be iustified only by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our owne but no necessary good disposition but he should remeÌ„ber I say that Basil spake to them that were past dispositions and preparations it being a Sermon not ad Catechumenos such as were yet to be baptized but ad fideles to the faithfull as they were tearmed after Baptisme and them doth he teach to acknowledge themselues to be iustified by faith alone But whosoeuer they had bene how crossely doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils words Basil saith Let a man acknowledge himselfe destitute of true righteousnesse and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith a man is not destitute of true righteousnesse but hath vertuous good dispositions and preparations by which he is to be iustified and not by faith alone But no maruell that they crosse others who are so tangled with the truth as that they know not how to speake but to crosse themselues still blowing both hot and cold freely and yet for workes for nothing and yet for something no merit and yet in some sort merit of meere mercie and yet somewhat to moue God beside his mercie But to giue some colour to that that he saith he telleth vs that Basil in his Sermon de Fide proueth by many texts of Scripture that charitie is as
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
but 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
In this respect was it that Luther said that Free will is Res de solo titulo a matter of name only and a bare title because of man himselfe it is nothing and by it or in it there can nothing be attributed vnto him For a August de bono perseu cap. 13. cont 2. ep Pelag lib. 4. ca. 6. we will indeed it is true but God worketh in vs to will we worke but it is God that worketh in vs to worke we walke but he causeth vs to walke we keepe his commaundements but he worketh in vs to keepe his commandements so that nothing is ours of our selues but all is his onely And this M. Bishop in some shew of words here seemeth to affirme but indeed he wholy ouerthroweth it He saith that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is first stirred and holpen by grace and therefore that M. Perkins either doth not vnderstand them or else doth wrongfully accuse them in that he chargeth them to say that mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power But M. Perkins vnderstood them well enough and doth no whit wrongfully accuse them For Andradius the expounder of the riddles of the councell of Trent doth plainely tell vs b Andrad orthodoxar explicat lib. 4. Libere nostri arbitrij motto atque ad institiam apâ—licatio non magis a gratia Deipendet quam à diuina virtute stipitis exultio c. Cum diuina gratia iacentem libertatem erigat confirmet viresque illi addat quibus oblata iustitiae ornamentae complecti possit non secus quidem sui ad iustitiam applicationis causa efficiens dicenda est ac ea quae natura constant earum omnium operationum ad quas naturae impulsione feruntur that the motion of Free will and applying of it felfe to righteousnesse doth no more depend vpon the grace of God then the fires burning of the wood doth depend vpon the power of God that grace lifteth it vp being fallen downe and addeth strength vnto it but that it is no lesse the efficient cause of applying it selfe to grace then other naturall things are of all those operations whereto by force of nature they are caried Therefore he compareth c Ibid. Non secus ac ligneis soleâ— deuincti qui incedendiquidem facultatem habent etsi ingredi nullo modo possit ni vincula rumpantur priùs quae motum reprimunt ac retardam Free will to a man made fast in the stockes who hath a power and ablenesse in himselfe to go if he be let go out of the stockes and the bonds be broken that held him before that he could not stirre Whereby he giueth vs to vnderstand their mind that as the fire and other naturall things being by the power of God vpholden in that which naturally they are do of themselues worke their proper and naturall effects and as a man vnbound and let go out of the stockes walketh and goeth not by any new worke that is wrought in him but by his owne former naturall power so Free will though entangled in the delights of sinne and bound with the bonds thereof yet hath a naturall power whereby it can apply it selfe to righteousnesse if grace by breaking the bonds and abating the strength of sinne do but make way for it to vse and exercise it selfe so that grace hauing wrought what concerneth it they leaue it to the will by it selfe and by it owne naturall power to adioyne it selfe to worke therewith And this Bellarmine plainely testifieth when he affirmeth d Bellarm de grat lib. arb lib 6 cap 15. Sicut auxilium generale ita concurrit cum omnibus rebus in actionibus naturalibus vt tameÌ„ non impediat libertatem contiâ—geÌ„tiam ita speciale auxil um adâ—â—uans ita concurrit ad omnes actiones supernaturales vt non impediat hominis libertatem quoniam eodeÌ„ prorsus modo auxilia ista concurrunt that grace doth no otherwise concurre to supernaturall actions then vniuersall causes do to naturall so that it doth no more in the worke of righteousnesse then the Sunne and heauenly powers do in the act of generation or the producing of other naturall effects yeelding an influence and inclination but leauing the very act to the will and worke of man All which in effect M. Bishop himselfe afterwards expresseth teaching that man after the fall of Adam hath still a naturall facultie of Free will which being first outwardly moued and inwardly fortified by the vertue of grace is able to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation therby giuing to vnderstand that there is still an abilitie left in nature howsoeuer for the present ouerwhelmed and oppressed which being excited and stirred vp though in it selfe it be not sufficient to produce the effects of spirituall actions yet hath a sufficiencie to apply it selfe to grace for the producing thereof Which Costerus the Iesuite declareth by the similitude of e Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Sit quispiam lapsus in foueam tenebricosam ex qua neque cogitete gredinec exire solus possit sed in ea securus obdormiat accedat ad eum amicus qui hominis miserius de somno exertatum ad egressum moneat multisque rationibus vt assintiatur inducat tum ei manum vel funem potrigat simul coâ—antem educat in lumen a man fallen into a darke and deepe pit whence he cannot get out by himselfe nor hath care to get out but sleepeth securely therein till his friend come who awaketh him out of his sleepe and wisheth him to get out and by reasons perswadeth him to be willing thereto and so giueth him his hand or reacheth to him a cord which he taketh and layeth fast hold on it and yeeldeth his owne vttermost strength that he may be pulled out To which purpose also he vseth another example of a man f Ibid. Homo languidus qui ab igne vel à lumine solis facie auersus se ipse solus non potest coÌ„uertere sed si accedat amicus qui iuuet languidus ipse conatum aliquens adhibeat sit tandem vt conuersus calore solis aut ignis fruatur extremely faint and weake lying with his face turned away from the fire or the Sunne who is not able to turne himselfe to the fire or the Sunne but if he haue one to helpe him vseth his owne strength also for the turning of himselfe about to enioy the warmth thereof Which comparisons do plainely shew that they attribute vnto Free will a proper and seuerall worke beside that that is done by the grace of God Whereby we see how guilefully M. Bishop speaketh when he saith that the wil is made able by grace to bring forth spiritual fruit being of it self vtterly vnable therto because he meaneth not hereby that grace doth worke in the wil that whole ability that it hath but that to
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
haue profited by the words of Christ and haue taken occasion thereby to come to Christ for the obtaining of eternall life the true meanes whereof he directeth when he saith n Iohn 17.3 This is life eternall to know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Which knowledge of Christ seeing this man had not without which M. Bishop himselfe I hope will say there is no eternall life surely euen by his owne grounds it must be absurd to say that Christ by these words did simply intend to direct him a way for the obtaining of eternall life And if he will say that he was indeed first to beleeue and then by faith to keepe the commandements thereby to enter into life the Apostle taketh exception against that when citing the words of the Prophet The iust shall liue by faith he inferreth o Gal. 3.11 Now the law is not of faith but saith He that doth these things shall liue in them For if the law saying He that doth these things shall liue in them do not accord with the faith of Christ then it is not for them that professe the faith of Christ in the doing of these things that is in the keeping of the commandements to expect the obtaining of eternall life Yea p Tertull. de praescript Euaetuatur gratiae Euangelica si ad legem Christum redigit the grace of the Gospell is made void if it bring Christ to the law saith Tertullian which he learned of the Apostle saying q Gal. 5 4. Ye are voided of Christ ye are fallen from grace that will be iustified by the law Therefore he saith r Rom. 4.14 If they which be of the law be heires then faith is made void and the promise is made of none effect ſ Gal. 3.18 If the inheritance be by the law it is no longer by promise But God hath giuen it by promise and therefore faith beleeueth t 1. Ioh 5.10.11 that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is not in our keeping the commandements but in his sonne and in him only we are to expect it that from the beginning to the end we may still confesse that u Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. The commandements of God therefore are now laid before vs not as the condition for obtaining of eternall life but as the way to walke in vnto eternall life assured vnto vs by the free promise and gift of God And of this promise and gift of God the keeping of Gods commandements is a part who hath said x Ierem. 31.33 I will put my law in their hearts and in their minds will I write them y Ezech. 36.27 I will put my spirit into them and will cause them to walke in my statutes and to keepe my iudgements and do them Whereto agree the words of the Apostle z Ephe. 2.10 We are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Which workmanship when by the grace of God it is begun in vs albeit by reason of many imperfections it be not such as that by the vertue thereof we may expect eternall life yet our faith receiueth further confirmation and assurance thereby that he that hath wrought this beginning of life will go forward therewith to the end and hauing made vs partakers of one part of his promise will make vs also partakers of the other taking these first fruites of sanctification as an earnest and pledge from him of the performance of the whole Therefore albeit we well know that we do not keep the cōmandements of God as we ought to do yet we do not for that cause stand in doubt of eternall life but finding our hearts truly affected towards God a Mat. 5.6 hungring and thirsting after righteousnesse vnfainedly hating sinne and groning vnder the burden of it b Heb. 12.1 hanging so fast on we comfort our selues that God hath made the light of his Saluation to shine vnto vs resoluing according to his promise that this Sunne-rising though it be not yet fully cleare and may haply sometimes be ouercast with clouds yet shall neuer haue any night but that accepting our godly indeauours pardoning our defects and wants forgiuing vs all our sinnes he will c Phil. 1.6 perfect the good worke which he hath so graciously begun in vs so that the true faithfull soule may alwaies boldly say d Psal 23.6 Thy louing kindnesse and mercy shall follow me all the daies of my life and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for euer Now because M. Bishop laieth no other but a rotten foundation no maruell if he build no other but a tottering and shaking house because he looketh to haue life grow out of his keeping of the commandements which is as a reed continually shaken with the wind no maruell if he deny to himselfe any stedfast assurance and trust of attaining thereunto But yet it is a falshood of his to charge the Protestants with affirming that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can keepe Gods commandements The Protestants onely say that God giueth vs not that fulnesse of grace whilest here we liue as that we can fully and perfectly keepe the commandements of God so as to be iustified thereby but they deny not but that all the faithfull according to the degrees and measure of grace receiued do in a measure keepe Gods commandements and as grace is increased so they increase in the keeping of the commandements and that this grace shal yet further renew and sanctifie them in such sort as that in the end corruption sin being wholly abolished for euer they shall be fully conformed to that image of righteousnesse that God hath described in the law But of this hereafter In the meane time we see by that that M. Bishop hath told vs of faith that the Church of Rome indeed teacheth no other faith but the same that deuils haue Which being obiected by M. Perkins he laboureth to cleare but saith nothing to serue the turne but by ouerthrowing that which he buildeth otherwhere He saith that the deuils know all to be true which we beleeue but yet do want a necessary condition of faith which is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith and so haue no faith to speake properly But if godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith be a necessary condition of faith as he telleth vs here so as that that which is called faith without this is not properly so called how then standeth it which elsewhere he determineth that faith truly and properly so called may be without charity and good works For what godlinesse what deuotion what submission or obedience can there be where charity is not Godlinesse deuotion submission obedience what are they but good works If then
Iesus Tit. 3. The like description of our Iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost whom he hath powred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace we may be heires in hope and not in certaintie of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same Iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the renewing of our soules by the infusion of his heauenly gifts which God of his mercie did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake Many other places I omit for breuitie sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before De peccat merit remis cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit First Saint Augustine saith That this iustice of ours vvhich they call Righteousnesse is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost and is a beautie of our inward man It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soule And twentie other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ Let him suffice for the Latine Fathers And Saint Cyril for the Greekes who of our Iustification writeth thus The Spirit is a heate who as soone as he hath powred charitie into vs and hath with the fire of it inflamed our minds we haue euen then obtained iustice R. ABBOT a Eccles 19.24 There is a subtiltie that is fine saith Ecclesiasticus but it is vnrighteous and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law M. Bishop is none of those that deale finely that will cogge by art and will lie and yet not seeme to lie what he doth he will do outright and will lie so as that euerie man may see him to be a liar that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is Tell vs M. Bishop where is it that M. Perkins saith that in heauen we shall haue no other but imputed iustice or Righteousnesse where doth he make any shew or semblance of saying so Fie M. Bishop fie for shame leaue this lying and belying of men a good cause needeth no such meanes for the vpholding of it they that in apparent vntruth see you thus wilfull and shamelesse cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest M. Perkins saith that imputed Righteousnesse continueth for euer but doth he say that in heauen there shall be no other who plainely saith that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come We shall for euer enioy eternall life by vertue of that whereby we are first admitted vnto it because thereby we are admitted to it to enioy it thereby for euer But he who by his merit purchased for vs eternall life purchased for vs also to be made meete for the enioying of it and therefore shall then make vs vnto himselfe b Ephe 5.27 a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing but c 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say that perhaps inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect in the end of this life he againe abuseth him for he asketh the question onely as a supposition what if it be so but maketh no perhaps that it is so denying that if it were so we could be iustified thereby The rest of this Section as touching the maine drift of it is altogether impertinent tending to proue Inherent iustice which we denie not but onely the perfection thereof in this life But whereas he seeketh to make good that our iustification consisteth therein he commeth much too short and one of his proofes directly proueth the contrarie For when the Apostle saith d 1. Cor. 6.11 You are washed you are sanctified you are iustified vndoubtedly he meant not by iustification and sanctification to import one and the same thing But there is no question but that by sanctification is meant inherent iustice Therefore inherent iustice cannot be vnderstood in iustification And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himselfe citeth for exposition of the place as namely Chrysostome saying e Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm Minimè sed sanctificauit neque hoc etiam sed iustificauit Atqui liberari à peccatu magnuÌ„ munus est nunc autem te etiam innumeris impleuit bonis He washed vs and what did he so onely Nay but he also sanctified vs and not this onely but also he iustified vs very plainely putting difference betwixt iustification and sanctification and expounding iustification in the next words to be this liberari à peccatis to be deliuered from sinnes So doth Theophylact also expresly referre iustification to forgiuenesse of sinnes f Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca. 6. Vos ille sanctificat Quo pacto Iustificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset iustitia condonasset mox sanctimoniam contulit When he had first washed you and by iustification had pardoned you forthwith also he bestowed sanctification Oecumenius likewise seuereth theÌ„ as Chrysostome doth g Oecumen ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificauit neque hoc tantum sed iustificauiâ— He hath not onely washed you but also sanctified you and not that only but also iustified you He citeth Ambrose also but Ambrose saith not one word to import that Iustification should be construed of inherent iustice h Amâ—ros ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis aâ—â—uitur credens iustificatur Dei nomine per spiritum Dei nostri Deâ— filius adâ—ptatur In baptisme all sinnes being done away the beleeuer is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a sonne of God Now we may see what credit is to be giuen to this gamester who shewing his cardes in packe telleth vs he hath wonne the game when he hath nothing at all to helpe for the winning of it As for the other place to Titus That being iustified by his grace c. There is no argument to proue the contrarie but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole worke of sauing vs which he before mentioneth vnder the name of Iustification as the maine point whereupon dependeth all the rest But more properly we may take it in the third place as in the former text to the Corinthians distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost and expressing the other speciall effect of the washing of the new birth consisting in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent iustice begunne in this life not denied by vs say nothing against vs. How
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
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
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 this is nothing to his purpose howsoeuer It pleaseth God who knoweth the heart and whatsoeuer is within vs yet to take vpon him the knowledge of our loue faith feare c. by the fruites thereof Hereby he will try vs he will approoue vs and giue testimony witnesse vnto vs and so shall he do at the last day But what will Bishop inferre hereof If that that he would prooue be that that he saith that it was acceptable vnto God we will easily graunt him so much and so send him backe againe as wise as he came If he would prooue hereby that Abraham was iustified before God by his works let him consider his argument well God tooke knowledge of Abrahams fearing him by his works therefore Abraham was iustified by works in the sight of God But if we follow the construction that S. Austin often maketh of those words this collection will appeare much more absurd b August coâ—â— Maximin lib. 3. cap. 19. God as he saith knoweth all things before they come to passe It was not now that God first knew that Abraham feared him Therefore as c Gemere dicitur spiritus quâ— nos gemere facit sicut dixit Deus Nunc cognoui quando cognoscere hominem fecit the spirit is said to pray and groane because he maketh vs to pray and groane so he saith that God is said to know when as he maketh vs to know d Jbid. lib. 1. Nunc cognovi id est nunc cognoscere te feci de Genes ad lit lib 4. cap. 9. feci vt cognosceretur Now I know then is as much as if he had said Now I haue made thee to know or I haue made it to be knowne that thou fearest me M. Bishops argument then is come to this God made Abraham to know by his worke in offering his sonne Isaac that he was one indeed that feared God therfore Abraham was iustified by his works in the sight of God But he will now conuince all obstinate cauilling and to that end saith that it is said that Abrahams faith in this fact did cooperate with his workes and that the worke made his faith perfect And what of that This coniunction of them both together doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his iustification before God This is as he said before iust as Germaines lips nine mile asunder He ioineth faith and workes together therefore he speaketh of iustification before God The argument much better serueth vs If he had spoken of iustification before God as S. Paul doth he would haue spoken of faith onely as he doth but because he ioineth faith and works together it plainly appeareth that he speaketh not of the same iustification whereof S. Paul speaketh and therefore must be vnderstood of iustification before men Well his friends are beholding to him for his good will but he is able to stand them in little steede Yet to helpe the matter it is added saith he and he was called the friend of God But why did he not alledge the whole text Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God and so conclude thereof therefore he was iustified by his workes in the sight of God He might as well inferre it of the one as of the other and if the one part of the sentence be against his purpose what sence was there in him to seeke for it in the other The meaning is euident plain that it appeared by Abrahams obedience and workes that it was not without cause said of him Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse and that he was called the friend of God e Mat. 12.33 The tree is knowne by his fruites and Abraham by his fruites is iustified and prooued to be a good tree Now it is not hereby onely declared that he was iust before men as this wrangler cauilleth but it is hereby declared vnto men that he truly beleeued and by his faith was iustified before God To be short in the text there is not so much as one word or peece of word whereby Maister Bishop can make it good that Saint Iames speaketh of iustification in the sight of God But because the text will not Saint Austine is brought to prooue it who speaketh neuer a word to that effect M. Bishop very lewdly falsifieth his words and maketh him to say that which he doth not say nor euer meant to say He speaketh the idle dreames of his owne head and propoundeth them to his Reader vnder Saint Austines name The very words of Austin are these f August lib. 83. quaest 76. Non sunt sibi contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli Iacobi cùm dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem absque operibus alius dicit manem esse fidem sine operibus quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt hic de ijs quae fideÌ„ sequuntur The sentences of the two Apostles Paule and Iames are not contrarie one to the other when the one saith that a man is iustified by faith without workes and the other saith that faith without workes is vaine because the one speaketh of workes that go before faith the other of workes which follow faith Here is no mention of first or second iustification not so much as the name of iustification by workes much lesse any expounding of the meaning of it not a syllable in all that Chapter whence he should deriue that meaning of iustification which he setteth downe for Austins to be made more and more iust Nay I remember not in my reading that Austin any where in any meaning affirmeth iustification by works but onely in his Hypognosticon the wordes whereof are before handled which worke though we commonly cite vnder Austins name yet there is no man much conuersant in Austin but will easily conceiue by the phrase and style that it is none of his to say nothing that in his Retractations he maketh no mention of it The wordes that here he speaketh out of S. Iames are that faith is vaine without workes hereby willing it to be vnderstood that though faith do iustifie without any workes going before yet where it iustifieth it hath alwaies good workes thencefoorh accompanying it and that that faith which is not thus accompanied with good workes is not g August de fide oper cap. 14. Salubris illa plancque Euangelica that healthfull or sauing health which the Gospell commendeth nor doth iustifie him in whom it is h Lib. 83. quaest vt suprà Nam iustificatus per fidem non potest nisi iustè deinceps operari quamuis nihil anteà operatus iustè ad iustificationem peruenerit For he that is iustified by faith saith he cannot but thencefoorth worke righteously though he attaine to iustification without hauing wrought any thing righteously before The intent that S. Iames had alledging the example
Bishops righteousnesse so perfect as that it faileth not in anie dutie which wee are bound to performe yea such as by which we merit euerlasting life Compare the one with the other gentle Reader and thou shalt see how well they agree S. Austine in the place alledged hath nothing at all concerning this text nothing at all concerning the righteousnesse of man Only he saith of the Angels that u August cont Priscill Origen ad Oros cap. 10. Cuius participatione iusti suÌ„t eius coÌ„paratione nec iusti sunt although by participation of God they be iust yet in comparison of God they be not iust Now if the Prophets words be to be taken as M. Bishop construeth them then this praier must be the praier of Angels as well as of men because by the testimonie of Austine which Euthymius also obserueth the very Angels themselues are not iust in comparison of God Now we do not any where finde that it belongeth to the Angels to pray in this sort and therefore it must be so vnderstood as is proper vnto men And that vnderstanding thereof the same S. Austine declareth to vs writing vpon that Psalme x Jdem in Psal 142. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videor producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam prauus inuenâ—or Howsoeuer I seeme to my selfe right and straight yet thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found faulty The words therefore import that not only by comparison but by rule of righteousnesse which God hath prescribed to man euery man liuing is found failing of righteousnesse in the sight of God euen as elsewhere he saith y IdeÌ„ de peccat mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QuaÌ„tuÌ„ ad integerrimam regulaÌ„ veritatis eius pertinet non iustificabitur c. According to the most entire rule of his truth no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight Which he declareth yet more plainly in his foresaid exposition vpon the Psalme when he teacheth that by the same defaults for which we pray daily vnto God forgiue vs our trespasses it commeth to passe that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight z IdeÌ„ In Psal 142. Dicant Apostoli dicant Dimitte nobis c. Et cùm eis dictum fuerit Quare hoc dicitu quae sunt debita vestra respondeant Quoniam noÌ„ iustificabitur c. Let the Apostles themselues say let them say forgiue vs our trespasses And when it shall be said vnto them why do ye say thus What are your trespasses let them answer Because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Gregories minde is sufficiently plaine by that that hath bene said before For what though he say that the righteousnesse of men Angels is nothing in comparison of God Doth that import that there is nothing else meant by the Prophet when he praieth vnto God not to enter into iudgement with him By this then we may see the lewd consciences of these men in citing the authorities of the auncient Fathers He hath brought vs here a great company of their names for him when there is not one of them but speaketh expresly against him and the most of them in the selfe same places whence he alledgeth them But he telleth vs further that his exposition is taken out of Iob from whom he alledgeth these words a Iob. 9.2 I know truly it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified In which sort it is true that we also read the words in some of our translations but it is true also that the word of comparison is not at all found in the Hebrew text Therefore Arias Montanus translateth it ad verbum thus b Quid iustificabit se homo cuÌ„ Deo Why will a man iustifie himselfe with God Pagnine thus c Quomodo instificabit se homo cum Deo How will a man iustifie himselfe with God S. Austine also readeth to the same effect d Aug. de pece mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QueÌ„ admodum iustus erit homo ante Deum How shall a man be iust before God Therefore these words of Iob haue nothing at all whereupon that exposition of his may haue any ground and though Iob had said that man in comparison of God is not iust or cannot be iustified yet it followeth not that that therefore should be all that Dauid meant in saying that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight And that appeareth by S. Austine in the place now alledged where bringing in the words of Iob e Iob. 20. If I shall call my selfe iust my mouth shall speake wickedly he expoundeth the same thus f August ibid. Si me iustum dixero contra iudicium eius vbi perfecta illa iustitiae regula me â—onmucit iniustum profectò impie loquetur 〈◊〉 meâ—â— If I shall call my selfe iust against his iudgement where the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth me to be vniust surely my mouth shall speake wickedly and in respect hereof saith that those words were vsed by Dauid Enter not into iudgement c. For this cause then are we taught so to pray because the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth vs to be vniust if God enter into iudgement with vs. By this place therefore we wholy ouerthrow the righteousnesse of man and do firmely prooue that no man liuing either generally in the course of his life or in any particular act or acts can be iustified before God if God call him to the trial of the precise perfect rule of righteousnesse and truth Yea if no man can be found iust in the sight of God then it must necessarily follow that no act of man can be found iust because the act must needes be according to the condition and quality of the man so that vnlesse a man be fully and perfectly iust no act fully and perfectly iust can proceede from him but must needes haue a staine of that sinne which bereaueth him of the title of a iust man 48. W. BISHOP One other ordinarie hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath Esay â—4 The which I haue alreadie rid to death in the beginning of the question of iustification where it was alledged The answer is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull such as the common sort of them were who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stayned cloath Now this disprooueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free from all spots of iniquitie it onely prooueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath R. ABBOT He hath so rid this hackney of ours as that he hath pitifully
Cum est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis c. noÌ„ omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any carnall concupiscence God is not loued with all the soule And so long as we liue here there is carnall concupiscence against the law of the minde Therefore so long as we liue here charity is neuer perfect in vs as it ought to be neither can any perfect good worke be effected by vs. M. Bishop minceth and qualifieth the matter that no man hath so perfect charity but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do But the argument prooueth that charity is alwaies vnperfect in this life and therefore not sometimes onely but alwaies a man doth lesse then he ought to do There is alwaies a blot that staineth our charity l Hilar. apud August cont Julian lib. 2. Supra sect 44. by reason whereof we haue nothing in vs cleane nothing innocent as before was cited out of Hilary and therefore it can yeeld no workes that are free from blot and staine But the Reader is here to note the constancie of this man who affirmeth here that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do whereas before he hath told vs of a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that m Sect. 45. it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe Thus giddily he runneth to and fro being vncertaine what to say and neuer knowing where he may stand sure Now here he saith that the other saying of Austine Woe to the laudable life of man if it be examined without mercy is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes wheras Austine vseth the words in respect of hell fire which they say is not incident to their veniall sinnes For hauing professed that he he durst not say that after baptisme no word went out of his mothers mouth against Gods commaundement and that Christ saith that if a man say to his brother foole he is guilty of hell fire he addeth these words n Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam And woe euen to the commendable life of man if thou set aside mercy in the examining or sifting of it To which purpose he saith also in another place o Idem In Psal 42. Quicunque hic viâ—â—â— quantumlibet iustè viuat vae illi si cuÌ„ illa in iudicium intrauerit Deus Whosoeuer liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue woe vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him In which sort Arnobius also saith p Arno. in Psal 135. Vae nebis si quod debemus exegerit vae nobis si quod debet reddiderit Woe vnto vs if he require what we owe to him woe vnto vs if he pay what he oweth to vs. These woes are not vttered in respect of Purgatory or any temporall affliction but in respect of the issue of that finall dreadfull iudgement the sentence whereof shall stand for euer Now if they haue learned by the word of God to denounce this woe then woe to M. Bishop that to the contrary defendeth a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that his righteous man q Sect. 4. needeth not greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge as who faileth not in any duty that he is bound to performe who can keepe himselfe from all but veniall sinnes which are easily forgiuen r Rhem. Testam Annot. Mat. 10.12 Sext. Proaemaâ— glossa by the Bishops blessing by holy water by knocking the brest by saying a Pater noster by extreame vnction and some other such deuotions madly deuised to that end As touching the other place of Austine it hath bene already shewed that our righteousnesse in this life is vnperfect not onely by comparison but simply in it selfe and according to that that here is required of vs The imperfections of wit and will which M. Bishop speaketh of are so great and so many as that if he did but with a feeling heart and conscience consider the same he would finde that there is small cause in the most perfect of this life to pleade for that perfection that he maintaineth But being a man of a frosen and dead heart and neither knowing others nor himselfe by the name of many light faults he passeth ouer those things which make the most righteous and iust to groane vnder the burden of them and to say with Dauid Å¿ Psal 38.4 Mine iniquities are gone ouer my head and are like a sore burden too heauie for me to beare t Psal 40.12 My sinnes haue taken such hold vpon me that I am not able to looke vp they are moe in number then the haires of my head and my heart hath failed me Tush saith M. Bishop what neede all this adoe all these are but light and veniall faults but hereby we conceiue that neither his will nor his wit haue indeede that perfection that it were fit they should haue His answer to the words of Gregory is ridiculous and childish Gregorie forsooth by our vertue meaneth the vertue that we haue of our owne strength when as Gregorie teacheth that we haue no vertue of our owne strength but onely by the gift of God u Greg. Moral lib. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est sed quae diuina largitate fit nostra It is called our righteousnesse saith he in another place not which is ours of our owne but which by the gift of God becommeth ours According to this meaning he saith that x Ibid. li. 9 ca. 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtuâ—is nostrae meritum vitium esse câ—nspexit si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur rectè subiungit si voluero c. the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be strictly iudged by the internall Iudge did rightly adde If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand He applieth his speech to Iobs righteousnesse which he had no cause to imagine that Iob alledged as attained vnto by his own strength And shall we be so mad as to thinke that if Iob had bene perfect by a righteousnesse receiued by the gift of God he would say he could not therefore answer God because he saw all the merit of the vertue that he had by his owne strength to be but vice It is strange to see that these men should be so blinde as not to see the grosse absurdity of these shifts Gregory spake to the instruction of his hearers whom surely he thought not to be worse then the Pharisee but knew that they attributed their vertue and righteousnesse to the gift of God and of that righteousnesse which they confessed to be Gods good gift teacheth them to acknowledge that through our weaknesse
Esuriuâ— c. Quid tam vile quid taÌ„ terrenum quà m frangere panem esueriente Tanti valet Regnum coelâ—ruÌ„ Si non habes facultateÌ„ frangendi paneÌ„ c. da calicem aquae frigidiae mitte duo miâ—uta in gazophylacium TaÌ„tuÌ„ emiâ— vidua duobâ—s minuus quantuÌ„â—mit Petrus relinquens reâ—â—a quantum emit Zachâ—us dando dimidium patrimonium Tanti valet quantum habueris for what thing He answereth I was hungry and ye gaue me to eate What is there so base saith he what so concerning the earth as to breake bread to the hungry At so much is the Kingdome of heauen valued vnto thee If thou haue no ability to breake bread to the hungry c. yet giue a cup of cold water cast two mites into the treasury The widow for two mites bought as much as Peter forsaking his nets as Zachee did in giuing halfe his goods It is valued vnto thee at so much as thou hast Thus the purpose of this iuditious Doctor is directly against Maister Bishops cause of receiuing the Kingdome of heauen shewing how base and of how little woorth the things are whereto God notwithstanding of his vouchsafing grace returneth the Kingdome of heauen that we may know that it is not for our merits sake that he bestoweth the same As for the imputation of Christes merits M. Bishop knoweth no vse of it because he yet knoweth not himselfe but he will then know the vse of the merits of Christ when he commeth to know how vainly and fondly he hath presumed of his own To the true Church of Christ it was neuer strange tidings that Christes merits should be imputed vnto them whose hope hath alwaies bene to finde fauour at Gods hands by vertue of that merit that he hath performed for them 16 W. BISHOP Here by the way M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that we take away a part of Christes mediation For saith he if Christes merits were sufficient what neede ours It hath bene told them but they will neuer learne to vnderstand it I will yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings which haue or shall be bestowed vpon all men from the beginning of the world vnto the end of it yet his diuine will and order is that all men of discretion hauing freely receiued grace from him do merit that crowne of glory which is prepared for them not to supply the want of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good works he best knew that there could be no better spur to pricke our dull nature forward then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards vnto all them that would diligently endeuour to deserue them The man seemes to be much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation I will therefore helpe him a little It consisteth in reconciling man to God which he performed by paying the ransome of our sinnes in purchasing vs Gods fauour and in ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life in the two first points we do for the most part agree to wit that our sinnes are freely pardoned through Christes passion and that we are as freely iustified and receiued first into Gods grace and fauour although we require other preparation then they do yet we as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause of either as they do Marry about the meanes of attaining to heauen we differ altogether for they say that God requires no iustice in vs nor merit at all on our parts but only the disposition of faith to lay hold on Christes righteousnesse and merits but we say that Christes righteousnesse and merit are incommunicable vnto any meere creature but that through his merits God doth powre into euery true Christian a particular iustice whereby he is sanctified and made able to do good workes and to merit eternall life Which ability we receiuing of Gods free gift through Christes merits doth much more magnifie both Gods grace and Christs merits for the greater that the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer And to argue that to be a derogation vnto his mediation and merits which he hath appointed to be the very instrument of applying the vertue of them to vs is indeede vnder colour of magnifying Christes merits to vndermine and blow out all the vertue of them But saies Maister Perkins what should we talke of our merits who for one good worke we doe commit many bad which deface our merits if we had any True it is as it was once before said that euery mortall sinne blotteth out all former iustice and merit but by repentance both are recouered againe but must we not speake of any good because we may hap to do euil that is a faire perswasion and well worthy a wise man R. ABBOT To say that they take away a part of Christes mediation is no slaunder but truth as by M. Bishop himselfe appeareth in this very place To M. Perkins saying that if Christ did sufficiently merit eternall life for vs then he should do more then is needefull in making vs able to merit for our selues he answereth that though Christes merits be of infinite value and haue deserued of God all graces and blessings yet his diuine will and order is that we also merit that crowne of glory But to what end when he hath merited it already Marry not to supply the want of his merits but as being members of his mysticall body he would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting Thus we must thinke that M. Bishop is like vnto Christ in this point of meriting or rather we must think him an impious wretched man thus in meriting to consort himselfe and his with the Sonne of God and to bring in these prophane nouelties into the Church which neither Scripture nor councell nor father nor any antiquitie was euer acquainted with Where hath he euer read that Christ would haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting What is this but to affirme him in a kinde of generality * Our conformity and likenesse to Christ wherin it standeth see of satisfaction Sect. 2. onely to be Iesus Christ but that otherwise he hath left it to euery man to be a Iesus Christ a Redeemer and Sauiour for himselfe because it is his will to haue vs like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting by which it is that he is become Iesus and a Sauiour vnto vs It is by meriting I say that Christ is vnto vs Iesus a Sauiour and therefore if we be like vnto him in meriting it cannot be auoided but that we also are Sauiours Yea and for this matter of meriting necessary it was that he that should be our Redeemer should be God because none