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
purpose but expecteth our will to make good that grace to our selues he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will but cannot endure to say that it is God that worketh in vs to will He answereth yet further that the whole may be attributed to God because the habits of grace infused be froÌ„ him as sole efficient of theÌ„ our actioÌ„s endued also with grace being onely dispositions no efficient cause of those habits But herein he absurdly trifleth by altering the state of the questioÌ„ For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace We say that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will they say that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat li. 4 Ex gratia libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuaÌ„ applicationis one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof They say that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil but we say that God without putting vs to condition of our wil worketh in vs to will and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same i Aug. Confess lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod â—ubes giuing what he commandeth and k De Praedest sanct cap. 11. Deus facit vt illa faciamus himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done The words of the Apostle are plain for vs and as plaine against theÌ„ But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby 9. W. BISHOP One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Answ Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giues his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting As for example a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring foorth apples therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes to which alludeth S. Iames Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word which can saue our soules Againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it what maruel then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely feed do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite R. ABBOT This obiection M. Bishop saith he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason He wold haue kept due order and haue answered the rest as well as this but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking and cutteth off what he list If man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins a Ephes 2.1 When we were dead in sinnes M. Bishop answereth sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent Which answer who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe Man must giue his free consent to grace that he may be quickened thereby and yet man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened by grace If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening because that that cometh after cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause And this is indeed the very truth iustified by M. Bishops owne words against his will But his whole discourse driueth the other way that a man not yet quickened must by Free will giue consent to grace and concurre with God that he may be quickened because though grace be offered yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie for asking the question againe How can that be namely that man should giue his free consent to grace if he were then dead he answereth Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions But what is this to the purpose seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting Where he doth but runne in a ring and in other words repeateth the same answer still sticking fast in the briars wherein he was tangled before For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection He hath told vs before by grace and that to grace man must giue his free consent So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection and yet it cannot be fortified by grace and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except it first concurre with grace I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is
perseuerantèr proficiat siue vt ad bonuÌ„ sempiternum peruentat The sound Catholike faith saith he neither denieth Free will vvhether to euill life or to good neither attributeth so much to it as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace either to be conuerted from euill to good or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good or to attaine to the euerlasting good Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme according to the true meaning of S. Austin that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will and if he be willingly that that he is it is by Free vvill because the vvill is alwayes Free and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill to that that is good q Retract lib. 1. cap 15. IntantuÌ„ lâ—bera est 1 quatum liberata est it is so farre onely Free as it is made Free r Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept grat cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus neither can any man in this respect be free vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free We say therefore that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace that is in S. Austins construction auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it either for conuerting vnto God or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh Å¿ Epist 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntateÌ„ per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire ante Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coeâ—iâ— est doâ—uit esse poscenda ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good and to preserue the same when it hath so made them and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell least presuming of Free vvill vve fall away from the grace of God If all things then are we to begge of him to open to yeeld to assent to receiue his grace and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin as if he had meant that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse but that this power is not sufficient is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace whatsoeuer the will of man doth so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do t De verb Apos ser 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliquâ—d sumus si tameÌ„ in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus â—ihâ—l nobis arrogemus ne quod accepimus perdamus sed in eo quod accepimus illi gloriam demus Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ how much soeuer it be we may take nothing to our selues but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill and detest also Pelagians and Papists for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace I haue before shewed that he saith vntruly and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd Free vvill and grace are not the one excluded by the other neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other if we make the one the cause of the other as Austin doth and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace For u De corrept grat ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate coÌ„sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill and though it be in the will and by the will that we receiue grace yet x Prosper de vocat gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God 16. W. BISHOP Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names But misapplyeth them First obiection That man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice speake the truth c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it And his answer here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the vvorke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure heart and a faith vnfained and also in the end which is not the glorie of God Answer It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the heart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie God his Creator and Maister is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto R. ABBOT It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians a Prosper de lib. arbit Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctoruÌ„ merita referamus vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemuâ— naturae that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill This caution
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
for it selfe or as it is an act or worke as if it were any part of our iustice or righteousnesse but as the heart giueth life to the body not by the substance of it selfe which is but flesh as the rest of the body is but by the vitall and quickning power of the soule that is seated therein and as the hand feedeth the body not as being it selfe the foode of the body but by receiuing and ministring vnto it the meat wherewith it is sustained euen so faith iustifieth and giueth life by receiuing Christ to be our righteousnesse and life in him d Act. 26.18 receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and inheritance amongst them that are sanctified vnto eternall life But M. Bishop telleth vs that the Apostles meaning in those places is to exclude all such works as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of theÌ„selues so thought that by theÌ„ they had deserued to be made Christians A goodly toy Forsooth after they had bene Christians a long time they began to dispute reason the matter whether it were for the works that before they had don that they were made ChristiaÌ„s whether they had deserued by their works to be made Christians wheÌ„ e Ephe. 2.3 they had their coÌ„uersation in the lusts of the flesh in fulfilling the wil of the flesh of the mind walking according to the course of this world and after the Prince that ruleth in the aire the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience as the Apostle describeth the condition both of Iewes and Gentiles before they were partakers of the grace of Christ Were the Christians then of so slender vnderstanding as that they should make question of their deserts in that estate Was that the thing so much laboured by the false Apostles to perswade men that for their former deserts they were become Christians and had the Apostle so much businesse to weane them and withhold them from the conceipt and opinion of such deserts What should a man spend time and labour to refute so ridiculous so senslesse and absurd deuices Who would thinke that M. Bishop a Doctor of Diuinitie by title should be so simple a man as that his Maister Bellarmine could gull him and gudgeon him with so vaine a tale The matter is plaine After that men had accepted the faith of Christ and were become f Act. 15.1.10 brethren and disciples there came vnto them the false Apostles and preached vnto them g Ver. 2. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saued They sought to perswade men that to the faith of Christ they must adde the obseruation of Moses law Here was no question whether by any deserts they were become Christians but being now Christians what it was wherein they should repose themselues for iustification and saluation The Galathians were amongst others intangled by those false Apostles and hauing before h Gal 1.9 receiued the Gospell i Cap. 4.27 hauing bene baptized into Christ k Cap. 3.2 hauing receiued the spirit yea and l Ibid. Ver. 4. hauing suffered many things for the Gospell yet were brought to the adioining of circumcision and the law to the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified thereby This the Apostle inueyeth against and reducing the state of the question from the ceremonies of the law to the whole law determineth not concerning the Popish first iustification but concerning iustification wholy concerning men beleeuing alreadie and in the state of grace that they must be m Ro. 3.20.28 Gal. 3.11 iustified by faith and not by the works of the law yea without the workes of the law yea and saith n Gal. 2.16 we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law The Papist saith we beleeue in Christ that we may be iustified by the works of the law but the Apostle saith we beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law giueth a reason why we that beleeue in Christ cannot be iustified by the works of the law o Jbid. because by the works of the law no flesh shall be iustified And whereas the Papist againe saith that by Christ and by his grace we are enabled to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby the Apostle peremptorily denounceth p Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law And that we may vnderstand what law he meaneth S. Hierome hauing mentioned those words that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified saith thereof q Hieron ad Ctesiphont Quod ne de lege Moysâ— tantum dictum puâ—es non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine ontinentur ideÌ„ Apostolus scribit dicens coÌ„sentio legi c. Which that thou maiest not thinke to be spoken onely of the law of Moses that is the ceremoniall law but of all the commaundements which are contained vnder the one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law or delight in the law of God as touching the inner man But of that before in the third section Hereby then it appeareth that being members of Christ and baptized into him our iustification still consisteth not in workes but onely in the faith of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop by a new qualification telleth vs that all works both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification Not then from being any cause but onely from being any meritorious cause For he hath r Sect. 21. before told vs that that vertuous disposition of which he here speaketh is the cause of iustification But if they be causes how then is it true that he saith here that the first iustification is freely bestowed For Å¿ Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end Gratis freely as the Rhemists tell vs is as much to say as for nothing and if it be bestowed for this vertuous dispositions sake then it is not bestowed for nothing but for hope for charity c. Thus they turne and winde this way and that way and can finde nothing whereupon to stand Saint Austine giueth it for a rule that t August cont Pelag. Celest li. 2. ca. 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fueriâ— gratuita omnimodo the grace of God shall not be grace in any sort except it be free in euery respect And how is it free in euery respect if our workes of preparation or disposition be properly the causes for which it is bestowed vpon vs And what is it but a mockery to say that the Apostle so often absolutely determining against iustification by workes should meane notwithstanding that workes are the very causes of iustification onely that they are not meritorious causes
that righteousnesse to which the stipend and wages of righteousnesse should be due But let vs here consider the reasons which M. Bishop setteth downe in S. Austines name why he did not say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life partly saith he to hold vs in humility Well but yet it was not S. Austins meaning that the Apostle wold keep vs in humilitie by coÌ„cealing that that is true but by withholding vs from conceiuing proudly of our selues that that is not true n Ne iustitia de humano se extolleret bono merito lest saith S. Austin righteousnesse should aduance it selfe as of any merit that man should haue thereby Againe partly saith he to put difference betweene saluation and damnation This reason he maketh of his owne S. Austin hath it not but what is that difference Obserue it well gentle Reader for herein is the secret and thou shalt see the lewdnesse of there wretched men in abusing the name of S. Austin to the colouring of their falshood We are forsooth the whole and onely cause of our damnation but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God The grace of God he saith is principally the cause of our saluation but not the whole and onely cause for we must vnderstand that we our selues by our Free will are a part of the cause of our saluation Yea vpon Free will they hang the effect of the grace of God and from thence do they deriue vnto man that merit wherby he doth deserue eternall life For they know well that man cannot be said to merit any thing by that that is wholy the gift of God and therefore for the vpholding of merit and desert they are so eager and earnest for the maintenance of free will They walke in this behalfe in the very steppes of the Pelagian heretickes who as Prosper recordeth alledged for defence of Free will o Prosper de li. arbit Asserunt nec laudem ha bâ—re eos nec meritum qui ex dono gratiae sunt fideâ—es that men can haue no commendation nor merit who are faithfull by the gift of grace So S. Hierome bringeth in the Hereticke saying resolutely p Hâ—â—râ—n aduer Pelagâ—â— Mihi â—ullus â—nfâ—â—re peâ—erit arbitrij libertatem ne si in operibus mâ—s Deus adiutor extuâ—rit noÌ„ mihi debeatur merces sed ei qui in me operatus est No man shall take away from me free will lest if God be my helper in my workes the reward be not due to me but to him that worketh in me Euen so Popish merit standeth vpon free will for q Rhemish Annot in Rom. 9.14 men say the Rhemists worke by their owne Free will and thereby deserue their saluation So saith Alphonsus de Castro r Alphons de Castro adu haere lib. 7 in Gratia Ex hoc quòdnos monitioâ— illius consentimus qui tamen dissentire poteramus debetur nobis merces praemium inde meritum nostrum In that we by free will consent to Gods monition who yet had it in our power to dissent a reward and wages is due vnto vs and thence is our merit In like sort Andradius telleth vs that Å¿ Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 6. Nostra merita dicuntur quia liberè spontè illas actiones suscipimus quibus apud Deum promeremur they are called our merits because we freely and voluntarily vndertake those actions whereby we merit with God Now of this poisonfull doctrine whereby man is made partaker with God in the glorie of our saluation they would make S. Austine a partaker and patron with them who in condemning the Pelagian heresie condemned the same and challengeth our good workes which he calleth merits wholy and onely vnto God So he saith that t August Epist 105. Omne bonuÌ„ meritum nostruÌ„ non in nobis facis nisi gratia all our good worke or merit is wrought vnto vs by grace onely that u Jdem Hyâ—og lib. 3. Iustorum per totam seculi vitam meritum emâ—â— est grâ—tia all the merit of the iust through the whole life of this world is grace x De veâ— Dom. Sâ—rm 7. Totum reputa quòd iustus es pietati That thou art iust saith he repute it wholy to mercie y De verb. Apost Ser. 16. Totum quòd sumus quòd habemus boni ab illo habemus That that we are and haue in goodnesse we haue it wholy of him To that purpose he alledgeth against the Pelagians a speech of Cyprians requiring that z Idem de boâ—o perseu cap. 6 ex Cypriano de Orat. Dom. Nequis sibi superbè arroganterque aliquâ—d assumas nequis aut confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam dicat c. vt dum praecedit humilis submissa confessio datur totum Deo quâ—cquid suppliciter cum Dei timore petitur ipsius pretate praestetur no man proudly and arrogantly assume any thing to himselfe nor call the glorie of confessing or suffering his owne that whilest humble and lowly confession goeth before and all wholy is yeelded vnto God it may be granted vnto vs by his mercie whatsoeuer we humbly request in the feare of God Now according to those words of yeelding or attributing all wholy vnto God he saith in the same place a Jbid Tutiores viuimus si totum Deodâ—â—â—us non nos illi ex parte notis ex parte committimus We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and do not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues For reason whereof he saith anone after that b Jbid cap. 7. Post casum hominis nonnifi ad gratiam suam Deus pertinere voltus vt homo accedat ad eum neque nisi ad gratiam suam pertinere volunt vt homo non recedat ab eo after the falâ— of man God would not haue it belong to any thing but to his grace that we come vnto him nor wold haue it to belong to any thing but his grace that we do not depart from him And to those words of Cyprian he alludeth in diuers and sundry places as namely where he saith that c Enchir. cap. 32 Proptereà dictuÌ„ NoÌ„ volentis c. vt detur totum Deo See of Free-will Sect 15. therefore the Apostle saith It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercie that all wholy may be attributed vnto God discoursing at large that our willing and our running is not to be diuided betwixt the will of man and the mercie of God because then as it is said on the one side It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercie because the will of man alone suffiseth not so on the other side it may be said It is not of God that sheweth mercie but of him that willeth and him that runneth
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
cap. 9. Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè viuimus doth a man denie Free will saith he because he attributeth it wholy to God that we liue well q Retract lib. 1â— cap 9. Tale est vt sine illo rectè viuere nequeamus without freedome of will we cannot liue well for how should a man do well without his will but yet this Free wil to liue wel is r Cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas a will not free meerly of it selfe but made free by the grace of God For then is Å¿ De ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest the will of man free indeed when it is free from sinne and such a free will God gaue to man in the beginning but he lost it by his owne default and being lost it cannot be restored but by him that was able first to giue it In Christ therefore it is restored vnto vs who by his t Esai 51.12 free spirit giueth u Esa â—1 1. libertie to the captiues and openeth the prison to them that are bound and x Col. 1.13 deliuereth vs from the power of darknesse and maketh vs y 1 Cor. 7.22 free-men vnto him But yet so as that hauing receiued but a Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit by whom this freedome is wrought according to the words of the Apostle b 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie the same is yet but begun in vs so that c August in Ioan. tract 41. Ex parte libertas ex parte seruitus nondum tota nondum pura nondum plena liberias there is partly freedome and partly bondage not yet whole and pure and perfect freedome For no further is the will freed then it is renewed and it is renewed as yet but in part continuing still d De peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renouatus in quantuÌ„ nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est in part in the old estate Therefore it is so made free as that in some part we haue cause still to complaine with the Apostle e Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne and to pray with the Prophet Dauid f Psal 142.7 Bring my soule out of prison that I may giue thankes vnto thy name Hence is that heauinesse and dulnesse that waywardnesse and vntowardnesse that retention and holding backe that still we find in vs in the applying of our selues to spirituall and heauenly things And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free it is not sufficient to vphold vs and keepe vs in the right way but we haue still neede of the grace of God to be assistant and helpefull vnto vs. g Hieron ad Ctesiphont Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donauit nisi semper donauerit Peto vt accipiam eum accepero rursus peto It is not enough that God hath once giuen sayth Hierome except he still giue I pray to receiue and when I haue receiued I pray againe Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confesse that h August epist 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei adâ—utorium etiam ad singulos actus dari the grace of God is giuen vs to euerie act that we do i Enchirid cap. 32. Nolenâ—em praeuenit vt velit volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit He preuenteth vs to make vs willing followeth vs when we are willing that we do not wil in vaine And if his hand do not hold vs and vphold vs it commeth to passe by the burden of corruptible flesh that we are still relapsing to our selues and still readie with the k Exod. 14.11.12 Israelits to yeeld our selues to become bond againe l Bernard in Cant. ser 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quà m spirites valiens non rediensâ—â— ita fuerit derelicta Our soule saith Bernard is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not againe if it be left vnto it selfe Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church and leaue to calumniate our doctrine who affirme Free will as farre as they affirmed it and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretikes But you will hardly leaue your wont because you see well enough that if you take our doctrine as we deliuer it you can deuise nothing plausibly or colourably to speake against it 2. W. BISHOP M. Per. 2. Conclusion The matters whereabout Free will is occupied are principally the actions of men which be of three sorts Naturall Humane Spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men and beasts as to eate sleepe c. In all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam M. Per. 3. Conclusion Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake to practise any kind of art to performe any kind of ciuill dutie to preach to administer Sacraments c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice Temperance Gentlenesse and Liberalitie and in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution S. Paul saith The Gentiles that haue not the law Rom. 2.14 do the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength And he saith of himselfe Phil 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19 that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable And for the externall obedience naturall men receiue reward in temporall things And yet here some caueats must be remembred First that in humane actions he should say morall mans will is weake and his vnderstanding dimme thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines Summe 12 â— 109. art 4. 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine you might haue quoted the place I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead 2. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it Who knowes not this R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop giueth vs some more of his learned notes and telleth vs that M. Perkins for humane should haue said morall wheras the name of morall actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he
workes in the state of corruption and all good workes in the state of grace for in his first conclusion distinguishing foure estates of man he affirmeth that in the third of man renewed or as we speake iustified there is libertie of grace that is grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands Yet lest he be taken to yeeld in any thing Pag. â—0 he doth in shew of words contradict both these points in another place For in setting downe the difference of our opinions he saith that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue which is flat opposite vnto that which himselfe said a little before in his first conclusion that in the conuersion of a sinner mans will concurreth not passiuely but is co-worker with Gods grace R. ABBOT M. Bishop vnderstandeth not the principall point in controuersie and therefore thinketh that M. Perkins yeeldeth to the principall point in controuersie when he doth nothing lesse It was neuer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of corruption haue freedome of will in ciuill or morall workes for none of vs euer hath denyed it Neither was it euer any point of controuersie whether man in the state of grace haue freedome of will to good workes for there is not one of vs but alwaies hath affirmed it so that M. Bishop knoweth not indeed what he disputeth of As for that libertie of grace he expoundeth it also out of his owne blind fancie and not out of our doctrine For we do not meane thereby that grace enableth mans will to do if it please such spirituall works as God requireth at his hands but that grace worketh in the will of man to please to do such spirituall workes as God requireth at his hands For he doth not hang his worke vpon the suspended if of our will but a Phil. 2.13 worketh in vs to will and b Ezech 36.27 August de Praedest sanct cap. 10 Ipse facit vti illi faciant quae praecepit Et cap. 11. Promissit facturum se vt faciaÌ„â— quae â—ulci vt fiant causeth vs to do the things that he commaundeth vs to do But M. Bishop here imagineth that M. Perkins contradicteth in one leafe that which he yeeldeth in another He saith one where that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue But let M. Bishop learne of S. Austine that c August quaest veâ— Test 14. Qui verba suppronit quaestionis aut imperituâ— est aut tergiuersator qui calumniae magis studeat quam doctrinae he that concealeth the words of the point in question is either an vnlearned ideot or a wrangling crauen that studieth more to cauill then either to teach or learne The words of M. Perkins are these The Papists say Will hath a naturall cooperation we deny it and say it hath cooperation onely by grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue willing well onely as it is moued by grace whereby it must first be acted and moued before it can act or will Where he very plainely affirmeth the cooperation of mans will in his conuersion but saith truly that it is of grace it selfe that it doth cooperate with grace He saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue but though in it selfe it be onely passiue yet he acknowledgeth that it becommeth actiue also by being acted or moued by grace Now how is this contrarie to that which he saith in the fift conclusion that mans Free will concurres with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect In some sort saith he it is a co-worker with grace and is not passiue in all and euery respect How is that Mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe How can M. Bishop deuise to haue a man speake more agreably to himselfe But he playeth the lewd cousiner and whereas the whole point of the controuersie lieth in these words by it selfe or in it selfe he guilefully omitteth the same and maketh M. Perkins absolutely to say that mans will in his conuersion is not actiue but passiue when he saith that in it selfe it is not actiue but passiue declaring that by grace it is made actiue So in the other place where it is said that mans will is a co-worker in some sort and is not passiue in all and euery respect he leaueth out those termes of restraint as if M. Perkins had made the will simply and of it selfe a co worker with grace and not passiue in any respect The contradiction therefore was not in M. Perkins his words but in M. Bishops head or rather in his malicious and wicked heart which blind-foldeth him to make him seeme not to see that which he seeth well enough 5. W. BISHOP The like contradiction may be obserued in the other part of libertie in morall actions for in his third conclusion he deliuereth plainely man to haue a naturall freedome euen since the fall of Adam to do or not to do the acts of wisedome Iustice Temperance c. and proues out of S. Paul that the Gentiles so did yet in his first reason Pag. 19. he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the eight of Genesis that the whole frame of mans hart is corrupted and all that he thinketh deuiseth or imagineth is wholy euill leauing him no natural strength to performe any part of morall dutie See how vncertaine the steps be of men that walke in darknesse or that would seeme to communicate with the workes of darknesse For if I mistake him not he agreeth fully in this matter of Free will with the Doctrine of the Catholike Church for he putting down the point of difference saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters allowing then freedome of will with vs in the state of grace whereof he there treateth for he seemeth to dissent from vs onely in the cause of that freedome And as he differeth from Luther and Caluin with other sectaries in granting this libertie of will so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholikes as appeareth by his owne words For saith he Papists say mans will concurreth with Gods grace by it selfe and by it owne naturall power we say that mans will worketh with grace yet not of it selfe but by grace either he vnderstandeth not what Catholikes say or else accuseth them wrongfully for we say that mans will then onely concurreth with Gods grace when it is stirred and holpen first by Gods grace So that mans will by his owne naturall action doth concurre in euery good worke otherwise it were no action of man but we farther say that this actioÌ„ proceedeth principally of grace wherby the wil was made able to produce such actions for of it selfe it was vtterly vnable to bring foorth such spirituall fruite And this I
yeelded them grace for their conuersion it had followed infallibly that they had beene conuerted neither should the frowardnesse of their will haue defeated the purpose of his will k Esa 46.10 My counsell shall stand saith he and I will do whatsoeuer I will therefore of the children of Ierusalem whomsoeuer God would gather he certainly did gather His will was to gather l Rom 11.5 a remnant according to the election of grace Ierusalem would not but resisted the will of God and hindered so much as in it lay the gathering of this remnant of her children m August Euchirâ—â— cap. 97. Vbi est illa omnâ—potentia c. si colligere filios Hierusalem voluit non fâ—cit An potius illa quidem filios sis â—s ab ipso câ—lligi neluit sede quoque relente filios eius câ—llegit ipse quos voluit quia in coelo in terra non quaedam vâ—luit fecit quaedam vero veluit non fecit sedomnia quaecunque volâ—â—t fecit But though Ierusalem would not yet God gathered whom he would and to them he yeelded his infallible sauing grace whereby he worketh to will and to do and giueth the gifts before mentioned of repentance faith knowledge and such like without which there is no conuersion and the giuing whereof is our conuersion vnto God Which seeing God gaue not to Ierusalem saue only to his remnant it is absurdly sayd by M. Bishop that there was no want of Gods helpe inwardly for their conuersion Their refusing and withstanding was the fruit of Free will which howsoeuer God do otherwise offer grace hath nothing in it selfe wherof to do otherwise 13. W. BISHOP Cap. 3. The last testimonie is in the Reuel where it is sayd in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates I will enter in to him and will sup with him and he with me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the doore of our hearts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop doth somewhat plainly shew himselfe and assureth vs that it is not without cause that we haue hitherto accused him of the Pelagian heresie The grace which for fashion sake he speaketh of is no other but such as whereby God knocketh at the doore of our hearts but worketh nothing in our hearts till we first of our selues assent to let him in He attendeth till we open him the gates and then he with his heauenly gifts will enter in which was the damnable errour of the Pelagians that Gods grace and gifts are bestowed vpon the precedence of our will and workes But we haue heard before out of the Arausicane councell that a Arausican Concil 2. cap 4. Supra sect 8. if any man say that God exspecteth or attendeth our will and doth not confesse that God worketh in vs to will he gainsayth the doctrine of the Apostle Which is the same as to say If any man say that God attendeth for our opening the gates vnto him and doth not confesse that God himselfe openeth the gates vnto himselfe he is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle b August cont duas epist Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6 Aditus diuinae vocationis ipsa Dei gratia procuratur The entrance of Gods calling is wrought or procured by the grace of God himselfe he knocketh with one hand openeth with another c Psal 107.16 breaking the gates of brasse and smiting the barres of iron in sunder and howsoeuer mightily he knocke we neuer heare we neuer open till he open and make entrance for himselfe It is he that d Act. 16.14 openeth the heart he e Luk. 24.45 openeth the vnderstanding he f Psal 119.18 openeth the eyes he openeth g Iob. 33.16 the eares he openeth h Psal 50.15 the lips he openeth i Act. 14.27 the doore of faith and why then doth M. Bishop say that he attendeth till we open He doth not attend our assenting to his call but k August de praedest sanct cap. 19 Deus operatur in cordibus hominum vocatione illa secundum proposiâ—um vt non inarater audâ—â—nt Euangelium sed eo audâ—to contâ—er taÌ„tur credant exerpientes non vt verbuâ—a hominum sed sicum est verò verbum Dei by his calling which is according to his purpose he worketh in the harts of meÌ„ that they heare not the Gospel in vaine but do conuert and turne receiue it not as the word of man but as it is indeed the word of God And whereas he saith that God doth not break open the doores it is not alwaies true For God somtimes with great violence assaulteth the hart l Iude vers 23. by terror feare pulleth men out of the fire as with a mighty hammer breaketh the pride rebellioÌ„ of the wil fighting stirring against him When men are in the height of their insolencie madly raging against him he striketh them to the ground as he did the Apostle m Act. 9.4 S. Paule and by astonishment ouercometh and subdueth them vnto himselfe thus n August contr duas Epist Pelâ— lib. 1 cap. 19. Non ait duxerit vt illic ali quo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem Quis trahâ—tur c vt supra Sect 10 not leading them as vpon their precedent will but drawing them not to beleeue against their wils which is vnpossible but of vnwilling to become willing In a word when God knocketh o Idem de Praedest sanct ca. 20. Ostrum ergo apertum est in â—is quibus datuÌ„ est aduersarij autem multi ex eis quibus non est datuÌ„ the doore is opened in them onely to whom it is giuen but they to whom it is not giuen are still aduerse and they neuer open and therefore M. Bishop saith amisse that God attendeth that we open him the gates or otherwise leaueth vs. Neither do the words alledged serue for confirmation of the freedome of mans will telling vs onely what must be done that God may enter but not importing that we do it by any power of Free will 14. W. BISHOP To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by Free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes and follow those that be faire and good he were without fault as not being cause of such
the Scripture onely to which he was bound without refusall to giue consent why then doth M. Bishop seeke to bind vs in a matter wherein S. Austin refused to be bound Prosper being vrged by the Pelagians with a sentence out of the booke of the Pastor reiected it m Prosper de lib. arbit Nullius authoritatis testimonium de libello Pastoris as a testimonie of no authoritie albeit Antiquitie had n Ruffiâ—â—n exposit Symb. apud Cyprian so accounted of that book as that they had ioyned it to the books of the new Testament did reade it publikely in their Churches and doth M. Bishop thinke it much that we reiect some few testimonies alledged by him of farre lesse authoritie then that was But yet Austine found in these few testimonies of the more auncient Fathers sufficient to iustifie both for him and vs o Aug. de bono perseuer cap. 19. Istitales tantique doctores dicentes non esse aliquid de quâ— tanquam de nostro quod nobis Deâ—◠〈◊〉 â—edâ—rit gloriemur nec ipsum cor nostrum cogitationes nostrariâ— potestate nostra esse tetum dantâ—s Deo atque ab ipso nos accâ—pere confitentes vt permansuâ—â— conuertamur ad cum vt id quod bonum est nobis quoque videatur â—â—â—um quod velimus illud vt honoremus Deum recipiamus Christum vt ex indenotis efficiamur deuâ—â—i religiosi vt in ipsam Trinitatem â—redamus confiteamur etiam voce quod credimus haec vtique gratiae Dei tribuunt c. that we haue nothing whereof to glorie as ours which God hath not giuen vnto vs that our heart and thoughts are not in our owne power but Gods that all is to be ascribed vnto God and that we must confesse that we receiue all wholy of him as touching our conuersion to God and continuing with him that it is wholy the gift of grace the gift of God which of him we haue and not of our selues to will that that is good to receiue Christ to beleeue in God and by voice to confesse that which we beleeue And surely howsoeuer those more ancient Fathers spake obscurely of Free will and some of them questionlesse meant amisse yet for the most part their speeches being applyed as I said before against heathen Astrologers and wicked heretickes excluding mans will wholy from being any cause either of good or euil they spake worse then they meant and if we will take their words with those qualifications and constructions wherwith S. Austin cleared some speeches of his against the Manichees as p Sect. 6. before was shewed in the answer to M. Bishops Epistle they shal easily be recoÌ„ciled to the truth Therfore iâ—arhem also that speake most amisse we find somtimes a right and true acknowledgement of the grace of God Who was a greater Patron of Free will then Origen who yet notwithstanding confesseth q Origen contra Ceisum lib 7. Nostrum propositum non est sufficiens ad hoc vt mundum cor habeamus sed Deo est opus qui tale nobis creet ideâ—rcò qui scit precari dicit Cor mundum c. that our will sufficeth not for the hauing of a cleane heart but that we haue need of God to create the same in vs and that therefore he that knoweth how to pray saith Create in me a cleane heart O God r Jbid. Bonitate ac humanitate Dei diuina ipsius gratia conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinatâ— sunt vt cognito Deo dignè viuaÌ„t c that the true knowledge of God by his mercie and grace is graunted onely vnto them who are praedestinate to liue worthy of him whom they know Å¿ Jn Mat. cap. 13. Quod gloriatione dignum est id nostrum non est sed domoÌ„ est Dei. that whatsoeuer is in vs worthie our reioycing is not our owne but the gift of God Yea where he affirmeth that there is in euery soule a strength of power and freedome of will whereby it may do euery thing that is good yet further to expresse his mind he addeth t In Cantic Homil 4. Seâ— quia hoc naturae bonuÌ„ praeuaricationis occasione deceiptum vel ad ignomimam vel ad lasciuiam fuerat inflexum vbi per gratiam reparatur per doctrinam verbi Dei restituitur odorem reddit sine dubio illum quem primus conditor Deus indiderat sed peccati culpa subtraxerat that this benefite of nature was cropped by meanes of sinne and was turned aside to shame and lasciuiousnes but that the same being repaired by grace and restored by the doctrine of the word of God doth giue that sweet sauour which God the first Creator put into it but the trespas of sin had takeÌ„ away Where it appeareth plainely that in speaking of Free will his purpose was to shew what mans will is by condition of creation and to what it may be repaired by the grace of God not what power it hath of it selfe in this state of corruption to open to God when he knocketh or to assent to God when he calleth And thus Clemens Alexandrinus affirming Free will against the heretikes Valentinus and Basilides who thought that men by an essential state of nature were some good some euill some faithfull and some vnfaiâ—hfull so as that the will of man is nothing at all either way yet reserueth due place to the grace of God saying u Clem. Alexan. Stromâ—t lib 5. Oportet mentem habere sanam c. ad quod maximè diuina opus habemus gratia rectaque doctrina castaque munda animi affectione Patris ad ipsum attractione We haue speciall need of Gods grace and true doctrine and of chast and pure affection and of the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe Where by affirming the Fathers drawing vs to himselfe he plainely excludeth the voluntarie opening and assenting and yeelding of Free will because drawing as before was shewed out of Austin importeth that there is no will in vs till God of vnwilling do make vs willing Let one speech of Austine serue to cleare all this matter x Augu. de corrept grat ca. 1 Liberum arbitrium ad malum ad bonuÌ„ faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in ma lo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae peccati auteÌ„ seruâ—â—m bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus ab eo qui dixit Si vos filius c. We must confesse saith he that we haue Free will both to do euill and to do good This is the common assertion of the Authors whom M. Bishop opposeth against vs but let vs take the wâ—rds following withall and by them expound the same assertion For euil-doing euery man is free from righteousnesse and the seruant of sinne there he hath alreadie Free will but in that that is good no man can be
loued of God or no. R. ABBOT To his former inuisible reasons we shall haue now some further testimonies adioyned that make as little for him as his reasons haue done And first he alledgeth a place of Solomon A man doth not know whether he be worthie of hatred or loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come But he knew well that the translation of this place might iustly be excepted against which indeed is very false He saith that one heretike cauilleth against it but neither is he one onely nor an heretike neither doth he cauill but iustly reiecteth it by warrant of the originall text so as that M. Bishops owne friends do translate the words farre otherwise then he alledgeth them The Hebrew word for word according to the Septuagint translated by Hierome is thus a Eccles 9.1 Et quidem charitatem quidem â—â—lium no est cognoscens homo omnia in facie eoruÌ„ Hieron Also loue also hatred a man knoweth not all in the face of them The obscuritie of which words hath caused men very diuersly to conceiue of the true meaning thereof One construction is made by Olympiodorus that b Olimpiod in Eccles ca. 9. Qui adhuc sapit quae hominis sunt neque planè Deo se tradidit nescit discreto rudicio quae dilectione sunt digna quae odio he that yet sauoureth the things of men and hath not sincerely giuen himselfe to God knoweth not what things are worthie to be loued and what to be hated Another exposition he alledgeth taken from the translation of Symmachus c Ibid. Nescit homo si quâ—m nunc maximè odit mutatis vicibus amicum beneficum sit experturus contraque an timeÌ„dum sibi quandoque sit abeo quem nunc amore prosequitur A man knoweth not whether vpon some change he shall find him louing or kind whom he now hateth or shall haue cause to be afraid of him whom he now loueth With least mutation or change we translate the words thus A man knoweth not loue or hatred that is who is loued or hated by all that is before them and then the meaning is plaine that by outward things by the things that are before our face a man knoweth not whether he be beloued or hated of God whereof the reason followeth because all things come alike to all and there is the same condition outwardly to the iust and to the wicked c. And to this effect the translation of Symmachus tendeth though Olympiodorus gathered otherwise thereof d Symmac apud Hieron in Eccl. cap 9 Insuper neque amicitias neque immicitias scit homo sed omnia corarae eis incerta proptereà quod omnibus eueniunt similia iusto iniusto Moreouer a man knoweth not loue or hatred but all things are vncertaine before them because the like things befall to all both to iust and vniust Which translation as Hierome approueth so he confirmeth also the meaning of it saying e Hieron ibid. Quod autem ait Euentus est vnus omnibus iusto impio siue angustiarum siue mortis significat eueÌ„tum idcirco nec charitatem Dei eos in se nosse nec odium Whereas he saith that there is the same condition to all he meaneth it of affliction or of death and that therefore men know not the loue of God or his hatred towards them And thus indeed true it is as M. Bishop citeth out of Hierome that a man cannot esteeme by any outward state whether he be loued or hated of God for neither do the righteous only prosper neither are the wicked only crossed and afflicted but the wicked flourish many times more gloriously then the iust and the hand of God often lieth heauier vpon the iust then vpon the wicked and vngodly and both are subiect to death both are laied in the graue without any appearance or shew of difference betwixt the one the other But this maketh nothing against vs for although by the eye the beleeuer cannot discerne the loue of God towards himselfe yet that hindereth not but that by faith he apprehendeth and embraceth the same And thus S. Bernard excepteth against that place being so translated as M. Bishop readeth it f Bernard in dedic eccles ser 5. Sed de possibilitate iam certâ— de voluntate quid agimus Quis scit si est dignus amore an edio Quis nouit sensum Domini aut quis consiliarius eius fuit Hìc iam planè fidem nobis subuenire necesse est hìc oportet succurrere veritatem vt quod de nobis latet in corde paetris nobis per ipsius spiritum reueletur spiritus eius testificaÌ„s persuadeat spiritut nostro quod filij Dei simus Being sure of Gods ablenesse to saue vs how do we to be assured of his will thereto for who knoweth whether he be worthie of loue or hatred who hath knowne the mind of the Lord or hath bene his counsellor But here faith must helpe vs bere Gods truth must be our succour that that which lieth hidden concerning vs in the heart of God our Father may by his spirit be reuealed vnto vs and his spirit by the testimonie thereof may perswade our spirit that we are the children of God and that by calling and iustifying vs freely by faith Thus though we take the place translated as M. Bishop alledgeth it yet by S. Bernards iudgement it auaileth him nothing because albeit otherwise we cannot know whether we be beloued or hated of God yet by faith and by the spirit of God that secret is reuealed vnto vs that we are the children of God and beloued of him Only that we take that worthinesse of the loue of God to be meant of Gods acceptation and vouchsafing to thinke vs worthie because otherwise the place so translated soundeth a manifest vntruth and contrarie to the Scripture For if we speake simply of worthinesse who doth not know himselfe worthie of hatred what faithfull man doth not say as Daniel said g Dan. 9.7 To thee O Lord belongeth righteousnesse but vnto vs reckoning himselfe for one belongeth confusion of face Dauid saith h Psal 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified i 130.3 If thou straitly marke what is done amisse who shall be able to stand It is false then to say that a man knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or of hatred for he knoweth or should know himselfe worthie to be hated but yet by faith a man beleeueth himselfe in Christ to be beloued though he know that in himselfe he worthily deserueth to be hated And so S. Bernard againe saith of the faithfull k Bernard epist 107. Supra scit 3 A vile worme worthie of euerlasting hatred yet is confidently perswaded that he is beloued because he feeleth himselfe to loue Thus S. Bernard both wayes contrarieth M.
Christ had imposed vpon him Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon alledgeth as Gregorie doth the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man not moued with the l 2. Cor. 5.11 terrours of the Lord and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at We know it well saith he Yea do but what is then your refuge and defence Marrie seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne as saith he M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame For neither the Apostle nor M. Perkins do teach that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned so that though it continue still in vs yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned Surely they that rightly know themselues do know that in themselues there is that still being for which God might iustly cast them away if he should iudge them in themselues but their comfort hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise There is no condemnation because there is nothing worthie of condemnation all iustice all innocencie no impuritie or vncleannesse no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day We are purged from Originall sinne saith he vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd as we heard before n August epist 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabâ—tur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne What hope then is there saith he vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement And what in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge no sinne no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of We haue seene before that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes S. Austin saith very well o Aug. in Psal 42. Quiâ—unque hic viâ—it quantum libet iuste viuaâ— vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith p Greg. Moral li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant nequaquam sibi ad iustâ—tiam vel electi sufficieÌ„t si districtè in iudicio requirantur Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice shal be able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome q Hieron in Esa l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissolueÌ„tur omnes manus quia nâ—llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur c. Omne quoque corâ—siue anima hominis tabescet pauebit conscientia peccati sui When the day of iudgment or of death shall come all hands shal be dissolued because there shal no worke be found vvorthie of the iustice of God neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight Whereupon the Prophet saith O Lord if thou markest iniquities who shall endure it euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge The best is that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified Yet to make his matter good he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith that he had runne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie as well in the r Rom. 3.27 law of faith as in the law of workes but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth he considereth with fauour and Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not and all this he doth as a iust iudge because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26 the vttermost farthing nothing pleaseth but what is exact and perfect and fully answerable to the rule S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne not by the law of workes but by the law of faith wherein God u Psal 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse because this crowne is a crowne of iustice x Bernard de grat lib. arbit sub finem Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae JustuÌ„ est quippe vt reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus promissio
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâ—ttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ— remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ— plura meruissâ—t to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâ—s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌ„t iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌ„plete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
perfection of a man whereof if anie be wanting it is an imperfection so that a Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium quà m propemo duâ— nihil corpori quà m multuÌ„ detrahitur pulchritudini if but one ey-brow be shauen as S. Austine saith though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it Euen so is it in the iustified man faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life because as the quickening facultie power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith or in our hearts by faith but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man to which as to the other members from the heart so from faith life is imparted and communicated that in them we may be aliue to God Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification but by occasion of commending faith and loue that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine misquoteth Ep. ad Philippâ—nses faith is the beginning of life c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him For if faith be the beginning of life then by faith we first liue By faith therfore we are iustified for to be iustified as M. Bishop confessed in the former section is to be translated from death Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption as hath bene before shewed so faith wherein is our new birth giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life the summe whereof is charitie because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together do make perfect the man of God The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same and needeth no further answer With Chrysostome we say that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely though faith alone suffice to iustification Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man but he is not by them made a iustified man Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham c Chrys ad Rom. hom 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae eâ— verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri hoc scilicet admirabile est quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith it should be no strange matter but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith this is wonderfull and doth greatly set forth the power of faith S. Austin in the place by him alledged if it were S. Austin auoucheth good workes to iustifie theÌ„ that are iustified that is to approue them iust but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification and purposely in that place disputeth against it d August Hypognost lib. 3. Ex operibus noÌ„ iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt Ideò subiungens inquit Iustificatè gratu per gratiaÌ„ Dei. Noli â—i praeponere opera propria neâ— exâ—â—â—eÌ„ gloriari quâ— ex operibus non c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy through the faith of Iesus Christ is apparent vpon all that do beleeue Therefore the Apostle saith we are iustified freely by the grace of God Put not thine owne workes before it nor glorie thereof because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him If no workes go before iustification then M. Bishops cause as too weake must go to the wals because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes for being iustified before we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after and if neither by works before nor after then not at all It followeth therefore that when S. Austine saith in that place that men of God are iustified by good workes he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man not any causes of iustification Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after f Aug. vt supr Iustificatio per fideÌ„ Iesu Christi data est datur dabitur crâ—dentâ—bus Iustification hath bene giuen is giuen and shall be giuen to them that beleeue by the faith of Iesus Christ Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop he saith it not as to the Protestant but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi c. Thou wilt say Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes If so why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes To which he answereth h Audi haeretice stulte inimice fidei veritatis Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparaÌ„tur per gratiae praeâ—entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente gubernante perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna mâ—â— quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt iustificantur iustifiâ—abuntur in Christo Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur ex his tanquâ—m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith We condemne not the good works of free will which that they may be done are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will and the same preuenting grace causing directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil because by such men of God haue bin are and shal be iustified in Christ But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification from
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 somewhat at least to the free will of man Againe it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth but Å¿ Sest 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men as he hath before expressed Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice yet he maketh no exception but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heaueÌ„ vnto him as iustly deserued which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth that t Aug Hypog lib 3. Intellâ—ge in miseratione misericordiae non in factione meritorum animam coronari not for performance of merits but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned and to say with Hilary u Hilar in Psal 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus quòd erimus quòd non sumus causam â—â—am non habet nisi misericordiae Dei That we are what we were not that we shall be what we are not it hath no other cause at all but onely the mercie of God Againe he will not haue vs boast and say that God needed vs for our selues but we must needes say with Tertullian x Tertul. aduer Hermog Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur There is none but needeth him of whose he vseth any thing Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe but at our will It is in the power of our free will either to helpe it or hinder it either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise God must stand in neede of our will to consent to his worke or else it succeedeth not For the auoiding of which absurdity we must confesse that God vseth nothing in vs for the effecting of our saluation but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting our beleeuing our willing our working all is of God and nothing is there therein that we can call ours Now therefore it is plaine that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians y Ephe. 2.8 By grace ye are saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ taketh exception generally against works and giueth to vnderstand that they are effects not causes of saluation because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus vnto good workes M. Bishops exception is that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues before we be iustified But that his exception is very vaine appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith Not of workes least any man should boast addeth in the next words For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do For what sence were it to say we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification But the Apostles meaning is very euident we are not saued by any good workes that we do for our good workes are none of ours but they are his workmanship in vs by whom we are saued who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in to the same saluation It was not then M. Perkins ignorance to take two distinct manner of workes for the same but M. Bishops absurd shifting to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth that there is no difference at all But we would gladly know of him to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions To the latter he cannot because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus which we are not till we be iustified and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification If to the former then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification So in neither place doth he say any thing of them and because he knew them not he hath wholy left them out He was vndoubtedly to blame to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions as not to think them worth the speaking of But it is woorth the noting to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle Not by workes least any man should boast that is not by workes that are of our selues but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation which are partly of God and partly of our selues and yet as I haue before said they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation to be onely of our selues because as yet there is z Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriuÌ„ auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed moueÌ„tis adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem noÌ„ solum patiendo sed operando agendo no infused or inhabitant grace whence they should proceede and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle But see the singular impudencie of this man who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions who hath not in the place alledged by him so much as any seÌ„blance or shew for proofe thereof Note with S. Austin saith he that faith excludeth all merits of our works but no vertuous dispositions for preparatioÌ„ to grace Lewd Sophister where is that note found in S. Austine in what words is it set downe What still lye and nothing but lye S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but not all workes for there are workes of preparation which Doctor Bishop no simple man I warrant you defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes vnderstanding by merits any thing going before iustification that should be vnto God a motiue or cause
our good workes directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob a Rom. 9.11 Before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not by works but by him that calleth it was said the elder shall serue the younger as it is written I haue loued Iacob and haue hated Esau b August Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed diâ—â—ret ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quastionem c. Where saith S. Austine if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood he would not haue said Not of works but would haue said for the workes that were to come and so would haue put the matter out of question c IdeÌ„ epist 105. Ideo inquiunt Pelagiani nondum natorum alium oderat alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat Quit istum aâ—utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur The Pelagians said as he obserueth that of them being not yet borne God therefore hated the one and loued the other because he did foresee their workes to come Who would not wonder saith he that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle But his resolution euery where is that Gods election is the cause of our good workes not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle d Ephe. 1.4 He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him through loue e De praedest sanct ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramuâ— sed vt essemus Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae c. not saith he because we would be but that we should be not because he foreknew that we would be so but that we might be so by his election of grace The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe f 1. Cor. 7.25 Aug. epist 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull but by his mercy made him so to be It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it deferreth the rest to the question of merits where he saith nothing directly to it It seemeth he was ielous of the matter and therefore was loth to wade too farre least it should too plainly appeare that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit 35. W. BISHOP The fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can do a good worke and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification and hauing before discussed the first and the second now remaining and expecting you why did you not say one word of it the matter being ample and well worthie the handling Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments as we bring to proue a second iustification Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification but these degrees must be made downward of euill worser and worst for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold Pag. 76. else-where let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse which can neuer after be either loosed or increased Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you well coursed read S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory Lib. 2. con Iouin Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against which I will put downe these reasons following R. ABBOT If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation What are they vertuous and yet are they not good Nay he hath called them a Sect. 30. 32. before good qualities good dispositions good preparations and what were they good then and now are they not good Tell vs M. Bishop your mind are your works of preparation good workes or are they not good If they be not good then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good If they be good then it is vntruth that you say here that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse that you haue said amisse Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand which is as he saith of the second iustification whereas Maister Perkins though noting their distinction of first and second iustification yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification whence it must follow that they haue no place in any second iustification And the argument here propounded directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatioÌ„ though he would not see so much For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified theÌ„ can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice Iustice is not full and perfect so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it There is still something to be added in their second iustification till it come to his full terme Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified Now the iustice that is not perfect if it be respected in it selfe cannot be pleasing vnto God It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands There can therefore be no good workes whereby a man should merit their second iustification M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument and hauing so done very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion graunting it in one sort when the premisses inferre it in another and yet braueth and faceth as if the matter were wholly cleare for him
concupiscence to be restrained and bridled Therefore he saith f De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis quòd lex dixit Ne concupiscas Hoc modo impleri non potest The perfection of vertue is that which the law saith Thou shalt not lust this now in this life cannot be fulfilled And againe g Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere hoc est non concupiscere Quis ergo hoc qui viuit potest To fulfill the law is not to iust and who is there liuing that can so do It is manifest then by S. Austin that that commandement requireth a perfection which in this world we neuer are able to attaine vnto because it doth not onely forbid consent but euen the very hauing of any euill motions or affections contrarie to the law And by those motions we do not onely breake the commandement Thou shalt not lust but we faile of yeelding loue to God with all our heart with all our soule c. because euil motions and lusts do occupie some part of the heart and soule and withhold the same from God Therefore S. Austin saith againe h Aug. de perf iust Cùm est aliquid concupisceÌ„tiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carnaliter anima concupiscit so long as there is any part of carnall concupiscence by continencie to be bridled God is not perfectly loued with all the soule for the flesh lusteth not without the soule although the flesh be said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh Now therefore albeit it be true that a man may resist such euill motions and deny consent vnto them yet is he not therby freed froÌ„ transgression of the law But yet M. Bishop falsely alledgeth S. Austin to that purpose who in the place i August Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus c. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lasciuos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere c Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas vsque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam cited not the seuenth as he quoteth but the thirtieth Chapter affirmeth indeed that somtimes men resist those concupiscences euen in their sleepe that it is in Gods power to make him alwaies so to do He signifieth his longing desire after that puritie and perfection but his expectation of it onely then when death shall be swallowed into victorie howsoeuer God be able if so it were his pleasure to giue it euen now also in the meane time And indeed there is no man liuing to whom can be attributed that perfection to be altogether and wholy free from consent of sinfull lust There is no man that fighteth so warily but that sometimes yea many times he receiueth grieuous wounds and findeth cause to cry mournfully vnto God for the cure thereof A man resisteth in one thing and is ouertaken in another at one time he checketh those corrupt desires with which as nets he is strongly intangled at another This is the state of all flesh and of this we haue cause to complaine so long as we liue here 41 W. BISHOP Iac. 3.2 1. Ioan. 1. We do offend in many things and if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Answer I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily led by the craft of the diuell into many offences which we might auoyde if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the law which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we commit some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing with it But of this matter more fully in some other place R. ABBOT There is no doubt but if all impediments were taken away whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandements of God it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfill the same It is true which S. Austine saith that a August de spâ— lit cap. 19. Non vitio suo non implebatur lex sed vitio prudentiae carnis it is not by any default of the lawe that we fulfill it not but by default of the wisedome of the flesh which as the Apostle saith is b Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God and is not subiect vnto the law of God nor indeed can be We are by our frailtie led into many offences saith M. Bishop and we might auoyde the same if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be But so long as this frailtie hangeth vpon vs and by the weaknesse and corruption of flesh we are not so warie and watchfull as we ought to be why doth he attribute vnto vs a power and ablenesse to fulfill the lawe And what is that that he saith but euen the deuice of the Pelagian Heretickes who affirming c Hieron Epist ad Ctesiphont Hominem posse esse sine peccato si velit c. Cùm ab eis quaerimus qui sint quos absque peâ—cato putent noua stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint sed qui esse possint that a man may be without sinne if he will and being demaunded who they were whom they tooke to be without sinne by a wily shift answered that they said not what men are or what they haue bene but what they may be Euen thus M. Bishop being vrged by the confession of the Apostles themselues that in many things we all offend and sinne that is do trespasse and breake the commandements of God confesseth it to be true but yet notwithstanding saith that it is vnpossible to keepe them But as Hierome answered the Pelagiaâ—s so we answer him d Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare What a reason is this that that is possible to be which neuer was and may be done which thou bearest witnesse that neuer any man did and to giue to euery man that which in the Patriarkes and Prophets and Apostles thou art not able to make good To be short as it is not possible for a man being feeble and weake and sicke to beare a
we it Againe he saith e Ibid Ipsam fidei professioneÌ„ quae credimus in Patrem filiuÌ„ SpirituÌ„ sanctum è quibus habemus scriptis The very profession of faith whereby we beleeue in the Father the Son the holy Ghost out of what Scripture do we take it The maine matter which he laboreth there to approue by vnwritten tradition is the pronouncing of glorie to the Father and the Son together with the holy Ghost which yet he himselfe saith that f Cap. 25. Vim habet Scripturis congruentem Nihil diuersum dexero quod ad sententiae vitâ—â— attinet it hath a meaning agreeing with the Scriptures and that in meaning it nothing differeth from that which Christ saith the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost and so we also hold professe according to the Scriptures In this sense therfore we also admit of vnwritten traditions blame as he doth them who strictly vrge what things are found in the Scriptures that is admit of nothing but what in precise termes is expressed therein and therefore the words here in question thus far make nothing against vs. Yea and in the assertion of those other traditions which he mentioneth he nothing crosseth vs because we deny not traditions as was said in the beginning which are but rites and ceremonies of the Church who our selues haue such traditions in vse and deny not the liberty of other Churches for the like Such traditions he there mentioneth to haue bene in those times the signing of them which professe Christ with the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East to be thrice dipped in baptisme to pray standing all the time from Easter to Whitsontide such like Now such traditions we condemne not but we cannot but dislike that wheras these are no matters of faith perpetuall necessity but onely of arbitrarie and indifferent obseruation he notwithstanding reckoneth theÌ„ g Cap. 27 Quorum vtraque pareÌ„ vim habent ad pietatem as hauing like force to pietie with those things that are written and that the reiecting hereof shall be the h Et ea damnahimus quae in Euangelio ad salutem necessaria habentur condemning of those things which in the Gospell are accounted necessary to saluation To which assertion M. Bishop for the credit of their Church of Rome wil refuse to subscribe because they hold the most of these things to be indifferent insomuch that there is no necessity with theÌ„ of thrice dipping him that is baptised that custome of standing in prayer for the time aboue named is worne out of vse Wherin it caÌ„not be denied but that the Church of Rome hath done greatly amisse if it be true concerning such traditions which Basil there is made to say In a word Basils traditions if they be his concerne not our disputation either being such as are contained in the sense though not in the letter of the Scripture or else being onely temporarie and arbitrarie obseruations of the Church neither of which we impugne We impugne those traditions which are made necessarie and perpetuall doctrines of faith and of the worship of God and yet neither in the letter nor in the sence and consequence of the scriptures can be iustified so to be Of this sort are the Popes supremacie and succession of Peter his Pardons inuocation of Saints worshipping of images prayer for the dead the single life of Priests the curtolling of the Communion the sacrifice of the Masse a huge deale of such other baggage Wherein we may take knowledge of the notable fraud of these Romish Traditioners who tell vs out of the Fathers of traditions traditions when as in none of the auncient Catalogues of traditions those traditions are found which they especially require to be beleeued vnder that name The Fathers mention Apostolicke traditions as they call them whereof the Church of Rome obserueth nothing the Church of Rome telleth vs of Apostolicke traditions whereof there is no mention with the Fathers They agree not in their beadroll of traditions and yet we forsooth must beleeue that the traditions of Poperie are the same that they speake of and haue bene continued from the time of the Apostles But what the manner of the auncients was Hierome teacheth vs to vnderstand when he saith i Hieron ad Lucin Vnaequae que Prouincia abundeâ— in sensu suo praecepta maiâ—rum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let euery Prouince abound in it owne iudgement or opinion and thinke the precepts of their auncestours to be Apostolicke lawes This was indeed their custome whatsoeuer obseruations they had to terme them for the credit of them Apostolicke traditions howsoeuer they were but humane presumptions and sometimes contrarie to that which the Apostles practised as Hierome there sheweth of the tradition of k Jn Actibus Apostolorum dictus Pentecostes dit Dominico Apostolum Paulum cum to credentes teiunasse legimus not fasting vpon the Lords day and the daies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide which he saith that Paule and with him the faithfull did But as touching all such traditions we are to consider what the same Hierome elswhere saith that l Idem in Agg. cap. 1 Quae absque authoritate testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte râ—periunt contingunt percutit glâ—dius Dei What things men of their owne accord deuise and faine as of Apostolike tradition without testimonie and authoritie of the Scriptures the sword of God striketh downe As for Damascene whom M. Bishop alledgeth last we hold him not woorth the answering We doubt not but he defended vnwritten traditions without any qualification being a notable idol-monger and hauing no meanes for defence of his idolatrie but the pretence of vnwritten tradition M. Bishop committed much ouersight to reckon him for a man free from all partialitie who in that respect could not but be partiall in behalfe of the cause which he had vndertaken against the written truth of God But M. Bishop hath yet one string more to play vpon S. Paul commandeth Timothie saith he to commend vnto the faithfull that which he had heard of him by many witnesses and not that onely which he should find in some of his Epistles or in the written Gospell S. Paules words are these m 2. Tim. 3.2 What things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses the same deliuer to faithfull men which shall be able to teach other also He willeth Timothie in speciall manner to instruct some in those things which he had heard and receiued of him that they might be for the worke of the ministerie and serue for the instructing and teaching of others The question now is what those things were of which he speaketh M. Bishop when he saith not only that which he should find written coÌ„fesseth that the Apostle meant it of those things that are written though he will not haue it thought to be meant of those
all Christians but voluntarily to be followed as a matter of speciall perfection by such as will so as that without this a man may be saued and come to eternall life but by the doing of it he meriteth a release of his owne and other mens sins and an eminent and more then ordinary degree of glory in euerlasting life But the text plainly sheweth that this cannot be there meant and that the lesson that Christ taught him did concerne a dutie necessary for the obtaining of eternall life The question that he moueth to Christ is l Mat. 19.16 Good master what shall I do to obtaine eternall life Our Sauiour answereth If thou wilt enter into lift keepe the commaundements He professeth himselfe so to haue done from his youth and addeth what lacke I yet What is it whereto he supposeth somewhat yet to be lacking Euery man seeth whereto it is to be referred What lacke I yet to the obtaining of eternal life Accordingly then the answer of Christ is to be construed If thou wilt be perfect that is lacking nothing to the obtaining of eternall life go sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come and follow me That this is the meaning of the perfection here spoken of appeareth by the two other Euangelists who thus set downe the answer of Christ m Mark 10.21 One thing is lacking vnto thee n Luke 18.22 Yet lackest thou one thing sel all that thou hast c. Wherto did he lacke one thing but to that whereof he made the question to the obtaining of eternal life Christs words then in effect are Thou hast not yet all that is needfull to the obtaining of eternall life but if thou wilt be perfect lacking nothing thereto go sel all that thou hast c. Now if we vnderstand it as M. Bishop would haue vs then there was no cause why the man should go away so sorowful at that that Christ said For the thing that he desired was to haue eternal life and if he might haue had eternall life without the forgoing of his riches it would haue fully satisfied him But by M. Bishops doctrine it might be said to him that he troubled himselfe in vaine for the words of Christ were but a counsell and not a commaundement and that there was not any necessitie of doing that that was sayd vnto him They that wold be of a high degree of perfection aboue others must so do but if he would rest in a lower degree he might continue as he was and yet obtaine eternall life But the yong man conceiued not so he knew that Christs words imported a conditiō of obtaining eternal life according to the question that he had moued to him and therefore was very sorowfull And hereto accord the words of Christ ensuing Verily I say vnto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdome of heauen It is easier for a camell to go through the eie of a needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God Why doth Christ vse these words but that the yong mans respect of his riches did hinder him not from a state of perfection aboue others as M. Bishop dreameth but wholly from entring into the kingdome of God Furthermore it is to be considered how improbable a thing it is that to a man who knew as yet only the Iewish religion had no knowledge of the faith of Christ our Sauior wold giue at first a direction of perfection aboue others in Christian profession He was as yet no disciple of Christ he beleeued not in him and is it credible that he would teach him at the first dash of a ruler according to M. Bishops vnderstanding to become a Monke Nay it appeareth plainly that whereas the man had a zeale of God and no doubt in true meaning did walk according to the Law so farre as he had the true vnderstanding thereof our Sauior Christ wold instruct him that that was not sufficient for the obtaining of eternal life but he must be content vpō his calling and commandement to renounce all that he had to cast off al vaine loue and confidence of worldly things and to become one of his disciples and followers In a word he teacheth him to be of the same mind that the Apostle S. Paul professeth as touching himself o Philip. 36.8 As touching the righteousnes of the law I was vnrebukable but I think all things but losse for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I haue counted all things losse and do iudge them to be dung that I might win Christ. For so it is that morall workes whether of Iewes or of Gentiles are not auailable in the sight of God they want their forme and life and perfection vntill the same be giuen vnto them by the faith of Christ p Ambr. in psal 1 Virtutes sine fide folia sunt videntur virere sed 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 Vertues without faith are bu◠leaues saith S. Ambrose they shew greene but they cannot profite vs. Therefore the faith of Christ teacheth vs to renounce all trust and confidence thereof and to trust onely vpon him This is the perfection whereto Christ calleth this yong man as if he should haue said vnto him Thou doest well in that which thou doest but that is not enough if thou wilt haue good of it become my disciple and to that end be content to forgo all that thou hast and come and follow me Where to know how these words do belong to vs it must be considered that this man was called to a corporall and outward following of Christ according to the flesh by meanes whereof he must necessarily forgo the vse of those great possessions that he had Thus the Apostles had partly done already and were afterwards fully and wholly to do being to be corporally employed to preach the Gospell through the world thus Christ calleth this yong rich man to do the same But our following of Christ now cōsisteth not in changing of our places but in giuing him our affections neither is performed by the foote but by the heart neither is it a matter of speciall dutie belonging onely to some but vniuersally concerneth all that belong to him As is then our following of Christ so is our selling of all that we haue a matter of the heart and affection whilest in the midst of all that we haue we haue our minds so vntied free from the loue and respect of worldly things as that we are ready to forgo all when the cause of Christ and his Gospell shall require vs so to do And this M. Bishop out of their owne grounds must be forced to confesse whether he will or not For by Bellarmine we vnderstand that to be a Monk is q Bellar. de Monach cap. 2. Status Episcoporum est status perfectionis adeptae status religiosorum est status
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.