voluit vt homo non recedat ab eo Cyprian leaueth vs nothing wherein to glorie as our owne that he sheweth that not to depart from God is no otherwise but giuen of God in that he teacheth that it is to be begged of God for he that is not led into temptation doth not depart from God This saith he is not in the strength of Free will as now it is It was in man before his fall but after the fall of man God would not haue it belong saue onely to his grace that we come vnto him neither would he haue it belong saue onely to his grace that we do not depart from him Thus he conceiued and obserued as touching Cyprians meaning out of Cyprians owne words and bereaueth M. Bishop of Cyprians warrant for that which he would father vpon him by some words obscurely vttered in another place c Jbid cap. 6. Tâ—â—â—res viâ—â—â—us si totum Deo damus non autem nos illi ex parte nobu ex parte commutimus Quod vidit iste venerabilâ— Martyr c. Cyprian that worthy Martyr saw well enough saith he that we liue most in safetie when we ascribe all to God and do not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues By these three therefore M. Bishop hitherto hath gained nothing but by Cyprian whose words seeme to make most for him he gaineth least of all But now he vrgeth the confession of some of our best learned that all Antiquitie excepting onely S. Austin beleeued and taught Free will To this purpose he alledgeth a place out of the Centuries which he calleth a large long lying historie marry speaking but by roate as children do or as the clowne did of Aristides who giuing his voyce to the banishment of the same Aristides and being asked of him vnknowne d Plutarch Apophiheg whether he knew him against whom he gaue his voyce answered that he knew him not but it was trouble vnto him to heare him tearmed a iust man For so M. Bishop knoweth not the Centuries alas poore man what should he meddle with such great bookes but he hath heard that Protestants were the Authors thereof and that is enough to warrant him to giue his voyce against them But his fellowes know that they haue good cause to speake well of the Authors of those Centuries because by them they haue bin able to say more for themselues then euer they were before so faithfully did those men deale in the compiling of that storie Now they say indeed as he alledgeth from his Author that Clement Alexandrinus doth euery where teach Free will and that not onely the Doctors of that age were in such darknesse but also that it did much increase in the ages following Where taking the matter to be simply as they say and as M. Bishop doth obiect what doth he gaine more by that obiection then the Pelagians did e Prosper Epist ad August Obstinationem suaÌ„ vetustate defendunt A nullo vnquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ve nunc sentiuntur affirmant who defended their obstinacie by antiquitie and affirmed that none of all the ecclesiasticall Writers that were before did so expound the Scriptures as Austin did namely against the Free will and merits of man and that examining the opinions of the more auncient Fathers they were found to be in a manner all of one mind against him But this he tooke to be no sufficient argument but freely professeth of his doctrine f Aug. de bono perseuer cap 18. Hoc scâ—onemineÌ„ contra istam PraedestinationeÌ„ c. nisi errando disputare potuisse I know that no man without error could dispute against it He excuseth the ancients that were before him g De Praedest sanct cap. 14. Priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad soluendum quaestione versari c. vnde factuÌ„ est vt de gratia Dei quid sentirent breuiter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis transeuntèr attingerent immorarentur vero in eis quae aduersus alios inimicos Ecclesiae disputabant c. frequentationibus aut orationibus simplicitèr apparebat Dei gratia quid valeret Non enim poscerentur à Deo quae praecepit fieri nisi ab illo donaretur vt fierent that before the heresie of the Pelagians began they had not any such need to deale much in that question and therefore what they thought of the grace of God they touched but briefly and by the way in some places of their workes but stood more vpon those things which they handled against other enemies of the Church Yet he saith that by their supplications and prayers it plainely appeared what grace doth because they would not haue asked of God those things which he hath commanded to be done but that they held that the doing thereof is the gift of God h De bono perseuer cap. 23. No oraret Ecclesia vt daritur infidelibus fides nisi Deum crederet auersas aduersas hominuÌ„ ad se conuertere voluntates nec oraret Ecclesia vt perseueraret in fide Christi nisi crederet Dominum sic in potestate habere cor nostrum vt bâ—â—uÌ„ quod non tenemus nisi propria voluntate non tamen teneamus nisi ipsi in â—oâ—is operetur velle that the Church would not haue prayed to God as it alwaies did to giue men repentance faith obedience perseuerance but that it beleeued that God so hath our heart in his power as that he worketh in vs to will the good that we cannot haue without our will He further obserueth that i Ibid cap. 20. Didicimus singulas quasque haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias quaestiones cotra quas diâ—igentiùs defenderetur Sâ—riptura diuina quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret Quid auteÌ„ coegit loca Scripturarum quibus Praedestinatio commendata est copiosiùs enucientius iâ—â—o nostro libere defendi nisi quod Pelagiani dicunt c. all heresies haue brought their seuerall questions into the Church by occasion whereof as touching those points the truth of Scripture was the more diligently defended and that by occasion of the Pelagian heresie the places of Scripture concerning Predestination and grace of God were by his labour more plentifully and plainely defended then they were before And to conclude out of all Antiquitie before him he bringeth onely k Ibid cap 19. foure or fiue testimonies out of Cyprian Ambrose and Gregorie Nazianzene whereby to iustifie what he taught Now by this answer of Austin to the Pelagians M. Bishop and his fellowes must receiue their answer If it were no preiudice to him that the Fathers before him taught otherwise then he did it is no preiudice to vs teaching the same that he taught He professed himselfe l De nat gra cap. 61 to be free in the writings of any such men and that it was
but what we also teach as hath bene declared there 31. W. BISHOP The third Difference of Iustification is howe farre foorth good workes are required thereto Pag. 91. Master Perkins saith That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of Iustification the first when of a sinner one is made iust the which is of the meere mercie of God through Christ without any merit of man onely some certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of Faith Feare Hope Charitie Repentance go before to prepare as it were the way and to make it more fit to receiue that high grace of Iustification The second Iustification is when a iust man by the exercise of vertues is made more iust as a child new borne doth by nouriture grow day by day bigger of this increase of grace Catholikes hold good workes to be the meritorious cause M. Perkins first granteth that good workes do please God and haue a temporall reward 2. That they are necessarie to saluation not as the cause therof but either as markes in a way to direct vs towards saluation or as fruites and signes of righteousnes to declare one to be iust before men all which he shuffleth in rather to delude our arguments then for that they esteem much of good workes which they hold to be no better then deadly sinnes The maine difference then betweene vs consisteth in this whether good workes be the true cause indeed of the increase of our righteousnes which we call the second iustification or whether they be onely fruites signes or markes of it R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop it seemeth did not well like that M. Perkins should do the Church of Rome that wrong to make her better then indeed she is for whereas he had said that they exclude all workes from the first iustification and confesse it to be wholly of grace M. Bishop reformeth his error by adding that certaine good deuotions of the soule as the acts of faith feare hope charitie repentance go before to prepare the way to iustification all which it hath bene his drift hitherto to proue to be properly and truly the causes thereof Now as touching the point in hand M. Perkins obserueth three things accorded vnto by vs in the recitall whereof M. Bishop vseth his wonted guise of deceit and fraud First we graunt that good workes do please God and are approued of him and therefore haue reward which we intend both temporall and eternall but he mentioneth it as if we affirmed no other but only temporall reward Secondly we say that they are necessarie to saluation not as causes either conseruant adiuuant or procreant but either as consequent fruites of that faith which is necessarie to saluation or as markes in a way or rather the way it selfe leading to saluation Thirdly we say that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by workes as S. Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by workes that is declared and made manifest to be iust And this he acknowledgeth to be in some sort also before God for that it pleaseth God by our workes to take the sight and knowledge of our faith albeit we forbeare so to speake both for auoiding confusion in this disputation of iustification properly vnderstood in the sight of God and also for that the same phrase in the Apostles writing of that point sounds another way This last M. Bishop here cōcealeth fearing lest it should preuent him of some of his cauils but that which he doth alledge he saith is shuffled in rather to delude their arguments then that we esteeme much of good workes which he saith we hold to be no better then deadly sinnes Thus the glozing sycophant still playeth his part still peruerting sometimes our saying sometimes our meaning Where he cannot oppugne that which we teach he will make his Reader beleeue that we meane not as we say We see no such difference betwixt them and vs betwixt their liues and ours but that we may well be thought to esteeme good workes as much as they do We would be ashamed to be such as their stories haue described their Popes and Cardinals and Bishops nay as M. Bishop and his fellowes haue described the Iesuites to be Whereas he saith that we account good workes no better then deadly sinnes he very impudently falsifieth that which we say We affirme the good workes of the faithfull to be glorious and acceptable in Gods sight for Christs sake being done in his name and offered vpon the altar of faith in him The imperfection thereof is accidentall and taketh not away the nature of a good worke but onely maketh it an vnperfect good worke which imperfection notwithstanding were sufficient to cause the worke to be reiected if in rigor and extremity God should weigh the same which he doth not but mercifully pardoneth it for Christs sake Seeing then the blemish set aside we acknowledge it to remaine intirely a good worke being the worke of the grace of God to be accepted and rewarded of God with what conscience doth this brabler say that of good workes we make no better then deadly sinnes As touching the question propounded by him it consisteth of two parts the one of the increase of righteousnesse the other of the cause of that increase We say that the righteousnesse whereby we are to be iustified before God admitteth no increase because it must be perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse consisteth in indiuisibili if any thing be taken from it it is not perfect and if it be not perfect it cannot iustifie before God Now by M. Bishop it appeareth that the inherent righteousnesse which they say is infused into a man in his first iustification is vnperfect because it remaineth afterwards to be increased Of the same inherent iustice we also make no question but that there is an increase thereof to be expected and laboured for and that we are therein to thriue and grow from day to day but hence we argue that it is not that that can make a man iust in the sight of God for the defect that is thereof is not by a meere priuation but by admixtion of the contrarie a August Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of some corruption as S. Austin saith Yea b Idem de perf iustit Peccatum est cùm non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet there is sinne as he againe saith when charitie that is inhernt iustice is lesse then it ought to be But where sinne is a man cannot be said to be iust in the sight of God Therefore by the Popish imagined first iustification a man cannot be iustified in the sight of God no nor by their second iustification because it neuer groweth to that but that it is still capable of increase It remaineth therefore that we are iust in the sight of God onely by the righteousnes of Christ which is without increase being
to the same grace and therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paule speaketh of workes of grace because in the text following he mentioned good workes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betweene those two kind of workes signifying the first to be of our selues the second to proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth Works simply the second Good workes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then was it to take these two so distinct manner of workes for the same and to ground himselfe so boldly vpon it R. ABBOT The question intended by M. Perkins is expresly propounded how farre foorth good workes are required to iustification namely before God which he determineth thus that they are required not as causes for which we are iustified either in the beginning of grace or in the proceeding thereof but onely as effects and fruites of iustification Which although it be implyed in that that before hath bene said of being iustified by faith alone yet neither as touching first nor second iustification is directly handled by M. Perkins but only in this place Here therefore he disputeth wholy as touching iustification before God that good workes concurre not as any causes thereof and bringeth his arguments directly to that point First the Apostle saith a Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law M. Bishop excepteth against this place as meant of the first iustification of a sinner not appertaining to the second iustification But we find but one iustification spoken of by S. Paule both beginning and continuing in faith for being still sinners so long as here we liue it must needes be that that which the Apostle saith of the iustification of a sinner must stil appertaine vnto vs and therfore that both firstly and lastly we are iustified by faith without the workes of the law And if there were any second iustification that which the Apostle saith must necessarily be taken to belong to it For he writeth these things to the Romaines to the Galathians which long before had beleeued and bene baptized and yet now still informeth them that their iustification is by faith without the works of the law still he saith b Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law Christ dyed in vaine yea he proueth by the Prophets words not that the sinner onely but c Cap. 3.11 the iust shall liue by faith as Hierome mentioning out of the vulgar Latin translation of the Psalmes these words d Psal 55.7 vulg Lat. Pro nihilo saluos faciet eos He will saue them for nothing addeth e Hieron aduer Pelag. lib 2. Haud dubium quin iustos qui non proprio merito sed Dei salâ—aÌ„tur clementia No doubt but he meaneth the iust who are not saued by their owne merit but by the mercie of God But it is further to be noted that he bringeth in Abraham for an example of this iustification euen then when he had long bene the seruant of God and shewed singular deuotion and obedience vnto him He bringeth for another example the Prophet Dauid a man according to Gods owne hart who from his childhood had bene called of God yet now still acknowledging his blessednes to consist in the f Rom. 4.6 Lords imputing of righteousnesse without workes It is euident therefore that M. Bishops exception is vnsufficient and that not only at a mans first entraÌ„ce into the state of grace which he calleth the first iustificatioÌ„ but afterwards also a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and therfore works can be no meritorious cause of any second iustification His acknowledgement that a sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only without any merit of the sinner himselfe is a meere collusion and mockerie For if a man be iustified by workes then it is not by meere grace He saith g Sect. 21. before of the woman that washed the feet of Christ that her loue and other vertuous dispositions were causes why she was iustified and determineth still that hope feare repentance charitie concurre as causes thereof Yea but saith he they are no meritorious causes there is the merit of Christ onely and no merit of the sinner himselfe So then iustification is by workes but not by merits But we see the Apostle resolueth against workes of merits he saith nothing he speaketh of that that is not of that that cannot be workes there may be but merit there can be none as is afterwards to be declared See then the madnesse of these men the Apostle saith h Gal. 2.16 Ephes 2.9 Not by workes yes say they it is by works but it is not by merits the Apostle saith i Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes yes say they it is both by grace and by workes but it is not by merits Thus impudently they confront the Apostle and seek to tye vpon him a flat contradiction to that he saith They will seeme to vphold grace by excluding merit when as the Apostle testifieth they plainely ouerthrow it by affirming workes because as hath bene before alledged out of Austin grace is not grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect Yea neither do they wholly exclude merit but affirme the same k Bellar. de iust lib. 1. cap. 17. in some sort euen in their first iustificatioÌ„ as I haue before diuers times obserued out of Bellarmine Thus they play fast and loose and wold faine say but cannot well tell what to say With Pelagius they are ashamed to omit the grace of God and yet they so teach it as that they make it of no effect Now because our iustification is meerely by the gift of God therefore M. Perkins saith that the sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue meaning that we do nothing at all wherein consisteth any part of our righteousnesse with God M. Bishop saith that this is absurd because a man must beleeue and to beleeue is an action But it is absurd onely to an absurd and ignorant man who vnderstandeth not what he readeth To beleeue is an action but he hath had occasion enough to know and vnderstand if ignorance had not blinded him that we place no part of righteousnesse in the very act of faith but in the thing receiued thereby Christ onely is our righteousnesse and him we receiue by faith God iustifieth we are iustified God imputeth righteousnesse to vs it is imputed God then is the agent we the subiect whereon he worketh patients receiuers and no way workers of that which is our righteousnesse before God And to this his vnderstanding should leade him in that iustification which they maintaine For although they say that by faith hope charitie repentance which are actions they obtaine
h Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omniuÌ„ materia pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis mundum nihil innocens obtinâ—mus whereby being polluted and filthie saith Hilary we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane They are good then but yet not perfectly good yea if God should strictly and narrowly deale with vs he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy and pure and good from him Now therefore whereas he saith that it can be no good worke wherein is any defect he saith vntruly because good and euill haue their latitude and degrees and accordingly as contraries expell each other the one alwaies growing by the impairing of the other accordingly as S. Austine saith i August de verb. Dom ser 11. Non nâ—bis infâ—rt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra in tantuÌ„ illa crescunt inquantum ista mi nuuntur nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur God doth not bring his good gifts into vs except he take away our euils and so far do the good things increase as the euill are diminished neither shall the one be perfected till the other be fully ended Now in this mixture of contraries that giueth the name that preuaileth most so that k Hier ad Ctesiphont Iusti non quod omni vitio careant sed quod maiori virtutum parte commendâ—ntur men are called iust as Hierome saith not for that they are without all vice but in that they are commended for the greater part of vertues That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good worke in some measure and degree of goodnesse which yet entirely and perfectly and wholy cannot be called good But that we may see how vainely and idlely he talketh his conclusion is diligently to be obserued that there may be many good workes free from all infection of sinne There be many such but all good workes then it seemeth be not free from all infection of sinne And if all be not so then let him tell vs how those good workes which be not free from all infection of sinne be called good workes as he importeth seeing no worke can be called good as he hath told vs before that faileth either in substance or in circumstance or hath any fault or defect in it Let him answer vs for those some and his answer shall serue vs for all the rest 45 W. BISHOP In lieu of the manifold testimonie of Antiquity which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellencie of them I will set downe one passage of S. August wherein this very controuersie is distinctly declared and determined Lib. 3. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth The iustice through which the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the which although it be worthily called in some men perfect according to the capacitie of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater which man made equall to Angels shall receiue Which heauenly iustice he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that was in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that which he wanted But certainly this lesser iustice or righteousnesse breedeth and bringeth foorth merits and that greater is the reward thereof Wherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from al iniustice and iniquitie then that it is also perfect not failing in any duty which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth foorth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs froÌ„ all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath S. Augustin hath the like discourse where he saith directly De spir lit vlt. cap. that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity that many workes of a iust man are without sinne R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin and maketh him in stead of all antiquitie a witnesse of that which he oppugneth euen in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set downe Which that we may the better discerne let vs examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words First that the iustice that we haue in this life is true iustice We acknowledg the same euen as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found drosse euen as it is a true pearle which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or staine It is true righteousnesse a Bernard de verb. Esa Ser 5. Humilis iustitia sed non pura but not pure saith S. Bernard b Idem in fest sanct Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicetâ—r iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra â—â—nùs habens it will be found vnrighteousnesse and scant if it be strictly iudged Therfore M. Bishops exposition of true iustice is false where he maketh the same to be pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Secondly he maketh S. Austin to say that our righteousnesse in this life is perfect not failing in any duty which we are bound to performe But how lewdly doth he therein deale with S. Austin who plainely teacheth that c Aug. de Ciu. Dei lib. 19 ca. 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life standeth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Yea in the Chapter cited by him he saith d Idem contra 2. Epist Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne iusto hactenus perfecta nomina tur vt ad eius perfectioneÌ„ pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista pâ—rua iustitia quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit Ideoque Apostolus imperfectum perfectum sedicit imperfectum cogitando quantum illi ad iustitiam desit cuius plenitudinem adhuâ— esurit sitiâ— Perfectum autem quòd suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit vt peruentat bene procedit The vertue which is now in the iust man is thus farforth called perfect as that to the perfection therof belongeth both the knowledge in truth and in humilitie the confession of the imperfection of it
galled himselfe in the riding of him We do imagine that by that time he hath better aduised of this whole matter he will thinke that some body did ride him when first he tooke this businesse in hand We may here see the blinde insolencie of a presumptuous vaine man who hauing said nothing but what is iustly to be derided and scorned yet taketh vpon him as if he had giuen vs some very admirable and learned answer Yea in this very place he bableth as if his wits were to seeke crossing and thwarting that in one line which he vttereth in another He telleth vs that the words of Esay were spoken in the person of the sinfull who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath and yet by and by he saith that their good workes though but few were free from all spots of iniquitie Againe as vncertaine where to stand he telleth vs that their euill works defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath If their good works were free from all spots of iniquity how did their euil works defile them and make them like a stained cloath Or if their euill workes did defile their good and make them like a stained cloath how were they free from all spots of iniquitie Againe we would demaund of him how sinfull or as he hath called them before euill and wicked men should do good workes free from all spots of iniquitie seeing our Sauiour so plainly saith that a Mat. 7.18 Luk. 6.43 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite no more then we can gather grapes of thornes or figges of thistles S. Paul telleth vs that b Tit. 2.15 to them that are vncleane nothing is pure their mindes and consciences being defiled Which made S. Bernard to say that c Bern. in Cant. Ser. 71. Si fuerit nâ—â—us in conscientia nec quod ex ea prodieriâ— carebit naeuo if there be a blemish or blot in the conscience nothing that commeth from it shall be without a blot How then can it stand good which M. Bishop saith that sinfull and wicked men do good workes which are free from all spots of iniquitie But thus he turneth all vpside downe and according to the present occasion letteth goe whatsoeuer commeth next to hand without feare or wit But vpon the place I neede not to stand I referre the Reader to that that hath bene d Seâ—t 3. before said thereof where it hath bene shewed that the Prophet by way of prophecie endited the praier in the name of the faithfull that were to liue in the desolations of Ierusalem and the Temple that the praier of the Prophet Daniel at that time fully expresseth the effect of the same praier of Esay and therefore that it is the confession of the faithfull godly that their righteousnesse is as a stained cloth and that the auncient Fathers haue vsed the place for proofe thereof 49 W. BISHOP 3. There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him and such like I answer that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is onely enquired whether the good workes that the iust do be free from sinne and not whether they at other times do sinne at the least venially This is all which M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter but because some others do alledge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the besieged minde of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnesse is ouerthrowne vp starts lechery and so forth Answer All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his owne frailty he may be somtimes foiled Dial. 1. cap. Pelag S. Hierome affirmeth That then we are iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners Answer That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne Epict. 29. S. Austine hath these words Most perfect charity which cannot be encreased is to be found in no man in this life and as long as it may be increased that which is lesse then it ought to be is faulty of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man who doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do and consequently doth not so well but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Woe be to the laudable life of a man Lib. 9. confess cap. 13. if it be examined without mercy All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life do many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath bene proued They alledge yet another place out of S. Austine Lib. 3. con duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else-where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faults Now come we vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of whose sweet words ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob Lib. 9. moral cap. 1. because he did see all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be straightly examined of the inward Iudge doth rightly adde if I will contend with him I cannot answer him one for a thousand I answer that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue which we haue of our owne strength without the aide of Gods grace which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice that S. Gregory so tooke it appeares by the words both going before and following before he writeth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For whosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good which he had receiued for he that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God with his owne gifts And after thus To contend with God is not to giue to God the glory of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of
Christians may suffice to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirme the doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop will giue vs to vnderstand that not onely S. Austin but all antiquitie teacheth the doctrine of merites so that M. Perkins might blush to call it the inuention of Satan But M. Perkins had no cause to blush in that respect He knew well that antiquitie is more vanted by Papists then followed He knew well that in this doctrine of merits they wickedly bely antiquitie and the Fathers And indeede neuer any Father spake of merits as they haue done Iustly therfore did he call it as it is the inuentiō of Satan seruing only to delude men to put them in vaine hope to lift them vp in pride with opiniō of gaining heauen that they may by their pride be cast downe to hell But for the cleering of this point it is to be vnderstood that the name of merits is indeed very vsuall amongst the fathers of the Latin Church but with no such meaning as the church of Rome hath fancied therof For they only intended therby briefly and in one word to signifie good workes workes that please God that are accepted in Gods sight that find fauor with God obtain reward at his hands They dreamed not that in good workes there shold be a iust desert of heauē that they shold deserue it worthily that they shold be fully worthy of euerlasting life that good works shold as wel be the cause of saluatiō as euil works are the cause of damnatiō that good works are so far meritorious so far I say meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for them as in the beginning hath bin shewed that now is the language of the church of Rome These speeches or the like were neuer heard of amongst the Fathers They vsed the word merite according to the signification wherein commonly they vsed the verbe mereri which with them imported to obtaine to find fauour for any thing to be giuen or done so as that wicked men are said sometimes mereri not surely to deserue but to receiue or to find the fauour of benefits at Gods hands yea and good men are said mereri not to deserue but to receiue or to finde euill vsage at the hands of the wicked But by examples the matter will be plainer then by words S. Austine saith a August de ciu Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Huius vitae solatia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt Some who haue bin worshippers of diuels haue merited that is haue found the fauour to receiue the comforts of this life Againe b Idem in Psal 35. Apostolià suis ciuibus occidi meruerunt The Apostles merited that is found such vsage as to be killed of their owne people c Cont. lit Petil. lib. 3. cap. 6. Pro actione gratiarum flammas meruimus odiorum In steed of thankes we haue merited that is we found at their hands the fire of hatred d De anima eius orig lib. 2. cap. 12. Caueat homo ne ab illo miserecordiam mereatur homo contra eius sententiam à quo factus est homo Let man take heed that man do not merite that is obtaine mercie of him against the sentence of him by whom man was made So doth Ambrose vse the same word e Ambr. de Cain Abel lib. 2. cap. 10. Iniquus Cain longaeuam duxit aetatem duxit vxorem hoc meruit promissione diuina Wicked Cain liued long and maried a wife and this he merited that is obtained or receiued by the permission of God f Idem ser 53. Non debemus mirari quòd Ioannes tantam gratiam nascendo meruerit We are not to wonder that Iohn in his birth merited that is obtained so great grace So Hilary speaketh g Hilar. epist apud Aug. tom 7. Libros quaeso habere mereamur I pray you let vs merit that is find the fauour to haue those bookes So Hierom h Hieron praefat in Abdiam Veniam mereri debeo I am to merite that is to obtaine pardon So Gregorie Bishop of Rome i Gregor Moral lib. 9. cap. 17. Paulus cum redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere eius verba de coelo meruit audire Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of Christ vpon earth merited that is found the mercy fauor to heare his words from heauen In another place O foelix culpa quae talem ac tantū meruit habere Redemptorem O happy sin of Adam that merited that is found the mercy to haue such and so great a Redeemer S. Austin applieth the word also to beasts and cattell k August in Psal 35. Homines habent aliquid apud Deum exceptum quod iumenta non merentur Men haue somewhat excepted with God which beasts merit not that is obtaine not Thus the word hath grown also into translations where in the originals there hath bin no occasion of it Where Cain saith Mine iniquitie is greater then can be pardoned the vulgar Latin translateth l Genes 4.13 Maior est iniquitas mea quam vt veniam mereà r Mine iniquitie is greater then that I can merit that is obtaine pardon Where S. Paul saith m 1. Tim. 1.13 I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly c. S. Austine out of some translation readeth n Aug. de Bapt. con Donat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Misericordiam merut I merited mercy but importing nothing but the obtaining thereof In an Epistle of Ignatius we haue it commonly translated o Ignat. epist ad Romanos I am in loue with none of the things that are seene vt Iesum Christum merear adipisci that I may merit to obtain Christ wheras in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Hierom translateth it p Hieron in Cat. Eccles Script vt Iesum Christū inuentam that I may find Iesus Christ Againe in the next period the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the same translator readeth as before the words being translated by Hierome q Jbid. tantum vt Christo fruar onely that I may enioy Christ. And thus in infinite places haue they made the Greeke Fathers to speake of merit where they neuer meant any such thing But to make it plainly to appear that by merit they meant not any such worthines or desert as M. Bishop speaketh of let one sentence of Ambrose fully suffice r Amb. epist. 22. Omnia quae patimur minora sunt indigna pro quorum laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum quae reuelabitur in nobis cùm ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam eius facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus All the things that we suffer are
casting her with violence into the sea neuer to rise againe And you most noble King in whom God hath turned the period of time which threatned alteration and danger to our state gouernment to the further strength and establishment thereof and hath lifted your throne far aboue the thrones of your royall Progenitors and hath made you in a manner the ballance of the Christian world consider that it is vndoubtedly for some great work that in his prouidence he hath so disposed it and thereto apply those singular ornaments and endowments of the mind wherein you excell all that haue bene before you God hath made your Highnes able to espie and discerne the conicatching deuices of those bastard Catholik seducers we assure our selues that in your self in your royall posteritie it shall be found to the great aduancement of the faith and kingdome of Iesus Christ Wherein that our hope may not be frustrate we most humbly beseech almighty God to put into your Maiesties heart not to be too secure of them who account it a martyrdome to die for the murthering of Christian Princes and in the shedding of your sacred bloud would think themselues to haue gained the one half of their desires content perhaps by instructions for a while to temporize and to make shew of meaning no harme till the memory of their late villany being somewhat ouerblowne they may be the lesse suspected but hauing already giuen to vnderstand what your Maiestie shall looke for at their hands if oportunitie should second their designes The Lord auert and turne that iudgement from vs and n 1. Sam. 25.29 bind your Maiesties soule in the bundle of life with the Lord your God that your eies may long behold that noble Impe of grace the branch of our hope together with the other branches of your royall line growing before the Lord to the further dismay and terror of your enemies and the greater securitie and assurance of the church of Christ As for the seruice which according to your Maiesties commandement I haue here performed albeit it be far from that perfection which the weight of the cause requireth yet I doubt not but it is sufficient to shew on whether part the truth is to be found and to iustifie the proceedings of your Maiesty against the cauillations of wilfull men desperatly shutting their owne eyes that the light of the Gospel may not shine vnto them Whatsoeuer it is it most humbly craueth your Maiesties acceptance and royall protection and fauour whereto with all loyall duty I recommend it and your Highnesse selfe to the protection of the most high God whose cause it is that is defended thereby Your Maiesties most humble and dutifull subiect ROB. ABBOT TO THE CHRISTIAN READER GEntle Reader thou wilt I hope impute it in some part to the condition of the time that I giue thee this answer not altogether so well featured and shaped as thou haply wouldst desire it Though it be a fruite that may seeme to haue bene long in growing yet as the case standeth with me the length of time hath but serued to bring it to his greatnesse and therefore howsoeuer it commeth forth with defiance to the aduersaries yet I confesse it seemeth to me not so throughly digested and seasoned as I would haue wished it to content thee In this defence of Gods truth the things that are specially to be respected against the importunitie and aduantage of our aduersaries are strength and expedition I haue had care as the matter would permit to satisfie thee in both these respects and let my care herein obtaine pardon of thee if I seeme vnto thee to faile in some complements otherwise If thou thinke this my answer needlesse because another man hath already taken paines therein thou must remember that no mans priuate preuention could yeeld me dispensation to be free from doing that which publike authoritie required of me I doubt not but in the reading of either it shal appeare vnto thee what spirit it is wherewith these Romish factors are led in their opposition against vs and that it is not truth and sauing of soules whereto they bend themselues but onely the vpholding of their faction whether by truth or falshood by right or wrong it skilleth not so that that may be performed That thou mayst the better see and iudge of all I haue inserted the whole text of Doctor Bishops booke altogether condemning that falshood and guile which he hath vsed towards M. Perkins and they al vse in their pretence and shew of answering our books in that they neuer set downe the copie of that to which they answer Which policy serueth them to blind the Reader and to gaine libertie to themselues to conceale and dissemble what they list to peruert to vilifie to falsifie and by absurd imputations to calumniate without being controlled As our fidelitie and good conscience of the cause which we handle manifestly appeareth in that we neuer forbeare to publish our aduersaries bookes to the world when we haue adioyned an answer to them so their guilt and guile is manifest by the contrary for that they feare to put forth our bookes with their answers as doubting least the bookes being at hand should bewray and shew the vnsufficiencie of the answers As for Master Perkins booke being loth too much to increase the greatnesse of the volume I haue forborne to put it in the rather for that the substance thereof for the most part may appeare by that that Master Bishop hath set downe and where he faulteth I haue taken occasion in my answer to declare if not the words yet the summe and effect of it the booke it selfe also being easily had by any that is desirous more exactly to compare them The authors conceit for the forme and maner of that work was greatly to be approued and whereas it hath had the liking of very many for the briefe and plaine deliuery of our controuersiall grounds they shall see now that it was not without cause that they caried so good opiniō of it inasmuch as the malice of an enemie out of their many large volumes can find so little matter of waight and substance to say against it I doubt not but it had bene well that in some places he had giuen it some better strength but it is to be considered that as the midwife iudgeth better of the birth then the mother that trauelleth with it and in gaming the stander by sometimes seeth more then he that playeth so it is in writing of bookes that the Reader and examiner seeth sometimes a defect where the busied and intangled minde of the writer obserued none and therefore of welwillers and men indifferent it is to be expected that that which it somewhat vnperfectly deliuered in one place be no impeachment of that which is sufficiently fenced and fortified in another Thou shalt finde it gentle Reader to haue bene so written as that Maister Bishop is faine to vse
faithfully performe what he did vndertake But far otherwise haue you dealt M. Bishop in your marrow and pith as you cal it of many large volumes contracted and drawne into a narrow roome You haue made Bellarmine specially your Rabbine your magister noster you take all vpon his word if he say it you will sweare it if he haue once written it you will write it againe without any further examination whether it be true or false We are beholding to you for translating so much of him into English for their sakes that do not vnderstand the Latine tongue But Bellarmine mocketh and abuseth you M. Bishop as he doth euery one that giueth him any trust He was a man of corrupt and euill conscience wholy prostituted to Antichrist and sold to his deceits by which means he maketh you to ly many times when you do not thinke ye lie For which cause I would aduise you when you will write any more bookes out of Bellarmine to make due triall of that which he saith It may haply doe you good to make you detest his fraud and falshood and to hate that profession which cannot be vpholden but by such meanes There is cause you should so do who from many large volumes can gather no better marrow no sounder pith then that which you haue sent vs for the marrow and pith of many large volumes Your marrow is but dust your pith is but rottennesse there is nothing in your booke fit to satisfie the conscience of a man desirous to be instructed in the truth It will I hope sufficiently appeare that you haue neither grounds from the word of God nor any approued testimonie of antiquitie to warrant any man to embrace that which you maintaine He that readeth your booke as it becometh a good Christian to do and conferreth it with M. Perkins booke and our defence thereof to iudge without partialitie I presume he will take you for a leud and naughtie man impudent and vnshamefast regarding onely to vphold a side without any entire regard to learne or to teach the truth In your postscript you tell vs that you are sorie M. Perkins being dead that your booke commeth forth too late to do him any good Whereby we conceiue that you haue a good opinion of it but we must tell you as touching doing him good in your sence he was not a man so weake as to be moued with such a toy Indeed if he had liued we need not doubt but it would haue done him much good and bene great ioy to him to see that in the marrow and pith of many large volumes there should be so little matter of moment to be said against that which he had written so little and so bad as that we hope that your preseruatiue will become your owne poison and the bane of that which you thought to strengthen thereby M. BISHOPS ANSWER TO MAISTER PERKINS HIS EPISTLE DEDICATORY MAster Perkins in his Epistle Dedicatory saith It is a policie of the diuel to think that our religion the religion of the present church of Rome are all one in substance or that they may be vnited Before I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had need to be informed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainly know whether of them he professeth Wherefore good sir may it please you to declare what religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Frier first preached in Germanie or rather that which the martiall minister Zuinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Zwitzerland or perhaps that which Iohn Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawful magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane onely to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shew whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritans for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into hel crept into the Creed by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundry subdiuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans fantasie it is meet you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be duly considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them Now if you meane the hotchpotch and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the articles following may be gathered then I am cleare for you in this that there can be no more concord between these two Religions then there is between light and darknes faith and infidelitie Christ and Belial Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this 〈◊〉 is of no value to wit that they of the Romane church haue razed the foundation for though in words they honor Christ yet in deed they turne him into a PseudoChrist and an Idoll of their owne braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verified But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man and the onely Redeemer of mankind make him a false Christ and an idol or before you go about to proue it tel me I pray you how this can wel stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessary heads of Religion with the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessary head of Religion then to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be layd besides Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in necessarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation and maketh not Christ a PseudoChrist as you say here or else you teach your disciples very perniciously to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with it But to leaue you to the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you go about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he list and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ Here are
performed vnto God the transgressing whereof to be a sinne against God not onely mediatly by not yeelding subiection to the Law-giuer but immediatly in the very thing it selfe which it hath done or left vndone It is the prerogatiue of God onely to tie the conscience in this sort and whosoeuer else taketh vpon him thus to do he is an vsurper against God And thus doth the Pope bind mens consciences he maketh his lawes matters of religion and of the worship of God and will haue men beleeue that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth they immediatly please God merit at the hands of God make satisfaction to him for their sinnes and purchase eternall life On the other side that in the trespasse thereof not onely in respect of disobedience to the higher powers but for the very not doing of the things themselues there is sinne against God a breach and wound of conscience and the guilt of euerlasting death This is one speciall matter for which we iustly detest that Romish idol and do chalenge him not onely for sitting in the Temple of God by vsurping an outward superioritie in the visible state of the Church but also for y 2. Thes 2.4 sitting as God in the temple of God by chalenging to himselfe and possessing in such sort as hath beene sayd the consciences of men in which God onely ought to raigne As for Princes and temporall gouernours if they keepe them within their bounds they make no lawes in that kind for causes seeming good vnto them they require outward conformity and obedience to their lawes for conscience sake of the authority committed vnto them of God but they leaue the conscience free from any inward opinion or perswasion of the things themselues wherein they require to be obeyed Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and seruant to the law but inwardly he still continueth free to God being perswaded that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing in and for it selfe maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse and therefore the thing in it selfe being either way indifferent to God he yeeldeth himselfe in the outward man vpon conscience of giuing obedience to the power seruiceable and comformable to the law And this is that Christian libertie which the Scripture teacheth which is not as some men would haue it a licentious immunity in outward things to do euery man what we list but a freedome of the heart from any seruile opinion of any thing that we do The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes as they seemed to them that vnderstood them not as touching conuersation in outward things that z Luther de libert Christiana a Christian man is free from all men a Lord and subiect to no man And again that a Christian man is a diligent seruant and vassall to all men and subiect to all Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing but saith a 1. Cor 10.23 All things are lawfull for me Outwardly in conuersation he is bound to that that is expedient and serueth for edification whereby he may yeeld obedience to gouernours loue to neighbours instruction to the ignorant strengthening to the weake comfort to the strong good example to them that are without auoiding all scandall whereby he should cause the libertie whereof he is inwardly perswaded to be blasphemed and slandered Now therefore Princes in their lawes are to be obeyed vpon conscience of their authoritie being from God but this hindereth not but that the Pope is iustly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place by requiring obedience vpon conscience of the things themselues which he commandeth As for the opening and shutting of heauen we doubt not but that the Pope if he be the minister of Christ may chalenge the office and function thereof according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church But he not contented with that authoritie which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministery of the Church immediatly from Christ himselfe deriued in common to the whole body of the Church vsurpeth vnto himselfe a singularity in this behalfe making himselfe in Christs steed the head from whence the power of binding and loosing is deriued to all the rest and in that respect at his owne pleasure reseruing to himselfe a prerogatiue of speciall cases and causes which are most for his aduantage wherein no man may meddle but himselfe It is true that the master by appointing afterward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates doth not diuest himselfe of his supreme authoritie but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to giue that power and to determine the offices and places of his seruants surely he who being left but afterward of a house will lift vp himselfe to be a Lieutenant generall of a Realme and of a porter will make himselfe a Potentate and take vpon him to be euen as the Lord himself he is to be taken for no other but a traytor to his Lord and therefore is by his fellow seruants to be resisted in his course This is the Popes case He had the keyes of heauen committed vnto him in common with his fellow seruants to euery man for his part and portion of the Lords house and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house he hath chalenged vnto himselfe the soueraigntie and Lordship of the whole He hath made himselfe master of the Church and all the rest seruants vnto him By this extrauagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list and abuseth the keyes to shut them out of heauen so farre as he can who in the behalfe of their maister do seeke to hinder his wicked and vngodly proceedings What then shall we adiudge him but a traytor to his Lord and maister Iesus Christ vsurping that which is proper to Christ alone In a word M. Bishop must vnderstand that though the Popedome were drowned in Tiber and Babylon were cast as a milstone into the sea yet Christ needeth not to be maister and man to but without the Pope hath seruants enough to attend him in his seruice W. BISHOP Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I maruell in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merit and so become our owne sauiors This is a phrase vnheard off among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good wo kes as the Protestants auouch they do
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
not foorth except it conceiue So then saith M. Bishop it is not sinne of it selfe But we deny his argument for a mother bringeth foorth a woman and yet she her selfe is a woman also A woman bringeth not foorth a woman except she first conceiue and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne except by consent it first conceiue and yet it is sinne before conception There is nothing in Saint Austins words but standeth well with that that before hath bene said that concupiscence being the habite of sinne doth by gaining the consent of the will bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue but that concupiscence is sinne M. Bishop might very well haue seene if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth where speaking of the same being in vs he saith z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset verùm granitèr obesset nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset It should not onely be in vs but also greatly hurt vs but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes We would haue M. Bishop tell vs how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him but onely sinne especially the hurt being such as S. Austine anone after speaketh of a Tantum quis inest pertraheret ad vltimanâ— mortem to draw vs onely by being in vs to euerlasting death The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust b Cyrilâ—â— Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet ante peccandi actum before the actuall sinne but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue that lust also is not sinne nay in the words immediatly following he proueth that it is sinne affirming that c Vt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpeÌ„ ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus by circumcision we should learne that we shal not be cleane vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane it must needes be sinne because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point Such as the fruit is such is the tree was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree neither is it any thing but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne concupiscence which is the tree must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne But M. Bishop answereth that not concupiscence but the will of man is the tree Which is all one as if he should haue said that not the will of man but the will of man is the tree For it hath bene before shewed that concupiscence is nothing else but the corrupted will of man which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad vntil God do create it anew and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good In a word the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence d 1. Pet. 2.11 the lusts of the flesh so it calleth also the effects deeds of those lusts the workes of the flesh thereby shewing that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9 flesh and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes and all wickednesse do spring 7. W. BISHOP Lib. 5. contr Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I answer that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renew a man perfectly so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgment but may be called euil because it prouoketh vs to euill To this place of S. Augustine Tract 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason where he saith that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answerserueth that sin there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmitie or weaknesse R. ABBOT That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne which before hath bene declared a August contr Julian lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione coÌ„sentientis vel contagione nascentis As blindnesse of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not and the punishment of sinne wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit desireth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind and the punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it or by infecting of him that is borne of it Concupiscence then is sinne as blindnesse of heart is sinne But
such as hindereth iustice so that by reason thereof no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God M. Perkins therefore rightly alledged this place to proue that concupiscence is sinne and M. Bishop in answering it sheweth himselfe a man of wretched and euil conscience who being so shut in with the truth as that he knew not which way to resist yet wold rather by falshood and collusion shift it off then renounce the errors to the maintenance whereof he hath wickedly sold himselfe 9. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose in steede of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne but expounds him to meane that it is not sinne in that person but in it selfe which is alreadie confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person But if the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarch Iohn Caluin saith of it Lib. 3. Instit cap. 3. num 10. where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the old Writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turn who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certaintie of the iudgement of antiquitie Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmitie then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the act of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hold that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carieth the credit of all antiquity Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is flatly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we do consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such Masters who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe presuming that some would be so shallow-witted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them S. Chrisostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues Homil 11 in epist ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that I may for example sake touch one of them Concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlawfull riot of it S. Bernard whom M. Perkins often citeth against vs Serm. de seâ— tribul and therefore may sometimes be alledged for vs hath these words Sin is at the dore but if thou do not open it it will not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it it shall do thee no hurt withhold thy consent and it preuaileth not S. Aug. and S. Cirill haue bene cited already S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter who with the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had no better fortified his positions then M. Bishop doth his answers he should with vs haue bin holden for too weake a man to meddle in controuersies of diuinity But as Tertullian said that a Tertul. de praescript Nusquam facilius proficatur quâ—â—â— in castris reâ—ellium vbi ipsum esse illic proâ—â—reri est it is no where more easie thriuing then in the camp of rebels where to be only is to be in pay so may we say that it is no where more easie writing then amongst hereticks and rebels against the truth where to write onely is sufficient to commend a man it is no matter how or what he write Such a writer is M. Bishop a bad one God knowes but we can looke for no better of him then the matter will affoord him He saith that M. Perkins had but one sentence of S. Austine for the maintenance of his position and that nothing for his purpose but M. Perkins hath alledged more then he hath answered and it seemeth that that one sentence was to the purpose which he could no otherwise shift of but by lowd dissembling and concealing of that wherein S. Austine with maine streame doth runne against him Againe he telleth vs that M. Perkins confesseth ingenuously that S. Austine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne and we confesse as much and expound S. Austines meaning as he doth that it is not sinne to the person not that in it selfe it is not sinne But this he saith is already confuted and we say that his imagined confutation is already reconfuted But he giueth vs a reason why it cannot be so For sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person the sin of the same person And we answere him by S. Austine that it is sinne in the person and the sinne of the person by inherent quality and disposition but it is not the sinne of the person by account of guilt and imputation For the approouing whereof M. Perkins alledged two places out of Austine which M. Bishop honestly passeth ouer as if he had not seene them but they will meete with him againe anone In the meane time he bringeth vs in our Patriark as he calleth him Iohn Caluin referring his Readers to S. Austine to know by him the iudgement of antiquity concerning this matter of concupiscence Where I answere him that we honour Caluin indeede as a singular instrument of God for the restoring of the light of his truth and ouerthrowing of the throne of the purple whoore of Rome but we make him no Patriarch we follow him
when they are done they are past yet the guilt still abideth and except it be pardoned shall abide for euer so the guilt of concupiscence when it is pardoned is taken away though it selfe abide For not to haue sinne is all one as to say not to be guilty of sinne He that hath committed adultery though he doe it no more is still guilty till it be pardoned Therefore he hath his sinne still though that which he hath committed now is not in being being past with the time wherein it was done Such sinnes therefore remaine except they be forgiuen But how do they remaine being now past but because they are past as touching their actuall being but remaine still as touching the guilt Euen so saith he it may well be that concupiscence of the flesh remaineth still as touching the actuall being but yet as touching the guilt is past and gone He calleth this concupiscence h Ibid. cap. 23. Propter damnabile vitium quo vitiata est natura humana daÌ„natur a damnable pollution and vncleannes wherewith the nature of man is defiled and for which it is condemned And he saith thereof that i Contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 2. Est in homine aliquid mali quod non ipsum sed reatus qui ex illo contractus fuerat auferiuâ— in Baptismo not the euill it selfe but the guilt that is gathered thereof is taken away in baptisme that this sinne is k Jbid. Mortuâ— est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs that l Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 13. Reatus eius generatione tractus regeneratione dimissus est ideo iam non est peccatum the guilt thereof which we haue drawen by generation is pardoned by regeneration and therefore now it is not sinne Thus when Iulian obiected to him that if concupiscence were euill then the baptised should be without it he answereth that m Contr. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 5. Baptizatus caret omni peccato noÌ„ omni malo quod plantùs ita dicitur caret reatu omnium maloruÌ„ non omnibus malis the baptised is voided of all sinne not of all euill Which saith he is more plainly spoken thus He is voide of the guilt of all euill not of all that is euill affirming the guilt onely to be taken away but that the euill that before made him guilty remaineth still Therefore he saith that n Ibid. lib. 2. NoÌ„ eodem modo appellatur paccatuÌ„ quo facit reum priùs Cuius manentis reatus in sacro fonte remissus est concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guiltie because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration The places are infinite wherein he speaketh to the same effect that o De peccat mer. remissa ib. 1. cap. 39. Ipsa lex peccati soluâ—o reatus vinculo manet c. the law of sinne the bond of the guilt thereof being loosed continueth still that p Jbid. lib. 2. cap. 28. Manente ipsa lege concupiscentiae reatus eius soluitur the law of concupiscence is still abiding but the guilt thereof is released that q Cont. Iulian. lib 2. Sauet vitiatum à reatu statim ab infirmitate paulatim God healeth the corruption of man from the guilt foorthwith but from the infirmity by litle and litle that r Ibid Remittitur in baptismate lex peccati non finitur the law of sin is remitted and pardoned in baptisme but not ended that Å¿ Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 5. Vitia ista curantur priùs vt reatu non teneant deinde vt conflictu non vincant postremò vt omni ex parte saenata nulla omnino remaneant the vices of concupiscence are cured by the grace of Christ that they hold vs not in guilt but that they remaine for vs to fight with and conquer and last of all to be perfectly healed not to be at all still beating vpon this that there is still remaining the same thing that was before the law of sinne before the law of sin still euill before euill still a vice or corruption before a vice and corruption still onely the guilt taken away and therby onely denied to be sin Now in this we contend not with Austin nor Austin with vs we shall easily accord with him that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne as sinne importeth and implieth guilt because the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned But setting aside the respect of guilt and considering sinne as it is oposite to righteousnes doth he in that respect acquit concupiscence from the condition of sinne No verily for he acknowledgeth that t Contr. Julian lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum sed quod sit reatu primi hominis faction quod rebellando nos trahere uttitur ad reatum though it be not called sinne in that sort as that it maketh guilty yet it is called sinne for that by rebelling it laboureth to draw vs into guilt And when Iulian the Pelagian tooke hold of that that he said that concupiscence and rebellion of the flesh was iustly laid as a punishment vpon the disobedience of man and hereupon argued that then it was no euill but rather a thing to be commended as Gods seruant for reuenge vpon him that had deserued it to refute his collection answereth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne or the cause of sinne but also very sinne it selfe u Contr. Iulian. lib. 5. cap. 3. supr sect 7. because there is in it a rebellion against the law of the mind and therfore that vainely he inferred that concupiscence because it was a punishment was to be commended Where to say that S. Austin taketh sin vnproperly as M. Bishop doth is to make him to speak very absurdly if we consider the occasion wherupon he speaketh But to shew that concupiscence though in respect of guilt it be not sin yet otherwise it is truly so he calleth it in the regenerate x De pecca mer. remis lib. 2. cap. 28. PeccatuÌ„ remissum superatuÌ„ pereÌ„ptum a pardoned sin a sin conquered destroyed y De nupt coÌ„cup lib. 1 ca. 33. Peccatum illud quod remissum tectum est non imputatur Et lib. 2. cap. 34. a sin forgiuen couered not imputed and out of S. Ambrose z Conâ—r Iulian. lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat donec sepulturae perfectione sanctur rebellat mortâ—um a dead sin because saith he it is dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs and being dead yet rebelleth vntill by accomplishment of buriall it be healed So then as touching guilt it is conquered destroyed dead and it is not sinne but by rebellion it still liueth therin it is truly sin And therefore doth he
shall be performed and that God will make it appeare that he hath not spoken in vaine Therefore he abhorreth the courses of the wicked and walketh not in their wayes but labouring in righteousnesse standeth fully resolued that God will saue him from that destruction that he hath prouided for them Neither doth he dread the sentence of God onely in respect of eternall destruction but also in respect of temporall plagues and iudgements wherewith he chasteneth his owne children when they behaue themselues wantonly and vndutifully towards him In the inflicting whereof God hath regard to make them by the smart thereof much more to dread his eternall wrath that they may cease and shunne the wayes whereby they should be in danger to incurre the same Now in this sence doth the Apostle in the first place recommend feare to the Churches of the Gentiles and specially to the Church of Rome that whereas God had reiected the Iewes because of their f Act. 13.46 reiecting the word of God and they now by faith did stand that is by obedience to the faith and preaching of the Gospell had receiued the calling and state of the people of God his Church they should learne by the example of the Iewes to be wise and warie for themselues trembling at the fearefull wrath that was befallen vpon them and therefore not flattering themselues in the opinion of their outward calling as the other before had done but labouring to do those things which might be correspondent to the grace and mercie which God had vouchsafed vnto them Which if they did neglect God would g Mat. 21.43 take away his kingdome from them as he did from the Iewes and they should lose that glorie wherein now they tooke vpon them to reioyce To the verie same purpose doth he admonish the Corinthians that the Israelites had the same calling in effect the same Sacraments that we haue and yet when they behaued themselues vnthankfully and wickedly God did not forbeare to punish them whereof he had made record in holy Scriptures for example vnto vs and hereupon concludeth h 1. Cor. 10.12 Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed least he fall Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that outward standing and professing of the faith without inward grace and feare of God issuing into a godly life and conuersation is not standing indeed but seeming to stand and therefore that he that glorifieth therein if he be afraid to fall must lay a better foundation for himselfe to stand vpon These aduertisements true faith heareth and apprehendeth the same to make vse thereof it is afraid to fall and therefore shunneth that securitie and reioycing in outward state wherein they that applaud themselues without correspondencie of inward affection and godly conuersation do meerely delude themselues Whereby it commeth to passe that in the publicke desolations of Churches for the contempt of dutie towards God yet whosoeuer hath beleeued the word of God and feared his iudgement though lapped in the folds of outward calamities yet is saued from that damnation which he was fearefull by contempt to runne into To be short as a man vpon the top of a high tower is afraid to fall and trembleth to thinke thereof when notwithstanding being enuironed with the battlements he is without danger of falling and not afraid that he shall fall so the true beleeuer trembleth with the horrour of the conceipt of falling away from God knowing the end of them to he most vnhappie that so do when yet he reposeth assured trust in God that being compassed about with his protection and dwelling vnder his defence he himselfe shall be preserued for euer Vnder whose defence that we may dwell there is another feare necessarie whereby we are drawn away from presuming of our own strength that we may be i Ephes 6.10 strong in the Lord only and in the power of his might And of this feare are we to vnderstand the latter place cited by M. Bishop k Phil. 2.12 Worke your Saluation in feare and trembling In feare and trembling that is in humilitie in due acknowledgement of your owne frailtie in fearing to be left to your owne selues in depending wholy vpon God For saith he it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe the adding of which reason plainely sheweth that feare and trembling is to be taken in that meaning as I haue expressed And in that sort S. Austin doth expound it l August de grat lib. arbit cap. 9. Ideo cum timore tremore ne sibi tribuendo quod bene operantur de bonis tanquā suis extollantur operibus Tanquā ergo interrogitur Apostolus diceretur et Quare dixisti cum timore tremore horum verborum rationem reddidit dicens Deus est enim c. Therefore doth S. Paul say with feare and trembling least attributing to themselues that they worke well they should be proud of their good workes as if they were their owne therefore as if one had asked him why doest thou say with feare and trembling he giueth reason of those words saying For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do In sundrie m De nat grat cap. 27. De Corrept grat cap. 9. in Psal 65. 118. conc 31. other places doth he expound those words to the same effect So doth Prosper also say that the Apostle by those words n Prosper apud Ambros epist 84. Vigilant tētatoris iusidiae vt vbi proficit deuotio subrepat elatio vt homo de bono opere in se potiùs quà m in Domino glorietur Sed solicundo nos Apostoli contra hoc periculum monet dicentis Cum timore tremore c. doth admonish vs against the danger of that pride whereby a man of a good worke reioyceth in himselfe rather then in the Lord. Here is nothing then that the faithfull should stand in feare of their owne Saluation but only that they should feare to commit themselues to themselues in working to the accomplishment of the Saluation to which God hath called them and should remember that all is to be expected of Gods mercie whence onely it is that either we will or do any thing that is good Which feare is so farre from giuing vs cause to doubt of Saluation as that it much rather serueth to strengthen the assurance thereof whilest it maketh vs to rest onely vpon God and not vpon our selues knowing that our Saluation dependeth not vpon any thing which we can do for our selues but vpon him o Esa 26.12 who hath wrought and so will worke all our workes for vs and will not leaue that vnperfect which he hath begun And when sometimes we forget this feare and incline to trust in our selues and say with Dauid p Psal 30.6 I shall neuer be remoued he leaueth vs to the triall of our owne strength so as that wanting his support we
savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am guiltie of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification as I haue before shewed But M. Perkins addeth that vve must remember that vve shall come to iudgement vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed We knovv it vvell but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about Originall sinne vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had runne a good race c. and therefore there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him by that iust iudge and not onely to him but all them that loue Christs comming And concerning both Inherent iustice and the abilitie of it to fulfill the law and what law heare this one sentence of S. Augustine Serm. 18. de verb. Apost He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the law albeit the law be good but he shall fulfill the law not by iustice which he hath of himselfe but which is giuen of God for charitie is the fulfilling of the law and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts not certainly by our selues but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. R. ABBOT There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot none so readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe I pray thee gentle Reader whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner him that saith that the Apostle saying I am not thereby iustified doth meane as he saith I am not thereby iustified or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place b Greg. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulgeâ— operantis Oft times saith he our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing by and by added but I am not iustified thereby Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs sâ—to As if he should say Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me c. d Quia ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret nisi hanc seueâ—us iudex in subtilâ— lance examinâ— misericorditèr penset Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination Againe he saith of the same place e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus Ducta namque ad internam regulaÌ„ nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes which we thought we did with strength For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule if it find seuere iudgement by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward or perfect Righteousnesse Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones that is euen the strength of vertues and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination saith I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing yet am I not thereby iustified f Acsi diceret Recta egisse me recolo attamen demeritis non praesumo quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis ossa turbantur As if he should say I remember I haue done the things that be right but yet I presume not of any merit because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled Thus by the iudgement of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified because though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes much more in many secret sinnes could find sufficient to condemne him And this is the true meaning of those words that howsoeuer a man if it be so know nothing by himselfe yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd g Psal 143.2 that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe I know nothing by my selfe namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him which was the matter spoken of yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe h Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne i Vers 19. I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. k Vers 23. I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true which were meant onely respectiuely as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that
Iesus Tit. 3. The like description of our Iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost whom he hath powred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace we may be heires in hope and not in certaintie of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same Iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the renewing of our soules by the infusion of his heauenly gifts which God of his mercie did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake Many other places I omit for breuitie sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before De peccat merit remis cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit First Saint Augustine saith That this iustice of ours vvhich they call Righteousnesse is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost and is a beautie of our inward man It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soule And twentie other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ Let him suffice for the Latine Fathers And Saint Cyril for the Greekes who of our Iustification writeth thus The Spirit is a heate who as soone as he hath powred charitie into vs and hath with the fire of it inflamed our minds we haue euen then obtained iustice R. ABBOT a Eccles 19.24 There is a subtiltie that is fine saith Ecclesiasticus but it is vnrighteous and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law M. Bishop is none of those that deale finely that will cogge by art and will lie and yet not seeme to lie what he doth he will do outright and will lie so as that euerie man may see him to be a liar that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is Tell vs M. Bishop where is it that M. Perkins saith that in heauen we shall haue no other but imputed iustice or Righteousnesse where doth he make any shew or semblance of saying so Fie M. Bishop fie for shame leaue this lying and belying of men a good cause needeth no such meanes for the vpholding of it they that in apparent vntruth see you thus wilfull and shamelesse cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest M. Perkins saith that imputed Righteousnesse continueth for euer but doth he say that in heauen there shall be no other who plainely saith that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come We shall for euer enioy eternall life by vertue of that whereby we are first admitted vnto it because thereby we are admitted to it to enioy it thereby for euer But he who by his merit purchased for vs eternall life purchased for vs also to be made meete for the enioying of it and therefore shall then make vs vnto himselfe b Ephe 5.27 a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing but c 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say that perhaps inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect in the end of this life he againe abuseth him for he asketh the question onely as a supposition what if it be so but maketh no perhaps that it is so denying that if it were so we could be iustified thereby The rest of this Section as touching the maine drift of it is altogether impertinent tending to proue Inherent iustice which we denie not but onely the perfection thereof in this life But whereas he seeketh to make good that our iustification consisteth therein he commeth much too short and one of his proofes directly proueth the contrarie For when the Apostle saith d 1. Cor. 6.11 You are washed you are sanctified you are iustified vndoubtedly he meant not by iustification and sanctification to import one and the same thing But there is no question but that by sanctification is meant inherent iustice Therefore inherent iustice cannot be vnderstood in iustification And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himselfe citeth for exposition of the place as namely Chrysostome saying e Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm Minimè sed sanctificauit neque hoc etiam sed iustificauit Atqui liberari à peccatu magnuÌ„ munus est nunc autem te etiam innumeris impleuit bonis He washed vs and what did he so onely Nay but he also sanctified vs and not this onely but also he iustified vs very plainely putting difference betwixt iustification and sanctification and expounding iustification in the next words to be this liberari à peccatis to be deliuered from sinnes So doth Theophylact also expresly referre iustification to forgiuenesse of sinnes f Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca. 6. Vos ille sanctificat Quo pacto Iustificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset iustitia condonasset mox sanctimoniam contulit When he had first washed you and by iustification had pardoned you forthwith also he bestowed sanctification Oecumenius likewise seuereth theÌ„ as Chrysostome doth g Oecumen ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificauit neque hoc tantum sed iustificauiâ— He hath not onely washed you but also sanctified you and not that only but also iustified you He citeth Ambrose also but Ambrose saith not one word to import that Iustification should be construed of inherent iustice h Amâ—ros ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis aâ—â—uitur credens iustificatur Dei nomine per spiritum Dei nostri Deâ— filius adâ—ptatur In baptisme all sinnes being done away the beleeuer is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a sonne of God Now we may see what credit is to be giuen to this gamester who shewing his cardes in packe telleth vs he hath wonne the game when he hath nothing at all to helpe for the winning of it As for the other place to Titus That being iustified by his grace c. There is no argument to proue the contrarie but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole worke of sauing vs which he before mentioneth vnder the name of Iustification as the maine point whereupon dependeth all the rest But more properly we may take it in the third place as in the former text to the Corinthians distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost and expressing the other speciall effect of the washing of the new birth consisting in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent iustice begunne in this life not denied by vs say nothing against vs. How
in respect hereof with sinne against the holy Ghost it is but a scape of his ignorance who as it seemeth vnderstandeth not what is meant thereby What his schoolemen haue written thereof it is nothing to vs but let him learne by Hierome how to vnderstand it out of the text it selfe h Hieron in Maâ— ca. 12. Qui manifestè intell gâ—ns opera Dei cùm de virtute negare noÌ„ possit eadem stimulatus inuidia caluÌ„niatur ChristuÌ„ Deique verbuÌ„ opera Sp sancti diâ—et esse Beelzebub isti non dimittetur neque in praesenti seculo nec iâ— futuro He saith he who vnderstanding manifestly the works of God when he cannot gainesay as touching the power doth yet of enuie calumniate the same and affirmeth Christ and the word of God and the works of the holy Ghost to be of the diuell to him it shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come This is a dreadfull sinne and let M. Bishop take heede the light of God so clearely shining as that it cannot but dazle his eyes that he doe not intangle himselfe in the guilt thereof by wilfull opposition against the truth 17. W. BISHOP Maister Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome finde any one sentence in them that fits his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him De verbis Domini serm 7. Augustine saith I demaund now doest thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saiest I beleeue what beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hast that which thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for M. Perkins But S. Bernard saith plainly That we must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ Againe he addeth conditions on our party which M. Perkins craftily concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to be forgiuen if the truth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meet together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God do truly bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vain glosse of the former words His last authority is out of S. Cyprian who exhorteth men passing out of this life not to doubt of Gods promises but to beleeue that we shall come to Christ with ioyfull security Answer S. Cyprian encourageth good Christians dying to haue a full confidence in the promises of Christ and so do all Catholikes and bid them be secure too on that side that Christ will neuer faile of his word and promise but say that the cause of feare lies on our owne infirmities And yet bids them not to doubt as though they were as likely to be condemned as saued but animates them and puts them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reason R. ABBOT The drift of Saint Austine in the place alledged is to shew that we are a Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 7. Elegâ— de me praesumetes non de se TotuÌ„ gratiae semper reputa Si de tuo opere prasumis ergo merces tibi redditur non gratia condonatur Si auteÌ„ gratia est gratis daetur to presume of God onely not of our selues and to attribute all that we are towards him wholy to his grace If thou presume of thine owne worke then is it a wages paied not a grace giuen vnto thee But if it be grace then it is freely giuen Hereupon follow the words alledged b Interrogo nunc Credis ô peccator Christo Dicis Credo Quid credis Gratis vniuersa peccatae tibi per ipsuÌ„ posse remitti Habes quod credidisti O gratia gratis data I demaund now O sinner doest thou beleeue Christ Thou saiest I beleeue What doest thou beleeue That all thy sinnes may be pardoned freely by him By which words he would import that the sinner is to beleeue that in Christ onely there is enough to yeeld him forgiuenesse of sinnes and therefore that he is to presume onely vpon him Which if he do Saint Austine telleth him Thou hast that which thou beleeuest and addeth O grace freely giuen Now M. Bishop should here haue told vs what it is that S. Austine telleth the beleeuing sinner that he hath what that grace is that he saith is here freely giuen vnto him For if it be forgiuenesse of sins as indeed it is then the words import that the sinner beleeuing in Christ for the forgiuenesse of sinnes and relying wholy vpon him assuredly hath that for which he beleeueth and therefore is not to doubt thereof And herein he alludeth to that in the Gospell where Christ asketh the blind men c Mat. 9.28 Beleeue ye that I am able to do this to draw froÌ„ them whether they did attribute so much to him as to expect so great a benefit from him When therefore they answered Yea Lord he touched their eies saying According to your faith so be it vnto you So with S. Austine the word may serueth to chalenge a sufficiencie to Iesus Christ and to exclude other meanes of forgiuenesse of sinnes not to question the beliefe of the forgiuenesse thereof which he so resolutely affirmeth to him that beleeueth and can be no otherwise but by the applying of the righteousnesse the merit the satisfaction of Christ because we cannot beleeeue it but only thereby The place of Bernard is very impudently shifted off First by altering the question which is not here by what we beleeue our sinnes to be forgiuen but whether it be the property of a iustifying faith to beleeue particularly the forgiuenesse of a mans own sinnes Now S. Bernard saith that d Bernard in Annunâ—iat ser 1. Jnitium quoddam velut fundamentum fidei for a man to beleeue that he cannot haue forgiuenesse of sinnes but by Gods pardon is but the beginning and foundation of faith Therefore saith he if thou beleeue that thy sinnes cannot be done away but by him to whom onely thou hast sinned thou doest well e Sed adde adhuc vt hoc credas quia per ipsuÌ„ tibi peccata donaÌ„tur Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in corde nostro Sp. sanctus dicens DimitiuÌ„tur tibi peccata tua Sic enim arbitratur Apostelus gratis
Yet we haue heard how Bellarmine maketh them u De iustificat lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo in some sort meritorious also and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be so that in this respect also they do but dally with the Apostle But tell vs M. Bishop are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace or onely of free will If they be of grace as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them what hindereth them from being meritorious seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes If they be of free will then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification which before you say the Apostle intendeth If he say that free will is helped by grace let him tell vs what he meaneth therein by grace and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike as before is said He goeth on further and saith that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith no more doth it exclude the rest How so Marry faith is as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest But that is false as we haue already seene and againe faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke as both faith hope and charity do with them but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby All the rest saith he are of grace as well as faith But being before iustification how should they be of grace seeing before iustification there is no infused grace and why are they not meritorious as hath bene said Againe he saith that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle who affirmeth that x Rom. 3.27 boasting is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith And the thing is plaine for he hath somewhat to boast of who doth any thing for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him but in faith there is nothing to boast of because the act of faith is to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake it is it selfe wholy the gift of God and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs but all wholy vnto God But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting in as much as he must confesse as hath bene before said that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God yea so farre as that man hath to glory that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect it being in his power either to accept or to refuse the same Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke y Luk. 8.50 onely beleeue as nothing to the purpose he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof Let S. Austine teach him that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod noÌ„ est transituruÌ„ neque in fine abituruÌ„ post Per ista teÌ„poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur all the miracles which Christ did corporally do serue for our instruction that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away nor go from vs in the end that by these temporall things which were seene he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life doth instruct vs that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace The man indeede was bid as M. Bishop saith to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life but therein he was bid also to beleeue that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle but I answer him that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith for the obtaining of bodily health doth also referre vs to faith for the obtaining of soules health Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said As for the places of Austin if his sight had not failed him I suppose he would not haue alledged them the one of them being nothing at all against vs and the other directly against himselfe We say a August de grat lib. â—â—bit cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill and haue no good workes Nay we say further God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill and haue no good workes We haue often enough said that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life and that faith that is without good workes is onelie called faith with men but indeede and with God it is not so In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle saying b De praedest sanct cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith that a man is iustified by his workes as well as by his faith By faith and not by works saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle both by faith and works saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines S. Austine giueth the reason c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetreÌ„tur caetera qua propriè opera nuÌ„ cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained which are properly called works in which a man liueth righteously Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen that thereby we may be iustified and thence follow good works in which we liue well according to his rules before deliuered d De fide et operib cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum non praecâ—dunt iustificandum They follow a man being iustified they go not before to iustification e Epist 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur noÌ„ quia praecesserunt iustificamur then they begin when we are iustified we are not iustified for them going before Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement that iustification is the beginning of good works and if iustification be the beginning of good workes then by no meanes can it be said that good workes are any cause of
iustification He excludeth not then good workes which proceede from Gods grace as M. Bishop saith but he denieth that there are any good workes before iustification because he knoweth no grace but iustifying grace and therefore directly crosseth Maister Bishops assertion of good workes before iustification which are the causes for which we are iustified 29. W. BISHOP Maister Perkins third argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this end of apprehending but faith onely Answer Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries must needes know little But what if that also faile you in this point then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man should beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himselfe as all the world sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to be mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnesse according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours onely by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. Perkins doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours then will I be bold to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applied vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but onely the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shall please him to appoint is alike apt and so M. Perkins had small reason to say that faith was the onely apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charitie do much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them ours thē faith For what faith assureth me of in generall that hope applieth vnto me in particular by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him But charity doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship A micorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertues we take such hold on Christes merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying De nat gra cap. vlt. That Charity beginning was Iustice beginning Charitie encreased was Iustice encreased great Charitie was great Iustice and perfect Charity was perfect Iustice R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledgeth that very reason may teach vs that faith onely iustifieth because there is no gift in man that hath the property of apprehending and receiuing but faith onely To this M. Bishop answereth that mans reason is a blind mistresse in matters of faith Wherein he saith truly and indeede is the cause why he himselfe writeth so blindly as he doth and measureth high mysteries by carnall and base conceipts And surely it seemeth that his reason was very blinde who gaue so blinde a reason against that which Maister Perkins saith being spoken not out of the reason of man but as the reason of a faithfull man may esteeme by direction of the word of God No man entreth into the possession of any thing saith he by beleeuing that he hath it for if a man beleeue that he is rich doth he thereby become rich I answer him no but though a man by beleeuing himselfe to be rich do not become rich yet if to a poore begger a great man say If thou wilt take my word and referre thy selfe to me and depend vpon my fauour and good will I will make thee rich doth he not by giuing credit to his word commit himselfe to him entertaine his fauour accept his offer and become owner of that that is promised vnto him What is it whereby we accept of promise but onely beliefe Now all that our question is of consisteth of promise in all the benefits of God we are a Gal. 4.28 the children of promise b Cap. 3 29. heires by promise c Heb. 6.17 heires of promise expecting all things by the gracious promise of God d 2. Pet. 1.4 by promise to be partakers of the diuine nature e Gal. 3.14.16 the blessing by promise f Ephe 1 13. the spirit by promise g Gal. 3.18 the inheritance by promise h Tit. 1.2 life eternall by promise i 2. Pet. 3.13 by promise a new heauen and a new earth wherein righteousnesse dwelleth all which k 2. Cor. 1.20 promises in Christ are yea and in him Amen for his sake first made and for his sake to be performed also Now seeing God hath taught vs that l Heb. 11.33 by faith we obtaine the promises that m Gal. 3.14 we receiue the promise of the spirit through faith that n Ibid. ver 22. the promise of blessing is giuen by the faith of Iesus Christ to them that beleeue that o Mat. 8.13 as we beleeue so it shall be vnto vs that p Mat. 11.24 whatsoeuer we desire when we pray if we beleeue that we shall haue it it shall be accordingly vnto vs why is it strange to M. Bishop that in beleeuing according to the word and promise of God to be partakers of those things which he hath promised we should be said to become partakers thereof In those mad presumptions fondly alledged by him there is no beleeuing because there is no ground whereupon to beleeue but when God promiseth and tieth the effect of his promise to the beleeuing of it not to beleeue that in the beleeuing of it we are partakers of that which we beleeue is to make God a liar and to frustrate that which he hath promised Sith then God hath promised Christ vnto vs to be q Ierem. 23.6 our righteousnesse and that r Rom. 3.22 by the faith of Iesus Christ that is by beleeuing
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
but somewhat at least to the free will of man Againe it is not entirely the glorie of God that he respecteth but Å¿ Sest 2. the bringing of dignity vnto men as he hath before expressed Therfore albeit he will not haue a man boast and say that his good parts were the cause that God called him first to his seruice yet he maketh no exception but that a man may boast of the good workes that he hath performed in seruing him and may glory that his good parts therin are the cause why God adiudgeth heaueÌ„ vnto him as iustly deserued which is that against which the Scripture wholy driueth teaching vs to confesse that which Austin doth that t Aug Hypog lib 3. Intellâ—ge in miseratione misericordiae non in factione meritorum animam coronari not for performance of merits but in mercy and louing kindnesse the soule of man is crowned and to say with Hilary u Hilar in Psal 135. Quòd sumus qui non fuimus quòd erimus quòd non sumus causam â—â—am non habet nisi misericordiae Dei That we are what we were not that we shall be what we are not it hath no other cause at all but onely the mercie of God Againe he will not haue vs boast and say that God needed vs for our selues but we must needes say with Tertullian x Tertul. aduer Hermog Nemo non eget eo de cuius vtitur There is none but needeth him of whose he vseth any thing Their doctrine of free will maketh God to stand in neede of vs because by it God bringeth not the worke of our saluation to passe but at our will It is in the power of our free will either to helpe it or hinder it either by admitting or reiecting the grace of God For the performance therefore of his purpose and promise God must stand in neede of our will to consent to his worke or else it succeedeth not For the auoiding of which absurdity we must confesse that God vseth nothing in vs for the effecting of our saluation but what he himselfe graciously worketh in vs. Our consenting our beleeuing our willing our working all is of God and nothing is there therein that we can call ours Now therefore it is plaine that M. Perkins did not ignorantly and maliciously as this ignorant wrangler speaketh but iudiciously and truly apply against them the place to the Ephesians y Ephe. 2.8 By grace ye are saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast Where the Apostle ascribing all to grace through faith in Christ taketh exception generally against works and giueth to vnderstand that they are effects not causes of saluation because God hauing first by faith put vs in the state of saluation doth consequently create vs anew in Christ Iesus vnto good workes M. Bishops exception is that the Apostle there excludeth onely the workes that be of our selues before we be iustified But that his exception is very vaine appeareth plainly by that the Apostle for reason of that that he saith Not of workes least any man should boast addeth in the next words For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Where one way to vnderstand works in the one sentence which is to be proued and another way to vnderstand good workes in the other sentence which is the proofe is to make the Apostle to vtter as reasonlesse reasons as M. Bishops idle head is wont to do For what sence were it to say we are not saued by workes that are of our selues before we be iustified because we are Gods creation and workmanship in the good workes that we do after our iustification But the Apostles meaning is very euident we are not saued by any good workes that we do for our good workes are none of ours but they are his workmanship in vs by whom we are saued who hauing by his calling entitled vs to saluation hath prepared good workes as the way for vs to walke in to the same saluation It was not then M. Perkins ignorance to take two distinct manner of workes for the same but M. Bishops absurd shifting to make a distinction of workes there where the sequell of the text plainly conuinceth that there is no difference at all But we would gladly know of him to which manner of workes he referreth his vertuous dispositions To the latter he cannot because they proceede from vs as Gods workmanship created in Christ Iesus which we are not till we be iustified and they are for vs to walke in after our iustification If to the former then we see they are by the Apostle excluded from iustification So in neither place doth he say any thing of them and because he knew them not he hath wholy left them out He was vndoubtedly to blame to conceiue so little vertue in Maister Bishops vertuous dispositions as not to think them worth the speaking of But it is woorth the noting to what fashion he by this deuice hath hewed the words of the Apostle Not by workes least any man should boast that is not by workes that are of our selues but yet by vertuous good dispositions and workes of preparation which are partly of God and partly of our selues and yet as I haue before said they make the essentiall production of these workes of preparation to be onely of our selues because as yet there is z Coster Enchirid ca. 5. Hominis liberum arbitriuÌ„ auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed moueÌ„tis adiuuantis se praparas ad iustificationem noÌ„ solum patiendo sed operando agendo no infused or inhabitant grace whence they should proceede and therefore out of their owne grounds it must follow that the same workes of preparation are here excluded by the Apostle But see the singular impudencie of this man who maketh S. Austin a witnesse of his vertuous dispositions who hath not in the place alledged by him so much as any seÌ„blance or shew for proofe thereof Note with S. Austin saith he that faith excludeth all merits of our works but no vertuous dispositions for preparatioÌ„ to grace Lewd Sophister where is that note found in S. Austine in what words is it set downe What still lye and nothing but lye S. Austine forsooth maketh the Apostle to exclude all merits of our workes which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but not all workes for there are workes of preparation which Doctor Bishop no simple man I warrant you defendeth to be the cause why God bestoweth vpon vs his first grace Will he make S. Austine the author of so absurd and impious a glose S. Austine vnder the name of merits wholy excludeth workes vnderstanding by merits any thing going before iustification that should be vnto God a motiue or cause
to bestow his grace vpon vs as I haue shewed a Sect. 21. before Therefore he doth not direct the words of S. Paul onely against merits but simply against works that he affirmeth b August li. 83. quaest 76. Vt nemo meritu priorum bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ arbitrotur se ad donum iustificationis peruenisse Dicit posse homineÌ„ sine operibus praecedentibus iustificari per fideÌ„ Dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt a man to be iustified without workes precedent or going before that he teacheth that not for any good worke past a man attaineth to the iustification of faith that a man is not iustified by workes that go before faith meaning by faith not a faith which is before iustification but the faith in which our iustification is begun as appeareth very plainly by that that he saith in another place c Jdem de verb. Apost ser 16. Si iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus Si fideÌ„ habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we haue no righteousnesse we haue no faith but if we haue faith we haue also some part of righteousnesse alreadie And thus perpetually he excludeth all workes going before iustification from being any causes thereof and still maketh iustification the beginning of all good workes so as that d Idem epist 46. Sine illa cogitare aliquid vel agere secunduÌ„ Deum vlla ratione omninò noÌ„ possumus without the grace of God which with him is no other but the grace e Epist 105. Istam gratiam commendat Apostolus qua iustificati sumus vt homines iusti essemus whereby we are iustified we can in no sort thinke or do any thing according vnto God Of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions before iustification he neuer speaketh word nor euer giueth intimation of any such nay he condemneth the Pelagians for affirming the same as we haue seene in the question of f Sect. 5. Free will 33. W. BISHOP Now to his second reason If you be circumcised Gal. 5. you are bound to the whole law Hence thus he argueth If a mâ—n will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour of it That is Paules ground But no man can fulfill the law according vnto the rigour of it ergo No man can be iustified by workes He that can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Apollo Saint Paul onely saith in these words That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the whole law of Moses Maister Perkins That if a man will be iustified by workes he must fulfill the rigour of the law Which are as iust as Germains lips as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is Saint Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that would be circumcized did make himselfe subiect vnto the whole law of the Iewes Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this R. ABBOT The force of the sentence alledged that a Gal. 5.3 he that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law dependeth vpon the verse going before and that that followeth after He saith before b Ver. 2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing by one particular giuing to vnderstand what was to be conceiued of the rest that c August cont Faust Man lib. 19. cap. 17. Certa pernicies si in huiusmodi legis operibus putareÌ„t suam spem salutemque continerâ— it was certaine destruction for them to thinke that their hope and saluation was contained in such workes of the law because thereby they were secluded from hauing any benefit in Christ Which as he hath namely spoken of circumcision as being a speciall matter then spoken of so he saith it in the verse after of the whole law d Ver. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law ye are fallen from grace If then in any part of the law a man seeke to be iustified he is thereby voided of the grace of Christ Being abandoned from Christ and his grace he hath no meanes of iustification and saluation but by the law He cannot be iustified by the law but by perfect obseruing of it because it is said e Cap. 3.10 Cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them What then is said of circumcision belongeth to all the workes of the law He that seeketh to be iustified by the workes of the law he is bound fully and perfectly to obserue the same and if he be any where a trespasser he cannot be iustified by the law And rightly doth M. Perkins say that this is the ground of that which the Apostle saith of circumcision as he shall well perceiue that obserueth how through the whole Epistle he disputeth generally against iustificatioÌ„ by the law to disprooue the doctrine of the false Apostles vrging for iustification circumcision and other ceremonies of the law Therefore in the words alledged this argument is implied He that wil be iustified by the law is bound to fulfill the whole law He that seeketh to be iustified by circumcision seeketh to be iustified by the law he is therefore bound to the perfect obseruation of the whole law As for that which M. Bishop saith that circumcision is as it were a profession of Iudaisme it is a very idle and sleeuelesse answer For what is Iudaisme but a profession of iustification by the law the Iewes f Rom. 932. seeking righteousnesse not by faith but as it were by the workes of the lâ—w Circumcision therefore is a profession of iustification by the law against which the Apostles ground is as hath bene said that he that professeth to be iustified by the law doth tie himselfe to obserue it without any breach being by the law guilty of death if he be found to transgresse in any sort Now that there is no ablenesse in vs to fulfill the law so as to be iustified thereby it shall appeare God willing in the place where Maister Bishop promiseth to treate thereof 34. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third argument Election to saluation is of grace without workes wherefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without workes because election is the cause of iustification Answer That election is of grace without workes done of our owne simple forces or without the workes of Moses law but not without prouision of good works issuing out of faith and the helpe of Gods grace as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop to answer the argument auoucheth a plaine point of Pelagianisme that Gods election is vpon foresight of
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
M. Bishop to presume but for God himselfe to determine who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come The words of Dauid are as little helpfull vnto him i Psal 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements when thou hast set my heart at liberty So farre as we are at liberty so farre we runne and so fast we runne But we attaine not to that liberty yet but that being k Rom. 7.23 holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members we haue still cause to cry l 24. Who shall deliuer vs or set vs at liberty from this body of death m 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty We haue receiued as yet onely n Rom. 8.23 the first fruites of the spirit We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1 that presseth downe and sinne hanging fast on so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls and the p Mat. 26.41 willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh 43. W. BISHOP Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plainly for it saying That which was impossible to the law in that is weakened by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle And his commaundements be not heauie Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words My yoke is sweet Math. 11. and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailty they be very heauie yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost then loe do we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charity is the fulnesse of the law Rom. 13. And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the law Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charity we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it so that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimonie of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly Serm. in illud Attende tibi to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That we must beleeue firmely De nat gra cap. 69. that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant and no true lawmaker to commaâ—â—d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe for those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to bind them vp to most assured perdition Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican as an article of faith in these words 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued with the helpe and cooperation of Christ can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commaundements If thou wilt enter into life Math. 1â— keepe the commaundements This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see that he hath babled much and said as good as nothing and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part But now leauing his confutation he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before a Rom. 8.3 That that was vnpossible to the law inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Now of this place he saith that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh But he is still so full of formality that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh to which the Apostle saith it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth and because it is but his owne we make very small account or reckoning of it The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing then our fulfilling of the law That the Apostle noteth first in saying that Christ condemned sinne comparing it thereby to a prisoner a robber or murtherer brought to the barre and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for
this our vertue which commeth not of God but is attributed vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good workes all which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God dwelling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot attaine vnto perfect purity such as shall be in heauen reade the beginning of his first and second booke of Morals and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skies as a good and holy man by his temptations not foiled but much aduaunced in vertue R. ABBOT These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his owne head there being none of ours that alledgeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warriour he maketh himselfe a man of straw to fight with and with all his might bestirreth himselfe against a shadow But the worth of his answers is first to be seene in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle a Psal 32.2 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The best men sinne venially saith he and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiuenesse or not imputing of sinne there spoken of to be the imputation of righteousnesse But the forgiuenesse of their veniall sinnes is not the imputation of righteousnesse because without any forgiuenesse of veniall sinnes a man continueth righteous and iust as wherein there is no breach of iustice and righteousnesse and notwithstanding the same a man is iust in the sight of God as out of the Romish doctrine was shewed in the section last sauing one Therefore forgiuenesse of sinnes spoken of in that place cannot be vnderstood of veniall sinnes Againe he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction that forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh not away the temporall punishment of sinne How then is a man happie when those veniall sinnes be pardoned if for want of satisfaction he remaine still to pay deare for them as he speaketh in his Epistle in Purgatory fire He bringeth in a place of Cyprian as idlely as he did the former texts To that which he saith we answer him that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiuenesse of sins that the wounds which the faithfull man receiueth be not mortall His foiles and wounds of themselues are such as that he must say with Dauid b Psal 130.3 If thou O Lord be extreame to marke iniquities who can stand c Aug. in Psal 129. Vidit propè totaÌ„ vitaÌ„ humanaÌ„ circuÌ„latrari peccatis suit accusari omnes coÌ„scientias cogitationibus suis non inueniri castum cor praesumens de iustitia sua Si ergo cor castuÌ„ non potest inuenirs quod praesumat de sua iustitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei dicat si c. He saw saith S. Austine the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on euery side with his sinnes all consciences to be accused by their owne thoughts that there is not a cleane heart found that can presume of it owne righteousnesse If then therâ— cannot be found a cleane heart which may presume of it owne righteousnesse let the hearts of all presume vpon the mercy of God and say If thou markest iniquities O Lord who shall abide it Let Maister Bishop marke it well that in this warfare there is no heart cleane that can presume of it owne righteousnesse and that we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely Gods mercy To the place of Hierome he saith that all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially But iust men confesse their sinnes in the same meaning as they say Forgiue vs our trespasses They say Forgiue vs our trespasses as S. Austin saith the Apostles did as we heard before for those sinnes for which they say also Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified They confesse therefore such sinnes as hinder them from being iustified in the sight of God which M. Bishop saith his veniall sinnes do not The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome is a sufficient answer to him the latter part whereof he concealeth because it taketh away his glose vpon the former d Hieron cont Pelag li. 1. Tunc iusti â—umus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur et iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia Then are we iust when we coÌ„fesse our selues to be sinners and our righteousnesse standeth not vpon our owne merit but vpon the mercy of God If our righteousnesse consist in the acknowledgement of our sinnes and in the mercy of God pardoning and forgiuing the same then is there in vs no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of neither can any worke come from vs that can haue the title of absolute and perfect righteousnesse before God And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alledged out of Saint Austine who noting diuers degrees of charity saith that e Aug. epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iaÌ„ augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine QuaÌ„diâ— autem augeri potest profectò quicquid minus est quà m â—ebet ex vitio est the most perfect charity no further to be increased is in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of a corruption or default Now hereto Saint Austine addeth not onely that which Maister Bishop mentioneth though he mention it also by halfe f Ex quo vitio 〈◊〉 est iustuâ— c. By reason of which g Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Aug. de li. aâ—â—iâ— lib 3. cap. 14. corruption there is not a man iust vpon earth which doth good and sinneth not but also another sentence which he concealeth h Ex quo vitio non iustificaâ—â—tur c. By reason of which corruption no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God Now if by reason of a corruptioÌ„ remaining in vs there be such an imperfection of charity which is the substance of inherent iustice as that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight then can no good worke proceede from vs which can be said to be perfectly and entierly goâ—d For from an vnperfect cause cannot come a perfect effect i Bern in Cant. ser 71. Si radix in vitio ramus If the roote be faulty the braunch also must be so A lame legge cannot yeeld an vpright and stedfast gate Therefore needes must there be a lamenesse and blemish in all the good workes that issue from vs. For charity is not such as it ought to be till we loue the Lord our God with all our soule But k Aug. de perfect iustit
turne Because he had no great skill to answer he thought it wisedom to take heed what he did obiect But yet out of that sentence truly alledged we may take somewhat to this point The words are p Gal. 3.11 The iust shall liue by faith According to these words true faith is said alwayes to imply and containe eternall life Our Sauior Christ speaketh as of a thing presently had q Ioh. 3.36 He that beleeueth hath eternall life r Cap. 5.24 he is passed from death to life But without charitie there can be no state of eternall life because Å¿ 1. Ioh. 3 14. he that loueth not abideth in death If then wheresoeuer there be true faith there be eternall life and without charitie there can be no eternall life it must necessarily follow that wheresoeuer there is true faith there is also charitie and loue bringing forth the fruites of good workes and seeking to winne others by example of iust and holy life M. Bishops answer we see giueth checke to the holy Ghost The holy Ghost saith The iust shall liue by faith Not so saith M. Bishop he liueth by faith hope and charitie and not by faith alone Further I trouble not my selfe with his idle words which containe nothing but a begging of the matter in question and are applied onely to an argument of his owne deuice CHAPTER 5. OF MERITS 1. W. BISHOP OBserue that three things are necessary to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the work proceed from grace and be referred to the honour of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the work And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but wil purchase it by our owne works I wil here set downe what the Councell of Trent doth teach concerning Merits Sess 6. cap. vlt. Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that work wel and hope wel to the end both as grace of mercie promised to the sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their workes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace as well in respect of Gods free promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good workes vnto the worker if he perseruere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by true repentance rise to the same estate againe In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignitie of the adopted sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme wherby they are made heires of the kingdom of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either merit life or for want of such fruite of it fall into the miserable state of death R. ABBOT M. Bishop setteth downe three things which he saith are necessary to make a work meritorious but giueth vs no ground at all whereby we may rest perswaded that where those three things do concurre a man may be said to merit or deserue at Gods hands He leaueth vs still to wonder that a sinfull wretch offending and prouoking God from day to day should dare to talke of merite and desert with God but that we know that heresie and ignorance make men bold to frame the maiestie of God to their owne brainsicke and senslesse conceits The conditions and circumstances by him mentioned we alwayes teach and require in our doctrine of good workes but farre are we from finding merit in any of them For first the adopted sonne of God standeth bound by dutie to do all things to the honor of his Father and there can be no merit in doing that which a man by dutie is bound to do Secondly if the worke proceed from the grace of God the work is Gods and not mans and therfore man can therby merit nothing Thirdly if the reward depend vpon promise then it ariseth not of the merit or worth of workes especially there being by the frailtie of the worker and the bountie of the promiser that disproportion betwixt the worke and the reward as that it is meerly absurd to imagine that the one should be merited and deserued by the other These things God willing shall further appeare in the processe of this question In the meane time M. Bishop here challengeth vs for slaundering their doctrine with some matters of truth as that they trust not in Christs merits that they need not Gods mercy for their saluation but will purchase it by their owne workes Now we wote well that they vse speech of Christes merits and Gods mercie and of trusting therein because they know that if they abandoned the mention hereof they would soone grow odious and hatefull to all men For the cuppe of poison of the whore of Babylon they must vse a couer of such good words least they make men loth to drinke thereof But let it be examined how they teach these things and their falshood will soone appeare By trust in Christs merits men conceiue the placing of the confidence of saluation immediatly therein as the proper cause for which God accepteth vs to eternall life who our selues are miserable sinners and altogether vnworthy thereof But their trust in Christs merits is that he hath purchased for vs grace if we list by free will to merite heauen for ourselues thereby to be iust before God in our selues and worthy of the kingdome of heauen as M. Bishop in the former question of a Sect. 2. Iustification hath declared So then the effect of Christs merits is tied onely to this life and thenceforth we are to depend vpon that which here we do for our selues by wel vsing that grace which the merits of Christ first purchased for vs. Therefore one Richard Hopkins translating into English a booke of Granatensis as touching prayer and meditation giueth it one where for a marginall note that our Sauiour Christ is our Aduocate for the time of this life but after our departure out of this life he is no more our Aduocate but our Iudge for the time is past saith he of dealing with God by an Aduocate c. and we shall haue our definitiue sentence according to our workes Whereby it appeareth what reckoning they make of the mercie of God which they also pen vp within the compasse of this life and denie it that place which the Apostle giueth it b 2. Tim. 1.18 at that day Yea so little vse is there with them of Gods mercie as that M. Bishop doubteth not to demaund
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
blindly proposed by M. Perkins I will confirme the first with such texts of holy Writ as specifie plainly our good workes to be the cause of eternall life Mat. 25. Come vnto me ye blessed of my Father possesse a kingdom prepared for you And why so For when I was hungry ye gaue me meat so forth the like is in the same chapter of the seruants who employed all their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue bene faithfull in few things I will place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly said to be the very cause why God rewarded them with the kingdome of heauen Therefore he must needes be holden for a very wrangler that doth seek to peruert such euident speeches and would make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth onely signifie an order of things But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it let him reade S. Augustine In Psal 40. where he thus briefly handleth this text Come ye blessed of my Father receiue what shall we receiue a kingdome for what cause because I was hungrie you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there was no tidings in those daies and that iudicious Doctor found that good works was the cause of receiuing the kingdom of heaueÌ„ R. ABBOT M. Bishop to helpe the former argument addeth some texts of holy writ which specifie plainely as he saith our good workes to be the cause of eternall life To this purpose he alledgeth the words of Christ as touching the last iudgement a Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father possesse or rather b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inherite ye the kingdome prepared for you before the foundations of the world for I was hungry and ye gaue me meate c. Where the very place it selfe disproueth that that he intendeth to proue by it for by that that he saith Inherit ye the kingdome it is plainely gathered which S. Ambrose thence affirmeth c Ambros de abitis Theodosij Tanquam possessionem haereditariam recipimus ea quae promissa sunt â—â—bis We receiue as a possession of inheritance those things that are promised vnto vs. And if we receiue the kingdome by way of inheritance then it is not by merit as hath alreadie bene declared Againe when he saith prepared for you from the foundations of the world euen as S. Paule saith d Eph. 1.4 God hath chosen vs in Christ before the foundations of the world he sheweth that the kingdome was prepared for them that inherite it before they had any works and therfore to reason in the same maner as the Apostle doth e Rom. 9.11 not by workes but by the grace and mercie of him that calleth it is said Come ye blessed inherit the kingdome c. For to say that God f August contra Iulian. Pelag. li. 5 cap 3. Ne fortè ante constitutionem mundi ex operibus praecognitis putarentur electi seâ—utus est adiunxit si autem gratia c. vide Epist. 105. prepared the kingdome for them vpon foresight of their workes is the heresie of the Pelagians long agone condemned It must needes be therefore that it was prepared for them without respect of works and that their workes are alledged not as the proper cause fot which the kingdome is giuen vnto theÌ„ but as signes and tokens that they are they for whom it is prepared euen as before we heard out of S. Bernard that g Bernard de grat lib arb Occultae praedestinationis indicia futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noâ— causa regnandi they are tokens of our predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining it No more can be argued out of the other place Reward we find there but Merit we find none neither can the one of these be euicted by the other It onely sheweth how God graceth his faithfull seruants by assigning vnto them vnder the name of reward that which indeed he otherwise freely bestoweth vpon them A most cleare example whereof we ha◠〈◊〉 our father Abraham to whome God made at first an absolute promise that he would h Gen. 12.2.3 make of him a great nation and would blesse him and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed and yet afterwards vpon the triall that he made of him for the offering of his sonne Isaac taketh occasion to renew the promise as if he would do it for his obedience therein i Cap. 22.16 Because thou hast done this thing and hast not spared thine onely sonne therefore will I surely blesse thee and I will multiply thy seede after thee c. and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeied my voice The blessing was assured to Abraham infallibly by the former absolute promise of God k Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 3. Sine conditio ne promisit sine lege dâ—nauit without any caution or condition as Prosper well saith but he would haue Abraham to take knowledge by occasion of that that he had done that the promise before freely made should inuiolably without any impeachment stand good vnto him Euen so God from our works taketh occasion of the renewing of his promises thereto for our assurance tieth the performance therof vnder the name of reward when as the true cause of all is his mercy in Iesus Christ by whom onely it is that the worke is accepted in his sight Now if God vouchsafe to honour vs let not vs thereby take occasion to dishonour him or chalenge proudly to our merits that for which we should sing praise onely to his mercy Neither do we herein wrangle or peruert the Scripture but finding by the Scripture that God hath chosen and called vs l Ephe. 1.6 that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace m Aug. cont Pelag Celest lib. 2. cap. 24. NoÌ„ enim Dei gratia gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo which is not grace in any sort except it be free in euery sort we endeuour that this glory may be yeelded entirely vnto God and that to this end it may alwaies be acknowledged that n Rom. 6.23 eternal life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now whereas he alledgeth S. Austin to his purpose he abuseth S. Austin as he is wont to do who questioneth not any cause in the place by him cited but vsing the words Come ye blessed of my Father receiue ye a Kingdome goeth on hereupon to demaund not as Maister Bishop saith For what cause but o Aug. in Psal 49. Quid percipite Regnum Pro quare
de proposito Dei firmior suppetit securiorque gloriandi ratio c. NoÌ„ est quòd iam quae ras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audias apud prophetam Non propter vos c. Ezec. 36. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiunt merita c. Merita habere cures habita data noueru fructum speraueris misericordiam Dei c. Perniciosa paupertas meritorum penuria est To what end is the Church carefull as touching merites which hath a more sure and secure ground of reioycing by reason of the purpose of God It is not for thee to aske by what merits we hope for good things seeing thou hearest by the Prophet Not for your sakes but for mine owne sake will I do it saith the Lord. It sufficeth for merite to know that merits are not sufficient Be carefull to haue merits when thou hast them know them to be giuen thee but for fruite thereof hope for the mercie of God The waâ—t of merits is a pernicious pouertie Thus vnder the name of merites he commendeth the hauing of good workes and our care to be rich therein shewing that it is a pernicious want to be destitute thereof and to be men fruitlesse in the Church of God But yet when we haue them he teacheth vs to conceiue the vnsufficiency thereof and to rest the expectation of the fruit and reward thereof onely vpon Gods mercie who hath promised to performe it not for our sakes but for his owne sake and so fully bereaueth them of that nature of merite which M. Bishop doth assigne vnto them Thus doth he euery where giue vs to vnderstand his mind g Ibid. ser 61. Meritum meum miseratio domini My merit saith he is the mercie of the Lord. h Ibi. ser 73. Opus habent sancti pro peccatis exorare vt de misericordia salui fiant propriae iustitiae non fidentes Euen the Saints haue need to intreate for their sinnes that by thy mercie they may be saued not trusting to their owne righteousnesse And againe i In Psal Qui habitat ser 1. Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritu suiâ— sperant periculosa quia ruinosa Dangerous is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous k Ibi. ser 16. Hoc totum hominiâ— meritum si totam spem suam ponat in illo qui totum hominem saluuÌ„ fecit This is the whole merite of man to put his whole trust in him who hath wholly saued man Many other such like speeches of his might be alledged whereby M. Bishop may well take occasion to bethinke himselfe whether he haue not done S. Bernard wrong to make him a patron of the doctrine of merits which the Church of Rome now maintaineth Let him duly consider whether he haue done well to take a little aduantage of a scrap of a sermon and to vrge it contrary to the whole drift of the Author in that place and his perpetuall doctrine other where For conclusion we are assaulted with a whole generall Councell that saith neuer a word against vs. The Arausican Councell saith l Concil Arausic cap. 18. Debetur merces de bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant Reward is due for good works if they be done but grace which is no due goeth before that they may be done Euen so say we we also confesse that there is a reward due vnto good workes which God taketh vpon him to owe vnto vs but we say it with that limitation that before we haue heard out of S. Austin from whom that Councell boroweth almost all that they haue set downe that m Supra sect 17 God hath made himselfe a debtor vnto vs not for any thing that he hath receiued of vs but by promising all things vnto vs. It is due then to the worke not simply in respect of the worke it selfe or for the merite and worth thereof but by vertue of the promise that God hath made to them that so worke And thus we are come to an end of M. Bishops antiquitie which we may see doth pitifully faile him in that out of all antiquitie he could bring no stronger proofes then he hath done his doctrine of merits being expresly thwarted by the most of them whom he hath brought for defence of it But as touching Antiquitie gentle Reader for thy further satisfaction and the better arming of thee if need require against the fraud of these vndermining Sophisters it shall not be amisse to aduertise thee thus much that as we do so did the auncient Fathers vpon diuers occasions speake diuersly of good workes and both their speeches and ours are always to be weighed according to the same occasions When there is cause to set forth the true and proper cause of our saluation they referre the same as we do to the free grace and mercy of God and wholly to his gift they vilifie as we do the workes and worth of men and acknowledge that there is nothing in vs in the confidence whereof we may offer our selues to God nothing in strength whereof we can stand before God or whereby we should merite and deserue any thing at Gods hands Here workes are considered meerly as they are and as God instrict and precise iudgement findeth them to be and therefore are pronounced of accordingly But when occasion requireth to speake only of good works and of the end thereof and we look no further but to inforce a conscience of the way wherein God hath called vs to walke to that saluation that he hath promised or when we haue in hand to commend any speciall point of godly and vertuous conuersation we presse the same with all instance as the Fathers do we shew how necessarily God requireth the workes of our obedience how graciously he vouchsafeth in mercie to accept them how he hath promised of his bountie to reward them We forbeare not to say that eternall life is the stipend of our warfare the hire and wages of our workes that God hath not appointed heauen for idle persons and loiterers but for such as labor for it that because God rendereth heauen we must haue that whereto it is to be rendered if we haue not there is no heauen for vs. We say it is a crowne or garland win it and weare it it is a haruest labor for it if thou wilt enioy it it is a field of treasure if thou wilt possesse it thou must purchase it Such kind of speeches euery man may obserue who is either a hearer of our sermons or a reader of our bookes Now if any man will hereof conclude that we teach the merit of workes it is his ignorance and mistaking and he doth vs wrong We teach what followeth of what we teach the dependance and consequence of good life and eternall life of the work and
faults vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painful works done to appease Gods iustice were works of satisfaction M. Perkins answereth many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God as these words also do witnesse Leuit. 4. ver 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it R. ABBOT M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place Ilfauouredly it is propounded and ilfauouredly maintained but yet such learning it is as he with great paines hath brought from Rome The foundation that he layeth is a lie and the building that he setteth vpon it a ridiculous consequence He telleth vs that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices according the diuersitie of the sinnes But where is that ordinance why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith where do we find in Moses law that for such or such a sinne greater or lesse shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price was framed according to the same law of Moses and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices as in sinnes of ignorance a Leuit. 4.3 for the Priest a yong bullocke b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same c Ver 22.23 for a ruler a he goate for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goate e Chap. 5.15 for any consecrate thing by errour withholden a ramme of two shekels f Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done the same for g Chap. 6.6 sinne wittingly committed the same also for the high h Chap. 16.3 Priests yearly offering for himself and his house a bullocke and a ramme and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goates and a ramme This diuersitie we reade and some few other such like but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price according to the diuersity of the sinnes we reade nothing it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew Well let that go let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults saith he vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull workes done to appease Gods iustice were workes of satisfaction O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after Vaine man was this a paines to be spoken of for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne But to let this passe if k Of the certaintie of saluation sect 2. the honest man of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before should out with a litle Latin and tell him here M. Doctor negatur argumentum how foully wold he be grauelled and so set at a Nonplus that he could not tell which way to turne him What because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes The honest man would tel him Good sir you erre by assigning a wrong cause for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned but for his faith in Christ He laid not his hand vpon himselfe as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe but l Leuit. 1.4 he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast as in figure of Iesus Christ m Esa 53.6 vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all Therefore his sacrifice if he offered it aright was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him and he reciting the answer by halues asketh What is this to the purpose Very much it is against his purpose if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ n Heb. 10.1 The Law had the shadow of good things to come and not the liuely or substantiall image of the things themselues Therefore no satisfaction indeed but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein For o Ver. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin And therfore the Law was p Chap. 7.18 abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it How should it be said to be weake or why should it be called vnprofitable if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction not to God but to the Church of God as testimonies of their repentance and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men What needed that saith M. Bishop when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth I answer him that because all men are sinners euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe and to shew his care to be reconciled to God either for publike or priuate offences whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe Vpon the doing whereof men were accounted to the Church and with men as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture
illa finiretur poena the punishment is continued longer then the sinne lest the sinne should be esteemed but small if the punishment should be ended together with it And this M. Perkins well obserueth in generall concerning that example of the Israelites that God though his iudgment proceeded not one way yet would haue it to be seene another way though not for punishment to them that repented and beleeued yet for example to future times to take heed of cutting themselues off by vnbeleefe and disobedience from the heauenly rest as these had done from the seale and Sacrament thereof the Apostle to that purpose saying k 1. Cor. 10.11 These things came to them for ensamples and are written to admonish vs vpon whom the ends of the world are come Now as we conceiue in generall of the faithfull of that people so we do in particular of Moses and Aaron M. Bishop vrgeth it set downe that therfore they entred not because they trespassed because they were disobedient And who maketh doubt but that their trespasse and disobedience was the originall cause of the debarring of them But stil we say that the cause of this debarring of them being forgiuen the effect still continued for other vse which in them was not onely morall but also mystical God willing thereby to giue to vnderstand that the Law which was giuen by Moses and the Priesthood that was executed by Aaron could not bring vs to that eternall inheritance which was figured by the land of Canaan but onely Iesus who was figured by Iosuah could yeeld vnto vs the possession thereof Thus S. Austin maketh mysticall and spirituall application thereof affirming that l August contra Faust Man lib. 16. cap. 19. Non introducebat populum in terram promissionis ne videlicet lex per Mosen non ad saluandum sed ad conuincenduÌ„ peccatorem data introducere putaretur Ita Tertulaâ—iuer Marcionem lâ—b 3. Moses did not bring the people of Israel into the land of promise lest the law which was giuen by Moses not to saue but to conuict the sinner shold be thought to bring vs into the kingdome of heauen But fully to answer this point and to stop M. Bishops mouth let vs take that which the same S. Austin saith in another place m Idem in Psa 98. Quaerimus vindictam in Moyse propè nullam habet nisi quòd ad extremuÌ„ aâ—t illi Deut Ascende in montem morere Aâ—t seni Morere tam peregeras â—etates suas nunquid nunquam erat moriturus Quaelis illa vindicta Ostendit ibi vindictam suam vt diceret Non intrabis in terraÌ„ promissionis quaÌ„ intraturus erat populus QuandaÌ„ figuram quorundam gerebat Moyses Nam qui in regnum coeloruÌ„ intrauit magna illa poena crat adieâ—ram illam non venire qua ad tempas erat promissa vt vmbram osteude ret transiâ—eâ—â— Nonne mulit perfiâ—â—ntrauerunt in illam terram Nonne in illa terra viuentes multa mala feceruÌ„t Deum offenderunt Nonne idolotriam secuti sunt in terra illa Magnum erat non dedisse terram istam Moysi sed Moses voluit gestare figuram eorum qui sub lege erant quia per Moysen data est lex ostendit eos qui sub lege esse vellent sub gratia esse nollent non intraturos interram promisâ—ionis Ergo illud quod dictum est Moysi figura erat non poena Seâ— mers quae poena Non intrare in illam terram quae poena quo intrauerunt indigni We seeke Gods punishment in Moses saith he and he had in a manner none but that God at last saith to him Go vp into the hill and die He saith to an old man Go die he had now finished his yeares what shold he neuer die what punishment is this He shewed him there his punishment in that he said Thou shalt not enter into the land of promise to which the people was to enter Moses did here beare a figure of some for he being to enter into the kingdome of heaueÌ„ was it a great punishment not to come to that land which was promised for a time to cary a shadow and so to passe away Did not many vnfaithfull men enter into that land did not they that liued in that land commit many euils and offend God did they not follow idolatry in that land A great matter it was not to giue this land vnto Moses but Moses was to beare a figure of them which are vnder the law because the law was giuen by Moses and he sheweth that they which would be vnder the law and would not be vnder grace should not enter into the land of promise Therefore that which was said to Moses was a figure not a punishment what punishment was it to an old man to die what punishment was it not to enter into that land into which vnworthy men did enter Here then it is plaine that the not suffering of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan was not a matter of punishmeÌ„t but a matter of figure God took the occasion therof of his trespasse but the trespasse being remitted it was turned from being a punishment to him to be a mystery of faith both to him and vs. But it were woorth the while here to question with M. Bishop how he should make the not entring of all these into the land of Canaan to be any satisfaction for their sins what did they or suffered they that might carie the name of a satisfaction Did any thing herein befall them but what befell to many iust and godly Fathers before that time He saith their dayes were shortened but how were the dayes of Moses and Aaron shortened when the one liued to n Deut. 34.7 120. and the other to o Numb 33.39 123. yeares almost double to that nuÌ„ber of yeres which Moses noted for the ordinary time of the life of man p Psal 90.10 The dayes of our age are threescore yeares and ten Yea Moses was so old as that he said q Deut. 31.2 I am a hundred and twentie yeare old I can no more go in and out Againe we wonder whereas M. Bishop hath told vs before that such excellent holy personages by their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly for their sinnes how it came to passe that all Moses deuotions for the space of r Deut. 2.14 eight and thirty yeares after could not satisfie for that one sinne of his but that it still hindred him froÌ„ entring into the promised land Surely M. Bishop cannot well tell vs how these things hang together But to conclude this point M. Perkins had set downe by the words of the holy Ghost the vse of Gods chastisements towards his children and M. Bishop as loth to be acquainted therwith saith nothing of it Å¿ 1. Cor. 11.32 When we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
to seeke of that vse which M. Bishop maketh of it that this anger of ours against our selues is a price of satisfaction for the appeasing of Gods anger To this being the very point he saith neuer a word he telleth vs of reuenge but he prooueth not that this reuenge is a matter of satisfaction We say that to this reuenge of true and faithfull repentance God graunteth remission of sinnes but we say he graunteth it because we seeke it not in the merit of our reuenge but onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ 15 W. BISHOP Lastly saith M. Perkins They make three works of satisfaction Prayer Fasting and Almes-deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to think that a man by prayer can satisfie for his sins it is all one as if you had said that a begger by asking an almes can deserue the almes or a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt That Prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnesse Psal 49. saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and I will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without faith in Gods power and hope in his goodnesse and therefore must needes be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his â—mnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testifie water his couch with teares making them his foode day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he â— Paral. 33. King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his fathers and prayed and intreated earnestly and God heard his prayers brought him back againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome Now to M. Perkins Similes A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needy man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goods highly esteemeth of an humble contrite heart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon Math. 18. To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besoughtest me R. ABBOT Maister Bishops arguments are like the foxes whelpes neuer a one better then other and all starke naught It is strange to see what shuffling and shifting he vseth to make some good shew of a bad cause The question is whether prayer be a worke of satisfaction that is a worke of that woorth and price as that by the merit thereof we make God a iust and sufficient recompence for the offence that we haue done For the proofe hereof he alledgeth the sentence of the Psalme a Psal 50.15 Call vpon me in the time of trouble and I wil heare thee So then his reason is this God hath promised to heare vs when we pray vnto him therefore prayer is a worke of satisfaction As much as if he should say the prince promiseth a traitour vpon his submission and intreatie to giue him his pardon therefore his submission and intreaty is a sufficient recompence for his treason We may see how maruellously the Romane religion sharpeneth mens eye-sight that they can see mans satisfaction there where God onely signifieth his owne merciful disposition Yea but God doth thereby witnesse that prayer doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon Yea but what need a pardon when the sin is already pardoned for prayer is made a worke of satisfaction after the forgiuenesse of the sinne as I haue shewed before A very ridiculous deuice that God first remitteth the trespasse and we afterwards for a punishment and to make God amends and satisfaction must say Forgiue vs our trespasses Therefore when he speaketh of obtaining pardon he doth but seeke by words of truth to colour absurd dotages of falshood and error The vse of prayer is indeed not to make satisfaction but to craue pardon It appeaseth Gods iustice by the intreating of his mercie whilest we beseech him to heare vs not for our prayers sake but for Christs sake not by the merit of our satisfaction but by vertue of his intercession not for the works sake which we do but for his truths sake for that he hath promised so to do to them that call vpon him By our prayer we request him to forgiue vs that is not to vrge vs to satisfaction and is it not an absurd fancy to affirme prayer it selfe to be a satisfaction And what do men in this case but mocke and dally with God in asking him forgiuenesse when in the meane time they thinke to make him a full and iust requitall of his wrongs so that there shall be nothing to be forgiuen For what remaineth to be forgiuen where there is yeelded a sufficient recompence for the offence done M. Bishop goeth on and telleth vs that prayer cannot be made without faith It is true by faith it is that our prayer obtaineth all things at Gods hand But of faith it is true which S. Ambrose saith that b Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 8. Tanquam ex syngrapha fides impetrat noÌ„ tanquam ex debito it obtaineth as by deed of gift not by way of debt It looketh not to our satisfaction but to the promise of God through the mediation of Iesus Christ Further he alledgeth idlely and impertinently that prayer is pleasing vnto God that by it we humble our selues before him acknowledging his omnipotencie and our owne infirmitie that thereby we lament and bewaile the grieuousnesse of our sinnes He mentioneth king Dauid watering his couch with teares and making them his food day and night Manasses greatly humbling himself as the text saith not doing great penance as he translateth intreating the Lord so as that the Lord heard him c. Now all these things are according to the Prouerbe Pro rastris ligones we cal for rakes and he sends vs mattocks we demand one thing and he answereth another We say that prayer is pleasing to God we confesse all these vses and effects thereof but what is all this to the proouing of satisfaction how doth hee make it appeare that that which Dauid and Manasses did they did it with opinion or purpose to make satisfaction for their sinnes I would aske him here with what face he could thus set himselfe to delude his Reader with empty shadowes and shewes of vaine discourse but that I see his whole booke in a manner is made of such delusions But here to shew the absurdity of this assertion of theirs that prayer is a matter of satisfaction M. Perkins had said that it is
in the art of true reasoning because M. Perkins behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. Ierome in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproued as allowed not hauing any ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall vvritings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law R. ABBOT M. Perkins indeede mistooke in naming Iohn Baptist in steed of Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist but it is no matter of consequence for his aduantage and therefore might easily be pardoned by Maister Bishop who for aduantage hath made many greater and fouler faults a Hieron in Math. 23. Some saith Hierome will haue Zacharie who is said to haue bene slaine betwixt the temple and the altar to be meant of the father of Iohn Baptist auouching out of the dreames of Apocryphall bookes that he was slaine because he foretold the comming of our Sauiour * Hec quia ex Scriptures non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate conteÌ„nitur quae probatur This saith he because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued Where M. Perkins doth not out of a particular inforce an vniuersall as M. Bishop pretendeth but rightly alledgeth that Hieromes words containing a minor proposition and a conclusion must by rules of Logicke imply a maior proposition for the inferring thereof This hath no authority out of the Scriptures therefore it may be as easily contemned as approoued Why so but onely because whatsoeuer hath not authority of Scripture is as easily contemned as approued The argument contained in Hieromes words cannot stand good but by this supply and so it is not the inferring of an vniuersall from a particular but the prouing of the particular by the vniuersall according to due course But M. Bishop telleth vs that the cause why that story might as well be reproued as allowed was because it was taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings Which what is it but to vse a shift in steed of an answer the sentence being in it selfe entier and absolutely giuing the cause of the reiecting of that story because it had no authority out of Scripture Yea if it be true which M. Bishop saith of traditions Hieromes argument proueth to be nothing worth For though this were written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture yet it might be confirmed by tradition and therfore it followeth not that because it was written in Apocryphall bookes and had no proofe of Scripture it should hereupon be reiected b Aug. de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. In Apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter nonnulla falsa nulla est Canonica authoritas In the Apocryphall writings saith Austine some truth is found albeit because there are manie things also false they haue no canonicall authority If this therfore notwithstanding it were written in Apocryphall bookes might be true then it might be confirmed by tradition and therefore not to be contemned and thereof it followeth that Hieromes reason of reiecting it for wanting authority of Scripture is worth nothing Which if M. Bishop will not say then let him acknowledge that Hieromes meaning simply is this that there is no necessity for vs to beleeue what authority of Scripture doth not confirme saying no other thing therein but what else-where he maketh good reasoning both waies c Hieron aduer Heluid Naetum DeuÌ„ esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus We beleeue it because we reade it we beleeue it not because we do not reade it And surely if Hierome had had here any conceipt of tradition without Scripture he would not haue left this matter thus indifferently as easily to be contemned as approued but would simply haue contemned it because tradition had giuen another cause of the death of Zacharie namely for that he affirmed Mary the mother of Iesus to be still a virgin and accordingly placed her in the temple in a place which was appointed onely for virgines and maidens Whereof Origen saith d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. tract 26. Venit ad nos traditio talis c. Such a tradition hath come to vs and Basil e Basil de humana Christi gener Zachariae historia quadaÌ„ qua ex traditione adnos vsque peruenit A storie of Zacharie by tradition hath come to vs and in like manner Theophylact f Theophyl in Math. cap. 23. Habetâ—ta narratio nobis tradita Thus hath a narration deliuered by tradition to vs. If this then being deliuered by tradition yet auailed so little in the Church because it wanted the authoritie of Scripture we may well conceiue that Hieromes meaning was plaine that tridition howsoeuer colourable it seeme to be yet is of no moment or credit without the Scripture As for the other words alledged by Maister Bishop that g Hieron adu Lucifer Luciferianus dixit c. Nam multa alta quae per traditioneÌ„ in ecclesijs obseruantur authoritateÌ„ sibi scriptae legis vsurpauerunt to traditions the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written law they are set downe for the words of a Luciferian schismatike and the example thereof taken from a Montanist heretike euen from Tertullian of whom was spoken in the former section insomuch that some of h Velutin lauacro ter caput mergitare deinde egressos lactis mellis praegustare concordiaÌ„ c. die dominico per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare et ieiunium soluere the instances of traditions vsed by Tertullian are there set downe in Tertullians owne words And yet by those instances it appeareth that the words come not within the compasse of our question because he speaketh onely of ceremoniall customes and obseruations which are temporall and occasionall not of matters of doctrine and faith which are necessary and perpetuall which though they had in time growne to be alike in practise and vse as if they had beene written yet in iudgement and doctrine were not holden to be alike and therefore for the most part haue ceased since to be obserued euen in the Church of Rome 12 W. BISHOP Maister Perkins His third Author is Saint Augustine * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those points which containe faith and manners of liuing well Answer All things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beliefe are contained in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture traditions are most necessary M. Perkins his answer is that there is no such need of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it self is the best glosse if there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the clearest places secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signification of the words thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsly termed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the abuse of man Reply To begin with his latter words because I must stand vpon the former Is the Scripture falsly termed matter of strife because it is not so of his own nature why then is Christ truly called the stone of offence or no to them that beleeue not S. Peter sayth Yes No sayth M. Perkins 1 Pet. â— because that cometh not of Christ but of themselues But good Sir Christ is truly termed a stone of offence and the Scripture matter of strife albeit there be no cause in them of those faults but because it so falleth out by the malice of men The question is not wherefore it is so called but whether it be so called or no truly that which truly is may be so called truly But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention euery obstinate heretike vnderstanding them according to his owne fantasie and therefore may truly be so termed although it be not the cause of contention in it selfe but written to take away all contention But to the capitall matter these three rules gathered out of Saint Augustine be good directions whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of Diuinitie if they neglect not other ordinary helpes of good instructions and learned commentaries but to affirme that euery Christian may by these meanes be enabled to iudge which is the true sence of any doubtfull or hard text is extreme rashnesse and meere folly S. Augustine himselfe wel conuersant in those rules endued with a most happie wit and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberall Sciences yet he hauing most diligently studied the holy Scriptures for more than thirtie yeares with the helpe also of the best commentaries he could get and counsell of the most exquisite yet he ingeniously confesseth That there were more places of Scripture that after all his study he vnderstood not then which he did vnderstand * Epist 119. cap. 21. And shall euery simple man furnished onely with M. Perkins his three rules of not twise three lines be able to dissolue any difficultie in them whatsoeuer Why do the Lutherans to omit all former heretikes vnderstand in one sort the Caluinists after another the Anabaptists a third way and so of other sects And in our owne country how commeth it to passe that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures the Puritans almost the cleane contrary Why I say is there so great bitter and endlesse contention among brothers of the same spirit about the meaning of Gods word If euery one might by the ayd of those triuial notes readily disclose all difficulties and assuredly boult out the certaine truth of them It cannot be but most euident to men of any iudgement that the Scripture it selfe can neuer end any doubtfull controuersie without there be admitted some certain Iudge to declare what is the true meaning of it And it cannot but redound to the dishonor of our blessed Sauior to say that he hath left a matter of such importance at randon and hath not prouided for his seruants an assured meane to attaine to the true vnderstanding of it If in matters of temporall iustice it should be permitted to euery contentious smatterer in the Law to expound and conster the grounds of the law and statutes as it should seeme fittest in his wisedome and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the Iudge what iniquitie should not be law or when should there be any end of any hard mater one Lawyer defending one part another the other one counseller assuring on his certaine knowledge one party to haue the right another as certainly auerring not that but the contrary to be law both alledging for their warrant some texts of Law What end and pacification of the parties could be deuised vnlesse the decision of the controuersie be committed vnto the definitiue sentence of some who should declare whether counsellor had argued iustly and according to the true meaning of the Law none at all but bloudy debate perpetuall conflict each pursuing to get or keepe by force of armes that which his learned counsell auouched to be his owne To auoid then such garboiles and intestine contention there was neuer yet any Law-maker so simple but appointed some gouernour and Iudge who should see the due obseruation of his Lawes determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law who is therefore called the quicke and liuely law and shall we Christians thinke that our diuine Law-maker who in wisedome care and prouidence surmounted all others more than the heauens do the earth hath left his golden lawes at randon to be interpreted as it should seeme best vnto euery one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit no no it cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation vnto the soueraigne prudence of the Sonne of God In the old Testament which was but a state of bondage as it were an introduction to the new yet was there one appointed vnto whom they were commanded to repaire for the resolution of all doubtfull cases concerning the Law yea and bound were they vnder paine of death to stand to his determination and shall we be so simple as to suffer our selues to be perswaded that in the glorious state of the Gospell plotted and framed by the wisedom of God himselfe worse order should be taken for this high point of the true vnderstanding of the holy Gospel it selfe being the life and soule of all the rest R. ABBOT It is truly said by Thomas Aquinas that a Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 39. art 4. c. In proprietatibus locutionum non tantum attendenda est res significata sed etiam modus significandi in propriety of speeches we are not only to regard the thing signified but also the manner of signification A speech may be true yet true only in some manner of signification which therefore in propriety of speech is not true because the thing properly of it selfe is not that that the speech importeth it to be Christ saith M. Bishop is truly called the rocke of offence Be it so yet it is true only in some manner of signification in which it is that the Scripture so calleth him in proprietie of speech it is not true because Christ of himselfe and properly is not so He becommeth so
mentall reseruations to lye to periure forsweare theÌ„selues As for our own country we must tell him that the dissension betwixt Protestants Puritanes was neuer so mortall and deadly amongst vs as was the dissention of the secular Priests Iesuites amongst them the one in no sort to be coÌ„pared to the other If there might be such a garboile more then hellish or diuellish amongst them without preiudice of their religion what preiudice should it be to vs that there is some matter of difference amongst vs He wil say that the maine matter amongst them was but a matter of circumstance of gouernment and so his wisedome knoweth if he list that the matters of controuersie amongst vs are onely matters of ceremonie and forme He will say that they all accorded in the religion established by the councell of Trent and so let him know that we on both parts subscribe to the same articles of religion established amongst vs. He vvill say that there is some controuersie about the meaning of some of those articles amongst vs and so let him remember that there is great question of the meaning of some of the articles of the Trent religion amongst them In a word wee are able alwaies to iustifie that in substantiall points of faith there is no so great difference amongst vs but that there is greater to be proued to haue bene continually amongst them But now M. Bishop hauing lightly passed ouer those obseruations of M. Perkins commeth himselfe to set vs downe a course for the attaining of the true and right sence of holy Scripture For the first part whereof he bestirreth his Rhetoricall stumpes by way of declamation to shew vs how necessary it is that in the Christian Church there should be a Iudge for the deciding and determining of controuersies and questions that arise about the Scriptures and if in matters of temporall iustice Iudges be appointed and euery law-maker do ordaine gouernours and Iudges for the declaring and executing of his lawes and God tooke this course amongst the people of Israel in the old testament he telleth vs that surely Christ in the new testament would not leaue his Church vnprouided in this behalfe Where we will seeme for a time not to know his meaning but will simply answer him that Christ in this behalfe hath prouided for his Church hauing giuen thereto f Ephe. 4.11.12 Pastours and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the ministery and for the building vp of the body of Christ till we all meete together in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a persit man As in ciuill states there are appointed magistrates and gouernours in townes and cities for the resoluing and deciding of causes and questions of ciuil affaires so hath God appointed the ministers of his word euery one according to the portion of the Lords flocke committed vnto him to deliuer what the law of God is and to answer and resolue cases and doubts as touching faith and duty towards God g Tit. 1.9 to be able to exhort with wholsome doctrine and to improue them that speake against it to be the same to the people as God of old required the Priests to be h Malach. 2.7 The Priests lippes should preserue knowledge and men should seeke the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes If of these i Acts. 20.30 any arise speaking peruerse things to draw Disciples after them the rest are warned k Ver. 28. to take heede to the Lords flocke and therfore are by common sentence iudgement to condemne such that thereby the people of God may take knowledge to beware of theÌ„ But if in the Church any controuersie or question depend parts being taken this way that way so that the vnity of faith and peace of the Church is endangered therby the example of the Apostles is to be imitated and in solemne assembly councel the matter is to be discussed and determined the Bishops and Pastors gathering themselues together either in lesser or greater companie as the occasion doth require and applying themselues to do that that may be for the peace and edification of the Church And this hath bene the care of godly Christian Princes that l 〈◊〉 17.8 9. 2. â—â—â—on 1â— 8 as amongst the Iews there was a high court of iudgement established for the matters of the Lord to the sentence whereof they were appointed to stand yea and he that did presumptuously oppose himselfe was to die for his contempt so there should be in their Christian States consistories of iudgement assemblies and meetings of Bishops for considering and aduising of the causes of the Church and what could not be determined in a lesser meeting should be referred to a greater to a Councell prouinciall or nationall or general By their authoritie they haue gathered them together they haue sometimes bin themselues present and sitten with them as moderators and after as princes haue by their edicts ratified and confirmed what hath bene agreed vpon as we may see in m Euseb de vit Constant li 3. ca. 13. Prolatas sententias sensiâ—â— excipete vitissim ferre openi virique parit c. quid ipse sentiret eloquâ— Constantine the great in the Councel of Nice in n Synod in Trullo per tot Praesidente eodem piâ—ssimo Impeâ—tore c. Conueniente Synodo secu dum Imperialem sanctioneÌ„ Constantine the fourth in the sixt Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in o Toletaâ— concil 3. Princips omnes regâ—raâ—â—â— sui pontifiâ—es in vnuÌ„ conuenire mandauit c. pâ—â—tet Reccaredus the King of Spaine in the third Councell of Toledo Now therefore albeit the Empire being diuided and many Princes of diuers dispositions possessing their seuerall kingdomes and states there be no expectation or hope of a generall councel yet M. Bishop seeth that we hold it necessary that in euery Christian state there should be Iudges appointed for the causes and matters of the Lord of the Church euen as in our church of England we haue our soueraigne Synods prouincial or national the sentence whereof we account so waighty as that no man may dare vpon peril of his soule presumptuously to gainsay the same But yet with all for the excluding of his issue he must vnderstand that in causes matters of faith and of the worship of God we make these to whom this iudgement is coÌ„mitted not lawgiuers at all but Iudges only As therfore the Iudge is not his owne mouth but the mouth of the law not to speak what he liketh but what the law directeth nor to make any other construction of the law but what is warranted by the law euen so the Iudge ecclesiasticall is to be the mouth of God not p Ezech. 13.3 to follow his owne spirit nor q Ierem. 23.16 to speake the vision of his own hart but out of
the mouth of the Lord neither to make other interpretation of the laws of God then by the same lawes can be iustified and made good Thus we see that as God tied the Iewes to the sentence of the Priests so he required the sentence of the Priests to be according to the law r Deut. 17.11 According to the law which law they shall teach thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee Å¿ Lyra. ibid. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica si dixerint tibi quòd dextera sit sinistra vel sinistra dextera talis sententia est tenenda quod pataet manifestè falsuÌ„ esse quòd senteÌ„tia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis est tenenda si contineat manifestè falsitatem vel errorem hoc patet per hoc quod praemittitur in textu Indicalunt tibi iudicij veritateÌ„ postea subditur Et docuerint te iuxta legem eius Ex quo patet quòd si dicunt falsum vel declinem à lege Dei manifestè non sunt audiendi The Hebrew glose saith Lyra here teacheth that if they say to thee that the right hand is the left or the left the right this sentence is to be holden which appeareth to be manifestly false saith he because the sentence of no man is to be holden of what authoritie so-euer he be if it do manifestly containe falshood and errour and this is plaine by that that is put before in the text They shall shew thee the truth of iudgement is afterwards added They shall teach thee according to the law whereby it is plaine that if they say any thing false or decline manifestly from the law of God they are not to be hearkened vnto It is not then so to be conceiued as that obedience should be absolutely due vnto them because as in the ciuill state there may be corrupt Iudges that wrest the law and giue sentence against law so there may be corrupt men also in places of ecclesiasticall iudgement men more affected to their owne will then to the word of God seeking rather themselues then Iesus Christ It is therefore to be obserued that as in matters of ciuill iustice some things there are in the law so cleare that if the sentence of the Iudge be contrary thereto euery man may discerne and see that he swarueth from the truth neither will a man take it to be law which the Iudge pronounceth because his owne eies perceiue the contrary so those things that concerne faith and religion towards God some things by the Scripture it selfe are so apparent and plaine as that it is manifest that not for any ambiguity in themselues but by the iniquity and frowardnesse of men they are called into question and that to question the exposition is nothing else but to seeke collusion In which cases the Iudge hath no more to do but to deliuer the peremptory sentence of God himselfe t Aug. ac bapt cont Donat lib. 2. ca. 6. Ass ramuâ— fraâ—eram diuinam in scripturis sanctis in illa quid sit grauius appendamus immâ— non appendamus sed à Domino appensa recognoscamus not to weigh as S. Austine saith but to recognize and acknowledge what the Lord hath already weighed Sometimes matters are more hard and doubtfull not so much haply of themselues as by meanes of opposition and contradiction and therfore are not so readily plaine vntill they be made plaine For the explaning and declaring whereof the Church as the Iudge is to vse the help of the law it selfe that is of the holy Scripture and to that purpose to apply the rules before expressed and so not by meere authority but by testimonie and warrant to approue to the conscience of euery man the sentence that shall be giuen for determining the thing in doubt u Oâ—â—gen in Leâ—â—â— hâ—â— 5. Inductus testaâ—entâ—s lâ—â—â—t omne veâ—â—uÌ„ quod ad Deaâ—â—â—â—tinet requiri disâ—uti atque ex â—â—sis omnim rerum scientiâ—m capi Siquid auteÌ„ superficerit quod non diuina scriptura decernat nulla alia tertia scriptura debet ad authoritatem scientia suscipi sed quod superest Deo reserueniâ— By the two testaments saith Origen euery word that pertaineth to God may be seaâ—ched out and discussed and all knowledge of things may be taken from them and if there be any thing further which the holy Scripture determineth not there ought no other writing be receiued for authority of knowledge but what remaineth we must reserue to God x IdeÌ„ in Ierem. ho. â— Necesse est nobis Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare Sensus quippe nostri enarrationes siâ—e his testibus non habent fidem It is necessary for vs saith he that we call the holy Scriptures to witnesse for our sences and expositions without these witnesses haue no credit y Idem in Math. tr 25. Dibemus ad testimonium omnium verboruÌ„ quae proferimus in doctrina proferre sâ—â—sum Scripturae quâ—si confirm entera queâ— expâ—â—â—mus sensum Sicut enim omne aurum quod-quod fuerit extra templum non est sancti fiâ—arum sic omnis sensus qui â—uerit extra diuinam Scripturam quâ—muis adâ—â—rabâ—lis videatur quibusdam non est sanctus quia non continetur à sensu Scripturae quae solâ—â— cum solum sensum santifiâ—are quâ—â— in se habet We must saith he again for witnesse of all the words which we vtter in teaching bring forth the sence of Scripture as coÌ„firming the sence which we deliuer for as all the gold which was without the temple was vnholy so euery sence which is without the holy Scripture though to some it may seeme admirable is vnholy because it is not contained of the sence of Scripture which is wont to make holy only that sence which it hath in it selfe By this rule the iudgment of the Church is to proceed so to vse the gift of interpretation as that he that gainsaieth may be conuicted as by the testimony of God himselfe and they who haue not the gift of interpretation may yet see perceiue that their constructions and expositions are according to the Scripture Now if the Church in their affirming or expounding shall contrary that which the Scripture hath manifestly taught vnder pretence of being the Iudge in the causes of God shall iudge against God what shall we then do Surely as a priuate man may by ordinary knowledge of the law be able to accuse a Iudge of high treason against his Prince eueÌ„ so in this case a priuate man by ordinary knowledge of the law of God may be able to accuse the Church of high treasoÌ„ against God And as it is ridiculous in case of treasoÌ„ to alledge that it belongeth to the Iudge to giue the meaning of the law and to leaue him at liberty to expound it that it may rest therupon whether his own fact be treason or
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
house of God ceasseth not to be the same for taking away a peece of an appentise which hath bene so beaten with wind and raine as that it is quite rotten and yeeldeth to the walles neither ornament nor defence The chaunge therefore ariseth not so much of vs as of the thing it selfe which howsoeuer it was aunciently reputed of yet hath since bene made though Maister Bishop will not haue it so thought a point of superstition and plaine witchcraft The auncient Church would not be thought g Tertul. Apol. c. 16. Qui crucit nos religiosos putat c. to make a religion of the Crosse and Tertullian yet continuing sound acquitteth them thereof h Minut. Felix in Octau apud Arnob. Cruces nec colimus nec optamus vos planè qui ligneos deos consecratis cruces ligneas vt deoruÌ„ vestrorum partes forsitan adoratu We doe no worship to Crosses sayeth Minutius Felix imitating and more plainely expressing the meaning of Tertullian but you saith he to the Pagans who consecrate woodden gods do haply worship woodden crosses as peeces of your gods Ambrose maketh this the vse of the signe of the crosse that i Ambros epist. 77. Per momeÌ„ta singula fronti propria contemptum mortu inscribit vtpote qui sciat sine cruce Domini salutem se habere noÌ„ posse thereby a Christian man euery while writeth vpon his owne forehead the contempt of death as who knoweth that without the crosse of Christ he cannot be saued When Iulian obiected to Christians the vse of the Crosse Cyril maketh no more thereof but this that * Cyril cont Iul. lib. 6. Pretiosi ligni crucem facimus in memoriaÌ„ omnâ— boni omnis virtutu they made it in remembrance of all goodnes and all vertue Whatsoeuer they say of the crosse or of the signe of the crosse they referre it to the faith of Christ crucified not to the crosse it selfe but to the inward cogitation of the benefite of his crosse k Iaem in Ioan. lib. â— c. 17. Cruce insignita mens coelesti alimonia Spiritus sancti gratia affatim pascitur c. Quisquis oculos animi ad ChristuÌ„ cruci affixum conuerterit ab omni vulnere peccati ilicò curabitur The mind marked with the crosse saith Cyril is plentifully fed with heauenly food and grace of the holy Ghost whosoeuer turneth the eyes of his mind to Christ nailed to the crosse he shall be forthwith cured from all wound of sinne They vsed the outward signe onely to turne the minde to the beholding of the crosse of Christ thereby hoping to receiue comfort and defence But Poperie hath taught men so to conceiue as if God had giuen to the signe of the crosse some formal power to do great woÌ„ders for vs in this sence haue witches charmers borowed it from theÌ„ as was before said Yea Popery hath taught men most blasphemously to say to the woodden Crosse l Breuiar Rom. sabbat quarto quadrages O crux aut spes vnica Hoc passionis tempore Auge pijs iustitiam Reisque dona veniam All-haile O Crosse our onely hope In this time of the passion To godly men increase righteousnesse And to offendors grant forgiuenesse They haue made the people to worship it to pray to it to do to it all manner of religious deuotioÌ„ as if the woodden crosse were to be taken for Christ himselfe Vpon pretence that he hanged vpon a crosse they haue attributed that to the crosse which belongeth to Christ only Consider the prayer which they make for consecration of the crosse m Oramus te Domine sancte Pater c vt dignerus benedicere hoc lignum crucis tuae vt sit remedium salutare generi humano sit soliditas fidei bonoruÌ„ operum profecius redemptio animarum sit solamen protectio tuâ—ela aduersus saeua iacula inimicorum c. We beseech thee O Lord holy Father that thou wilt vouchsafe to blesse this wood of thy crosse that it may be a sauing remedy to mankind strength of faith furtherance of good workes and a redemption of soules that it may be a comfort protection and defence against all the cruell darts of the enemies c. This is nothing else but to set vp a blocke or a piece of wood in stead of Christ and to cause men to say vnto it Thou art our redeÌ„ption saluation euen as the Israelites said of the golden Calfe n Exod. 32.4 These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the land of Egipt These and such other like both impious blasphemies and superstitious fancies haue caused vs to content our selues with the faith of Christ crucified and to forbeare the outward ceremony of the crosse which was of old vsed only as a token of the profession of that faith For conclusion of this matter of the Crosse thou must note gentle Reader that it is but onely a Crosse whereof they all speake whom he hath alledged of the Crucifix they say nothing And so indeed they vsed barely the Crosse but the Crucifixe in those times was yet vnknowne o Beat. Rhen. in Tertul. Apologet ca. 16. Apparet Crucifixi effigiem sculptilem aut pictam id temporis crucinoÌ„ solitaÌ„ addi c. Id à gentilibus natum videtur conniuentibus sanctis patribus vt vel sic ad Christiamsmum pertraherentur That seemeth to haue growne froÌ„ the Pagans saith Beatus Rhenanus the fathers winking at it that so they might be drawne to Christianitie That which came in by conniuence and winking at Pagan fancy the Church of Rome hath since taken hold of and turned it according to the manner of the Pagans to extreame abhomination Now albeit full little it be which M. Bishop hath hitherto said in the behalfe of his Images and that vpon so broken and hollow grounds as that we may thinke him scarsely well in his wits that would build any thing thereupon yet he is wel perswaded of that he hath said and telleth vs that we may learne thereby that that yet wee cannot see that Christians haue alwaies highly esteemed of Images that God hath recoÌ„mended them by miracles and that not only for the ciuill and historicall vse but more to honor them whose pictures they were The signe of the crosse indeede belongeth not to this question but otherwise what a poore deale hath hee brought vs lies and all that serueth any way to iustifie their Popish vsage of Images He hath told vs of certaine pictures of Christ and Peter and Paul which we also haue he bringeth but one only example of any standing Image and that acknowledged to be of heathenish custome and imitation of Paganisme The miracles that he reporteth what slender and vncertaine proofe they haue it appeareth by that that hath bene said Surely if Popery had bene then in the world M. Bishop would haue bene able to haue brought vs manie famous authors
abominations or if they haue in any part bene deuised by others yet she hath licked all those monstrous and ilfauoured bastards to their forme The Church of Rome I say that now is we apply nothing to the Church of Rome that then was which he fondly inculcateth without cause The mother we confesse was a chast matron but the daughter is growne to be a filthie harlot W. BISHOP But that it is now become idolatrous M. Perkins doth proue by his second reason gathered also I warrant you right learnedly out of the text it selfe where it is said that the tenne hornes which signifie ten kings Cap. 17. ver 16. shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked which as he saith must be vnderstood of Popish Rome For whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore now they haue begun to withdraw themselues and to make her desolate as the kings of Bohemia Denmarke Germany England Scotland and other parts In these his words is committed a most foule fault by grosse ouersight and ignorance in the very text What be England Scotland Denmarke as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholike Emperor it must be omitted as also many States of Germany be these Kingdoms your principall pillars of the new Gospell comprehended within the number of the ten mentioned there in S. Iohn which hate the harlot Yes marry Why then they are enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers for in the 13. verse it is said of these that they shall deliuer their power vnto the beast which signifieth either the diuell or Antichrist and shall fight with the Lambe and the Lambe shall ouercome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings Is not this doating in an high degree to infame so notoriously them of whom he wold speake most honor and to make the speciall Patrons of their new Gospell the diuels captaines and fiercely to wage battell against Christ Iesus See how heate of wrangling blindeth mens iudgements R. ABBOT The direct conclusion intended by M. Perkins is that S. Iohns prophecie was not accomplished in heathenish Rome whereupon it remaineth to be vnderstood of the Church of Rome The argument which he vseth to that purpose is inuincible and M. Bishop cunningly ouerslippeth it without saying any thing directly to it He chargeth M. Perkins with most foule fault and grosse ouersight and ignorance in the text and with being blinded with heate of wrangling when he himselfe poore soule knoweth not what he saith or if he do know then carieth himselfe most impudently therein The case is plaine if we do but consider that the beast and the harlot belong both to one as S. Iohn giueth vs to vnderstand by describing a Apoc 17.3.7 the woman to be sitting vpon the beast in respect whereof the Rhemish Diuines do name b Rhem. TestaÌ„ Annotat. Apoc. 131. the whore and the beast and Antichrist all as one So Ferus their Preacher of Mentz saith c Ferus in Mat. 24. Abhominationem disolationis quae est regnuÌ„ Antichristi Ioannes in Apocalypsi nunc quâ—deÌ„ per Bestiam cui draco potestatem suam dedit nunc per mulierem bestâ—â— insidentem intelliga c. The abomination of desolation which is the kingdome of Antichrist Iohn in the Apocalypse vnderstandeth sometimes by the beast to which the Dragon gaue power sometimes by the woman sitting vpon the beast and making all to drinke of the wine of her fornication S. Iohn then giueth vs to vnderstand that ten kings should arise out of the dissolution of the Empire as hath bene said Of these ten kings he saith d Ver. 13. These haue one mind and shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast Hereupon it shall follow that together with the beast e Ver. 14. they shall fight against the Lambe that is against Iesus Christ Afterward it shall come to passe that those ten kings f Ver. 16. shall hate the whore that sitteth vpon the beast and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eate her flesh and burne her with fire For that it may appeare how they shall giue their power to the beast and yet hate the whore that is submit themselues to Antichrists state and gouernment and yet hate the Babylon wherein he hath raigned he addeth g Ver. â—7 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will and to do with one consent for to giue their kingdome to the beast vntill the words of God be fulfilled So then vntill the words of God be fulfilled and he haue performed what in his secret iudgement he hath thereof decreed those ten kings shall submit themselues to the whore to the beast that is to Antichrist raigning in his Babylon But when God hath finished his worke otherwise then the kingdome of Antichrist shall be ouerthrowne the kings that before were subiect shall withdraw their obedience from him they shall hate the whore of Babylon the citie of the beast of Antichrist and hauing stript her of the state and dominion wherby she was aduanced and raigned ouer them they shall furiously bend themselues against her vntill they haue vtterly destroyed her These things we see cannot belong to the dayes of the heathen Emperours as before is said because the diuision of the Empire and these ten kings were not in those times It remaineth therefore that the prophecie belongeth to times afterwards succeeding Now being so vnderstood as necessarily it must be we see the same in part alreadie fulfilled in the Church of Rome and God in his good time will fulfill the rest The Empire hath bene diuided into many kingdomes those kings haue all submitted their scepters to the power and authoritie of the Bishop of Rome He hath plaid the Lord and tyrant ouer them and they haue patiently suffered him so to do Yet God at length hath opened some of their eyes alreadie and they haue learned to see the deceits of Antichrist and to hate the same The like mercie he will shew to the rest in his good time and they shall ioyntly apply themselues to worke the confusion of that wicked strumpet So then they whom God hath alreadie called are not now as M. Bishop cauilleth the enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers they were so so long as they gaue their power and kingdome to the beast but now they are Gods armie and the captaines of the Lords hoast to fight his battels against the beast and the whore vntill they haue wrought his iudgement vpon them Weigh the text gentle Reader and consider well how readily it yeeldeth thee that that we say thereof and hereby conceiue in what a pitifull case M. Bishop was when he was faine to passe it ouer as he hath done Yet his fellowes are beholding to him that he layeth lustily about him with words and seemeth to haue a good courage howsoeuer if he weighed the place at all it could not be but that in
his owne bosome he was well priuie that his cause was quite vndone W. BISHOP But you proceed and say pag. 7. that we further hold that the bloud of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome but in Hierusalem Here is a confusion of men and matters for we say that the bloud of many Saints rehearsed in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannicall Emperors but the martyring of those two principall witnesses Cap. 17. Enoch and Elias recorded in the eleuenth of the same shall be at Hierusalem aswell because the text is very plaine for it Ver. 8. specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streetes of that great citie where the Lord was crucified as for that the ordinarie interpreters of that place do so take it But M. Perkins holdeth that the place where Christ was crucified signifieth here not Hierusalem but Rome because Christ was crucified there in his members so it might as well signifie any other place of persecution as Rome the reason therefore being nought worth he fortifieth it with the name of S. Hierome but citeth in the margent a letter of two vertuous matrons Paula and Eustochium Good sir if S. Hierome had meant that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie Epist 17. Epist 17. he would haue set it out in his owne name which seeing he thought not expedient set the authoritie of it aside and vrge his reasons if you thinke it woorth your labour and you shall be answered In the meane season I hope all sober Christians will take the place where our Sauiour Christ was nailed on the crosse to signifie rather Hierusalem then Rome And consequently all that you haue alledged out of Scripture to proue the whore of Babylon to figure the ecclesiasticall state of Rome not to be woorth a rush R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins alledgeth is according to their common fancie that Antichrist shall haue his seate kingdome at Hierusalem therfore shall there shed the bloud of the Martyrs of Christ For some of theÌ„ perceiuing as M. Bishop might do if his eyes were matches that the Prophecie of S. Iohn cannot be determined vnder the heathen Empire of Rome do post vs off to Hierusalem there to find the whore of Babylon drunke with the bloud of Gods Saints and so vnderstand that which is said of the slaughter of a Apoc. 11.3.8 the two witnesses whose bodies are said to lie in the streets of the great citie where our Lord also was crucified Thus because Rome is most euidently described by S. Iohn they tell vs one while that these things are indeed to be referred to Rome but vnder the heathen Emperours and because there are some things that cannot possibly be applied to the time of the heathen Emperours they another while put all ouer to Hierusalem and will by no meanes admit of Rome albeit it be most manifestly pointed out for the place thereof But as touching the place of the death of those two witnesses M. Perkins rightly saith that it is not meant of Hierusalem but of Rome It is called the great citie and what the great citie importeth we vnderstand by the mention of it afterwards b Cap. 17.18 the great citie that raigneth ouer the kings of the earth That was Rome and not Hierusalem as hath beene before declared Hierusalem was destroyed 20. yeares or more before S. Iohn saw this Reuelation and c Hieron in Ier. lib. 4. cap. 19. Ciuitas eorum in aeterâ—os caneres collapsa est usque ad consummationem seculi ruinae Hierusalem permansurae sunt was fallen into dust for euer as Hierome speaketh the ruines or destructions thereof shall continue vntill the worlds end d Theodoret in Diu. cap. 9. Vsque ad finem seculi consummatio desolationis absque vlla mutatione permanebit Euen to the end of the world saith Theodoret the consummation of her desolation shall continue without any change The words of the Prophets are fully verified in her e Ierem. 19 11. I will breake this citie as a man breaketh a potters vessell that cannot be made whole againe f Mich 3 12. Sion shall be plowed as a field and Hierusalem shall be an heape and the mountaine of the house shall be as the high places of the forrest Saue onely for three turrets and a part of the wals on the west side left to shew what a citie the Romanes had ouercome it was so destroyed g Ioseph le bello Iudaiâ— cap. 18. 2â— to the very foundations as Iosephus recordeth and layed so flat as that men would hardly haue thought that there had bene any habitation there h Arias Montan in Mich. cap. 3. Ille quae nunc Hierosolyma dicitur 〈◊〉 Aelâ—o Adriano Athae nominâ— constructâ— â—â—que antiquam faciem ne quâ— situm etiam retinet Quod obscura quaedam illâ—â— quae extant vestigia de scriptio ipsa manifestè arguunt c. Onely Aelius Adrianus the Emperour built neare vnto it another citie which of his own name he called Aelia which since hath gone with Christians vnder the name of Hierusalem but hath indeed neither the fashion nor situation of Hierusalem as Arias Montanus noteth for the iustifying of that prophecie and therefore is but wrongly and corruptly called by that name Therefore there neither is nor shall bee any Hierusalem for Antichrist to raigne in nor streets of Hierusalem wherein the corpses of those two witnesses should lie To proue that Hierusalem is not there vnderstood M. Perkins bringeth the testimonie of Hieromes epistle written in the name of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella M. Bishop answereth that if Hierome had meant that that epistle should haue had his authoritie he would haue set it out in his owne name He could not denie but that Hierome was the author of it and if Hierome would not haue had it to cary his authoritie he would not surely haue giuen it place amongst the rest of his epistles But that he should keepe it still vnder their names for whom he wrote it there was a necessarie cause because there are some circumstances in it that are appliable to them onely and not to him Now Hierome though he there deny that great citie to be Hierusalem yet doth not expound it to be Rome but that is very manifest of it selfe because it is i Verse 7â— the beast that shall fight against those two witnesses and kill them and the beast as we haue before seene is the Romane state and gouernement and Rome the citie of seuen hils the place and seate thereof But to the contrarie M. Bishop vrgeth that it is sayd to be the citie where our Lord also was crucified and that he saith all sober Christians will take rather to signifie Hierusalem then Rome Thus no man must be taken to be sober that wil not serue the Popes turne Yet we take our selues to be sober and because we are so we know that the
blindnesse of heart is properly sinne therfore concupiscence is so also Rebellion against the law of the mind wherby is meant the law of God is properly sinne as before is shewed But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne saith it is therefore called sinne because it is the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne but otherwise also sinne and therefore properly and truly sinne But M. Bishop telleth vs that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne as anone shall appeare He saith further that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne we say is the proper taking of it and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne But the motions and enticements to sinne being the same with concupiscence we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne as sinne is taken largely so as to comprehend concupiscence A learned note But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught he should haue giuen vs here a better reason why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood when concupiscence is called sinne He telleth vs that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill and indeed it is true that very often he so calleth it but yet such an euill as maketh a man euill so that by reason thereof a Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis quamuis Propheta quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though a man be a Prophet a Patriarch an Apostle yet saith Hierome it is said vnto them by our Sauiour If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill but that which is properly sinne Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin But of this shall be spoken more at large anone Onely here it is to be obserued how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill because it prouoketh vs to euill So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill then it is called sinne It is sinne because it prouoketh to sinne and so euill because it prouoketh to euill and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill as shall appeare To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason and giueth to it a very vnproper answer b August in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris tuâ—s So long as thou liuest saith Austin of necessitie sinne must be in thy members sinne is there also taken vnproperly saith M. Bishop And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn c 1. Iob. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs alledging the one and concluding the other by occasioÌ„ of the words of our Sauior Christ d Ioh. 8.34 He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne and the seruant abideth not in the house for euer For hereupon he asketh the question What hope then haue we who are not without sinne and answereth at large that sinne though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne make our selues seruants vnto it because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation is the seruant of sinne that is to say of inward corruption Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith that if sinne be properly taken it may be truly said of some men that they are without sinne because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken that so long as a man liueth it must needs be in him as S. Austin speaketh Now he will proue that sinne is there vnproperly taken because S. Austin placeth it in the members For according to S. Austin and all the learned the subiect of sinne properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance Why M. Bishop is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie but onely by the soule Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse but that he knew that e Aug. contra Julian lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit the flesh is said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh which S. Austine confirmeth and saith that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem rursuâ— motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum ideò dicitur â—are concupiscere aduersus spiritum c. it is the soule it selfe which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to to the flesh and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to the spirit and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit and the spirit contrarie to the flesh Who knoweth not this saith he to Iulian which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs And what doth not M. Bishop know it that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome Let me tell him once againe that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence which the bodie is not of it selfe but onely by the soule and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie but that S. Austin by sinne in the members doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne to say nothing of that I haue before declared that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe thrall and subiect vnto sin For conclusion of this point he
Be it so and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing we looke for nothing by desert but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God Let M. Bishop say Is there any man who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert If he cannot but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels Giue vs this day our dayly bread why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands as of his meere blessing and gift that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life But where hath he so appointed We find that God b 1. Ioh. 5.11 in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and that he hath c Ephes 2.10 prepared for vs good workes to walke in as the Apostle speaketh namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time haue taught that heauen may be merited we first tell him that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught and secondly that he falsly fathereth vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it was neuer imagined by the Fathers as partly hath appeared alreadie and shall God willing appeare further 13. W. BISHOP But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the ancient Church and then beginneth with S. Bernard who liued a thousand yeares after Christ he in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things which we call merits are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of raigning I answer that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine Manuâ—l cap. 22. Secondly he citeth S. Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sence that is by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes and so to merit In Psal 114. Thirdly Basil Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully not for the merite of their doing but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combat and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes but in a fuller measure according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits Psal 120. 4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal 120. where he saith as M. Perkins reporteth He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Answ S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits It had bene better said He crowneth thee not c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins When God crowneth thee he crowneth his gifts not thy merites De grat lib. arb cap. 6. Which is true being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crowne his owne gifts not thy merits if thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then we may as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose Psal 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainly now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie R. ABBOT The place of Bernard is in the very end of his booke De gratia libero arbitrio where hauing before deuided a Bernar. de grat et lib arbit Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit proemia the gifts of God into merits and rewards he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo merituÌ„ omne consistit ab ipso libero arbitrio sit c. Deus facit volenteÌ„ hoc est voluntati suae consentientem to consent to God which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth is not of our free will but of God himselfe So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose but what is c Totum ex illa wholly of the grace of God Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis inceÌ„tiua occuliae praedâ—stinationis iudiciâ— futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noÌ„ causa regnandi If properly we will terme those which we call our merites they are the seedgrounds of our hope incitements of our loue tokens of our secret predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our raigning or of our hauing the kingdome Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites is but vnproperly spoken that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life as a foretoken thereof and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and
giuen vnto vs and not the cause for which hee is moued to bestow the same vpon vs euen as Saint Augustine speaketh e August in Psalm 109. Via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum queÌ„ promisit the way by which hee will bring vs to that end which hee hath promised Now what sayth M. Bishop to this place of Bernard no question but he hath an answer readie though by his owne confession he neuer saw the place so notable a facultie haue these men to tell an Authors meaning before euer they looke into him forsooth Bernards meaning is that merits are not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed vpon vs out of which our merits proceed Thus he answereth Bernard by a plaine contradiction to Bernards words Bernard saith they are not the cause Yes saith M. Bishop they are the cause though they be not the whole cause But see how scholerlike he dealeth therein for it is as much as if he should say The tree is not the whole cause of the fruite that it bringeth foorth but the roote whence it proceedeth and the boughes whereupon it groweth whereas the roote and the boughes are parts of the tree without which it is not a tree and therefore the exception maketh nothing against it but that the tree is called the whole cause of the fruite So saith he Merits are not the whole cause of saluation but the grace and promise of God distinguishing merits as one part of the cause from the grace and promise of God as another part of the cause whereas merite by his owne rule in the beginning of this question doth alwayes necessarily include the promise and grace of God and can be no merite but as it proceedeth from grace and hath of God a promise of reward By this exception therefore he saith nothing to hinder but that merits are the whole cause of saluation fully and directly contrary to that that Saint Bernard saith that merites which he intendeth no otherwise but implying the grace and promise of God are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Yet of that which he saith he telleth vs that it is Saint Bernards owne doctrine not alledging any words of Bernard to that purpose but onely quoting a sermon of his where there is nothing for his purpose as afterwards shall appeare in answering his testimonies of the Fathers In the meane time whereas he excepteth that Bernard liued a thousand yeares after Christ I must aunswer him that his testimonie is so much the more effectuall in that God in the middest of so great corruption and darknesse did still by him and others continue the light and acknowledgement of this truth The next place cited by M. Perkins is vnder S. Austins name though that booke indeed be none of his f August Manuâ—l ca. 22. Tota spes mea est in morte Domini meis mors eius meritum meum refugium meum salus vita resurrectio mea All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merite M. Bishop hereto saith that it is true in a good sence Where we see him to be an apt scholler and well to haue learned the lesson of the Index Expurgatorius g Jndex Expur in castigat Bertram We set some good sence vpon the errors of the Fathers when they are opposed against vs in contentions with our aduersaries But what is that good sence Marry by the vertue of his death and passion grace is bestowed on me to merite But surely hee doth not thinke that euer the author of those words intended that sence If he will make that sence of the one part of the sentence he must necessarily make the like of the rest The death of the Lord is my merite my refuge my saluation my life and resurrection If his meaning be the death of the Lord is my merite that is hath purchased for me that I should merite for my selfe then in the rest also shall be likewise said the death of the Lord is my refuge that is hath purchased for me that I should be a refuge for my selfe the death of the Lord is my saluation life and resurrection that is hath purchased for me to be saluation life and resurrection to my selfe So likewise where he addeth h Meritum â—â—eâ—â— miseratio Domini noÌ„sum meriti inops quamdiis miserationum Dominus non de fuerit My merite is the mercie of the Lord so long as the Lord of mercie shall not faile I shall not want merite the meaning shall likewise be the mercie of the Lord giueth mee ablenesse to merite for my selfe and so song as his mercie faileth not so long shall not I faile of good workes to merite and deserue heauen Now these constructions are lewd and absurd and indeed farre from the conscience of the writer of those words who findeth nothing in his owne workes to comfort himselfe withall and therefore flieth vnto the death and merite of Christ and the mercie of God as his onely succour and the onely stay that hee hath to rest vpon Which that the Reader may throughly vnderstand I hold it not amisse to set downe what the same author hath written in another place of the same booke euen out of the same spirit i Ibid. cap. 13. Sileat sibi ipsae anima et traÌ„seat se noÌ„ cogitaÌ„do se sed te Deus meus quoniam tu es reuera tota spes fiducia mâ—a Est enim inte Deo meo Domino nostro Iesu Christo vniuscuiusque nostrum portio et sangâ— câ—ro Vbi ergo portio mea regnat ibi regnare me credo Vbi sanguis meus dominatur ibi dominaeri me confido Vbi caro mea glorificatur ibi gloriosum me esse cognosco Quamuis peccator sim tamen de hac communione gratiae non diffido Etsi peccata mea prohibent substantia mea requirit Etsi delicta propriae mea excludunt naturae communio non repellit c. Desperare vtique potuissem propter nimia peccata mea vitiae culpas infinitas negligentias meas quas egi quotidi è indesinenter ago corde ere opere omnibus modis quibus humana fragilitas peccare potest nisi verbum tuum Deus meus caro fieret habitaret in nobis Sed desperare iam non audeo quoniam subditui ille tibi vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis tulit chyrographum peccaetorum nostrorum affigens illud cruci peccatum crucifixit mortem In ipso autem securus respiro c. Let my soule saith he be silent to it selfe and passe ouer it selfe not thinking of it selfe but of thee O my God because thou art indeed my whole hope and trust There is in thee my God and our Lord Iesus Christ the portion and flesh and bloud of euery
the reward God hauing so ordained the one to be the way whereby he will bring vs to the other But when we looke to the true cause of all we truly teach that it is God that giueth vs both good life and eternall life both the worke and the reward not the one properly for the other but the one to follow the other onely for his mercies sake Thus the fathers also conceiued hereof as appeareth by that that hath bene alledged from them We speake as they spake and they as we and the Papists do them absurd wrong to wrest straine their speeches as they do Whatsoeuer M. Bishop hath cited from them vnderstand it according to S. Bernards rule before set downe as of the way not as of a cause and they differ nothing at all from that that we say CHAPTER 6. OF SATISFACTION 1. W. BISHOP MAster Perkins acknowledgeth first ciuil satisfaction that is Pag. 117. a recompence for iniuries or damages any way done to our neighbour such as the good Publican Zacheus practised Luk. 19. who restored fourefold the things gotten by extortion and deceit This is wittily acknowledged by him but little exercised among Protestants for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as one fold for their extortion bribes vsury and other eraftie ouerreaching of their neighbours But of this kind of satisfaction which we commonly call restitution we are not here to treate nor of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly but of such priuate penance which is either enioyned by the confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here R. ABBOT We wil neuer beleeue you M. Bishop that your vpstart sacrament of Confession hath any such effect as you pretend for satisfaction and restitution of euill gotten goods vntill we shall certainly vnderstand that your maisters the Iesuites haue made restitution of those goods which you and your fellow Seculars by Watson your proctor haue charged them to haue embezelled by cosinage and villanie in drawing them by their notable imposture of spirituall exercise to sell their whole estate and to put the money into their hands I might write here a pretie story to shew what fruites your sacrament of confession hath yeelded in that behalfe but the occasion no further requiring then it doth let that one example now suffice But in M. Perkins words you might haue taken knowledge of a Protestant namely Zacheus without any sacrament of confession offering restitution to them to whom he had done wrong and doubt not you but the rest who faithfully are that which they professe to be are alwayes ready to do the like and that more holily and religiously then you are wont to do But to the purpose the satisfaction here spoken of is the yeelding of a sufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for the trespasse that we haue done vnto him The very naming whereof may be sufficient to make vs detest the doctrine of these wretched men who doubt not to the singular impeachment and dishonor of the crosse of Christ to attribute vnto men a power for the performance of any such satisfaction vnto God We may well maruell that any taking vpon him to be a Christian man should haue his heart so senslesse and dead as not to abhorre to think that a man should be said to giue a worthy recompence to God for his owne sinne By which meanes they make that a matter of our merite which neuer any faithfull man imagined to be any other but Gods meere mercie and teach men to seeke for that in themselues which they should find only in the blood of Christ and take away the true conscience of thankfulnesse to God for the remission of our sinnes whilest we can pleade that he doth not so forgiue vs but that we are faine to make him amends and giue him ful satisfaction for the wrong Nay it taketh away also the true conscience of sinne it selfe whilest it is hereby conceiued to be a matter of so small moment as that our beggerly deuotions and obseruations should be thought to be an effectuall expiation and redemption thereof Yea and it argueth a very base conceit of the high maiestie of God to thinke so base trumpery such baggage deuices as they haue forged to be a fit and sufficient recompence for an offence to him But herein the Church of Rome hath renewed another point of the Pelagian heresie who taught a August Epist 106. Quod poenitentibus venia non detur seâ—undum gratiam misericordiam Dei sed secundum meritum laborem eorum qui per poenitentiam dignificerint misericordia that pardon and forgiuenesse is not giuen to penitents according to the grace and mercie of God but according to the merite and labour or paines of them who by repentance shall be worthy of Gods mercy Thus the Pelagians affirmed and thus the Papists affirme the fathers and the children still accord in one Against the Pelagians the ancient Church defined as we do now against the Papists b Ibid. Fateatur secundum gratiaÌ„ misericordiaÌ„ Dei veniam poenitentibus dari non secundum merita ecrum quandoquidem etiam ipsam poenitentiam donioÌ„ Dei dixit Apostolus c. that it is to be confessed that pardon is granted to the penitent or repentant by the grace and mercy of God not according to their merits in as much as the Apostle telleth vs that repentance it self also is the gift of God Here is no interposing of merit or satisfaction here is nothing but grace and mercy c August conc Pelag. Celest lib. 2 cap. 24. which is not grace in any sort as we haue heard before out of S. Austin except it be free in euery sort Arnobius derided in the Pagans this opinion of their satisfactions to their gods and out of the nature and disposition of the true God telleth theÌ„ what the behauiour of their gods should be if they were indeed as they are called Gods d Arnob. adu gentes lib. 7. Ergone iniurias suas Dij venduÌ„t atque vt paruuli pusiones quo animis parcant abstineantque ploratibus passerculos pupulos equuleos panes accipiunt quibus auocari se possint ita Dij immortales placamenta ista sumunt quibus iraâ— atque animos ponant in graetiam suis cum offensoribus redeant Atqui ego rebar Deos c. Do the gods then saith he sell their own wrongs and as litle children to appease them and to make them leaue crying do take birds and puppies and hobbihorses and cakes to withdraw them froÌ„ the things they minded so do the immortall Gods receiue these pacifications wherby to put away their anger
that are far spred and are growne old are not to be set vpon in this sort because by long tract and continuance of time they haue had great oportunitie to steale the truth And therefore as touching all prophane heresies and schismes that are growne old we are in no sort to do otherwise but either to conuince them if need be by onely authoritie of Scripture or else to auoyde them being aunciently conuicted and condemned by generall Councell of Catholike Bishops Where we see that Vincentius affirmeth directly contrary to that that M. Bishop reporteth of him that heresies are not alwayes to be dealt with by those rules that he hath before set downe yea that heresies that haue continued long and haue bene farre spread are no otherwise to be conuicted but by onely authoritie of Scripture And thereof he giueth reason for that they haue had time and oportunitie to falsifie the rules of faith and to corrupt the bookes and writings of the auncient Fathers which heretikes alwaies labour to do so that the doctrine of faith cannot safely be ieoparded vpon their consent Now whatsoeuer M. Bishop and his fellowes dreame of this booke this rule doth so fit vs as if Vincentius had purposely studied to instruct vs in what sort we ought to deale against them and to iustifie the course that we haue vsed in that behalfe Antichrist hath set vp his kingdome aloft in the Church and the whoore of Babylon hath sitten like a Queene for many ages past She hath fulfilled that that was prophesied of her that h Apoc. 14.8 she should make all nations to drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornications i Chap. 17.2 The Kings of the earth haue committed fornication with her and the inhabitants of the earth haue bene drunke with the wine of her fornications She hath had k Gregor lib. 4. epist. 38 Rex superbiae propè est quod dici nefas est sacordotum est praeparatus exercitus c. an armie of Priests according to the saying of Gregorie an armie of Monkes and Friers of Schoolemen and Canonists who haue bin her agents and factors for the vttering of her merchandize and the vpholding of her state They haue vsed their endeuour to the vttermost for the corrupting l Erasm Epist ad Warram Archiepis Caniuar apud Hieron of the auncient monuments of the Church They haue made away many of the writings of the Fathers they haue falsified those that remaine they haue foisted in bastards and counterfeits vnder their names Most lewdly and shamefully m Ludou Viues de caus corrupt art Adscripta sunt Origeni Cypriavo Hieronymo Augustino quae ipsis nunquam ne per quiâ—tem quidem in mentem venerant indigna non solùm tantia ingenijs atque illa eruditione sed etiam seruis corâ— siquos Scythas habuerunt aut Seres they haue fathered vpon Origen Hierom Cyprian Austin the rest such things as they neuer dreamed of vnworthy not only of their conceit and learning but euen of their slaues if they had any that were Scythians and Barbarians By the names of such renowmed authors they haue sought to gaine credite to deuices of their owne such as the auncient Church was neuer acquainted with Now therefore Vincentius his rule standeth good on our part that inasmch as they haue had so long time and oportunitie to steale away the truth and to falsifie the Fathers writings therefore we are to conuict them by authoritie of Scripture onely knowing it to be true which Chrysostome saith that n Chrysost oper imperf in Math. hom 49. Ex quâ— heresis obtinuit Ecclesias nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem nisi Scripturae diuine c Nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas c. Sciens Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in nouissimis diebus esse futuram ideo mandat vt Christiani volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullam rem fugiant nisi ad Scripturas Alioqui si ad alia respexerint scandalizabuntur peribunt non intelligentes qua sit vera Ecclesia per hoc incident in abhominationem desolationis qua stabit in sanctis Ecclesiae locis since heresies haue gotten foote in the Church there is no proofe of true Christianitie nor other refuge for Christians desirous to know the truth of faith but onely the Scriptures of God no way for them that are desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures Our Lord saith he knowing that there should be so great confusion of things in the last dayes doth therefore wil that Christians desirous to receiue assurance of true faith should flie to nothing but onely to the Scriptures Otherwise if they looke to any thing else they shall stumble and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church and thereby shall light vpon the abhomination of desolation which shall stand in the holy places of the Church Now therfore we haue done nothing but that that in the course of Christianitie is iust and right to call the triall of the controuersies and questions of religion to the authoritie of the Scriptures onely and to teach men therein onely to repose the certaintie and assurance of their faith Albeit by the singular prouidence of almightie God it hath come to passe that in antiquitie as we haue the same remaining vnto vs there is yet light sufficient to discouer the apostasies abhominations of the Church of Rome to iustifie the truth of God against their falshood and lies and to make it appeare that we do rightly and truly apply the Scriptures to the reproouing and conuincing thereof as through this whole worke is most plainly and cleerly to be seene And this is so much the more manifest for that they themselues haue bene forced to complaine that they are faine o Index Expur in castig BertraÌ„ CuÌ„ in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores extenuemus ex cusemus excogitato commento persaepe negemus et commodumijs sensuÌ„ affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum aduersarijs c. to beare with very many errors as they call them in the old Catholike writers and to extenuate them to excuse them by some deuised shift to denie them and to set some conuenient meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in conflicts with their aduersaries In many questions we shew the antiquitie the vniuersalitie the vniforme consent and agreement of the auncient church for vs and against them and it is strange to see what poore and miserable shifts yea what impudent and shamelesse deuices they are driuen to and yet cannot auaile to suppresse the light thereof In a word it is plainly found that they haue no cause to bragge of
Vincentius Lyrinensis either as doing damage to vs or yeelding any gaine or aduantage to themselues 14. W. BISHOP Thus M Perkins hauing ended with the Law and Testimony addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons to his former the first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwayes to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition Answ First for our Sauior Iesus Christ be out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how Christ fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they do sometimes but to say they neuer wrote any thing out of Tradition proceeds of most grosse ignorance Where had S. Mathew the adoring of the Sages S Iohn Baptists preaching briefly that was done before his owne conuersion but by tradition S. Marke wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from Peter as witnesseth Eusebius * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. Luke testifieth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions R. ABBOT The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpoÌ„ tradition vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also But that doth he neuer he reproueth traditions and condemneth them but neuer vseth one word to approue any M. Bishop answereth that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name I say vnto you and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law But that is a very weak and silly shift yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures then we heare him saying I say vnto you as euery Reader may obserue Againe where he doth say I say vnto you he teacheth vs to vnderstand that a Iohn 14 10. he speaketh not of himselfe but what he saith he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to construe it b Chrysost supra sect 7. out of the Law and the Prophets according to the written word of the law and the Prophets deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence Thirdly it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop that where our Sauiour doth most often vse those words c Mat. 5.18.20 I say vnto you he vseth them to challenge the written Law froÌ„ the corruption of Tradition and to affirme the original truth thereof For Tradition had taught men to vnderstaÌ„d the law literally only of outward actions but he shewes in the commandements d Ver 22.28 of murther and adultery that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law and taken from it e Ver. 34. teaching onely not to forsweare but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice and where God had said Thou shalt loue thy neighbour by a corrupt glose put to it Thou shalt hate thine enemie but he teacheth that the name of f Ver. 44. a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies Thus he rectifieth that which Tradition had made crooked but for Tradition he saith nothing Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law would haue peruerted Traditions also if there had bene any and Christ would haue restored the integritie thereof but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter We heare him often saying g Mat. 19.4 Haue ye not read and h Chap. 21.13 It is written and i Luke 10.26 What is written in the law how readest thou but we neuer heare him saying Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition He telleth the Saduces k Mat. 22.29 Ye erre because ye know not the Scriptures and the cause of the Disciples error was noted l Iohn 20.9 As yet they knew not the Scripture but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tradition for any cause of error He saith m Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures they testifie of me but he neuer saith search after Traditions they are they that testifie of me n Mat. 26 54. How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled saith he but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deliuered by tradition o Luke 24.27 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him but out of Tradition he interpreted nothing vnto them p Ver. 45. He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions Thus the Euangelists from place to place vpon diuers occasions do set downe q Mat. 1.22 2.17 c. the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets mentioning the things which are wriâ—â—en but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradition And what will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures and to Traditions none at all He telleth vs a childish tale that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies but their owne they do sometimes as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists who maketh that very seldome which is so often done And when it is done it is done by Scripture only neuer by Tradition which is the point whereto he should haue answered and he saith nothing to it Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader by seeming to say somwhat when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary and concerneth not that that is obiected to him To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tradition saith he proceedeth of most grosse ignorance Where had Mathew the adoring of the Sages c. Pelting brabler what is this to that that M. Perkins saith Christ and his Apostles in infinite places confirme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times they signifie the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God They neuer confirme