leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can act or will He mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe onely to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will was fettered and then Will could of it selfe turne to God Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that Parable of the man wounded in the way Luk. 10. betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists onely say but as the holy Ghost saith left halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all supernaturall riches spoyled of his originall iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and Will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all moral duty Now touching supernaturall workes because he left all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that way of grace and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigall Son Luk. 15. He was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to act many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of Free-will capable of grace and also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation which is as much as M. Perkins affirmeth And this to be the very doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these words in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moses lawe could arise out of that sinfull state After it sheweth how our deliuerance is wrought and how freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Iesus Christ that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with it So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his Free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknesse as Heretikes deeme 12. q. 109. Art 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillars hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these words of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. No man can come to me vnlesse my Father draw him he concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I will omit as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine R. ABBOT Here is another contradiction framed vpon the anuile of M. Bishops ignorance whilest he vnderstandeth not that workes morally good may be spiritually euill and whilest they a Luk 16.15 are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act yet may be abhominable with God by the vncleannesse of the heart Which if he had duly considered he might well haue seene that both these assertions may stand together that man hath freedome of will to do the outward acts of morall vertues and yet that all that man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholy euill because his morall vertues without grace are in Gods sight but so many corruptions of good workes being poysoned in the roote of vnbeleefe and wholy diuerted from their true and proper end so that God hath no respect to them because in them there is no respect at all to God This followeth afterwards more fully to be handled towards the end of this question but in the meane time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point that M. Perkins leaueth a man no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie and as if he had very wisely handled the matter addeth his epiphonema So vncertaine are the steps of them that walke in darknesse very fitly agreeing to himselfe who neither vnderstandeth what the aduersarie saith nor what he himselfe is to say for his owne part Whereupon it is that he conceiueth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will whereas they are as farre different one from the other as heauen is from earth The agreement forsooth is in that M. Perkins granteth Free will in the state of grace But so did Luther Caluin and so do we all as far as M. Perkins doth The Papists say that man hath in his owne nature a power of Free wil which being only stirred and helped can and doth of it selfe adioyne it selfe to grace to accept thereof and to worke with it This is it that we denie we say that freedome of the will to turne to God and to worke with him is no power of nature but the worke of grace that it is in no sort of man himselfe but wholy and onely the gift of God that howsoeuer God do offer grace yet that man hath no power in himselfe or in his owne will to assent and yeeld vnto it but it is God himselfe that withall worketh in him to accept thereof that to the conuersion of a sinner there ariseth nothing from the motion of his owne will howsoeuer assisted and helped of God but what God by his Spirit doth worke in it Vpon this point onely Luther and Caluin and we all insist to chalenge all wholy vnto God
by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath bene once before spoken at large in the question of Free will R. ABBOT We are so to affirme the effect of iustifying faith as may make good what the Scripture hath deliuered concerning it Which because the Church of Rome doth not in making faith precedent in time to iustification and grace M. Perkins iustly findeth fault therewith Our Sauiour saith a Ioh. 5.24 He that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent me hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed froÌ„ death to life Our passing from death to life is our iustification If euery one that beleeueth be passed from death to life then euery one that beleeueth is iustified or if there be any that beleeueth and yet is not iustified theÌ„ it is not true of euery one that beleeueth that he is passed from death to life To this place M. Perkins alluded though he quoted it not but M. Bishop thought it safest for him to say nothing of it To the other place his answer is a simple shift He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ I answer saith M. Bishop that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament But we answer him againe that if Christ speake of eating in the sacrament then it must follow that whosoeuer is not partaker of the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is excluded from life because our Sauiour expresly saith b Ioh. 6.53 Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud yee haue no life in you But so to say is absurd and false as in the example of the crucified theefe and many other is apparant and plaine Againe the Sacrament was not instituted long after and will M. Bishop exclude any faithfull that after this time died before that institution from that eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which Christ here recommendeth for the hauing of eternall life S. Austin saith that c Bedâ— in 1. Cor. 10. ex August ser ad infantes in baptisme we are made partakers of the bodie and bloud of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the Bread and the Cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing he hath found that alreadie which that Sacrament signifieth The Apostle testifieth that the fathers of the old Testament did d 1. Cor. 10.3.4 all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke not the same one with another as the e Rhem. Annot. 1. Cor. 10. Rhemistes for a shift expound it but f Aug. in Joan. tract 26. spiritualem eandem quem nos the same that we do For g Idem de vtilit penitent c. 1. Eundem non inuento quomodo intelligam nisi eundem quem manducamus nos I find not saith S. Austin how I should vnderstand The same but the same that we eate Therefore they also did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud But their eating and drinking was not the participation of the Sacrament Therefore Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud doth not import any thing tied to the participation of the Sacrament Yea the whole course of that text giueth vs plainely to vnderstand that Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaneth the same as by beleeuing in him Therefore doth S. Austin by the one expound the other h Aug. in Ioan. tract 25. Crede manducasti Ibid. tract 26. Hortans vt credamus in eum Credere enim in eum hoâ— est manducare pâ—nem viuum Qui credit manducat Beleeue and thou hast eaten he exhorteth vs to beleeue in him for to beleeue in him that is to eate the bread of life he that beleeueth eateth And so saith he of the fathers eating and drinking that this i Idem de vtilit poenit Fide capiebatur non corpore hauriebatur spirituall meate and drinke was receiued by faith and not by the bodie Now if beleefe in Christ be imported by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ then M. Perkins proofe was not vaine but M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe a vaine man to giue so vaine an answer without any proofe thereof at all Without doubt k Ioh. 6.54 whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his bloud hath eternall life But no man hath eternall life but he that is iustified and sanctified Whosoeuer therfore eateth and drinketh the flesh bloud of Christ is iustified sanctified But our beleeuing in Christ is our eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud So soone therfore as we beleeue in Christ we are iustified sanctified that it may be true which the Apostle saith that l Rom. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ is to all and vpon all that do beleeue which cannot be sayd if any beleeue vpon whom there yet is not the Righteousnesse of God to iustifie him before God The proofes that he alledgeth to the contrarie are verie simple and slender First he alledgeth the words of S. Paul m Rom. 10.13 Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shal be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued c. Where of iustification we heare not a word nor is any thing purposely meant thereof For the words which the Apostle citeth out of the Prophet Ioel touch not the order of iustification but import a promise to them that are iustified by faith in Christ and accordingly do call vpon the name of the Lord that in the calamities and confusion of the world God will preserue them to be partakers of euerlasting saluation Now we graunt that by order of nature there is a precedence of faith to iustification but we denie all prioritie in respect of time And whereas M. Bishop auoucheth that prayer goeth betwixt faith and iustification beside that it is not proued by the Apostles words it is verie vntrue and false For there can be no true prayer without n Zach. 12.10 Vulgat the spirit of grace and of prayer without o Rom. 8.15 Gal. 4.6 the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father The spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctified and because sanctification is consequent to iustification it must follow also that iustification goeth before prayer so that in praying for the forgiuenesse of sinnes it commeth to passe with vs which the Prophet saith p Esa 6â— 24 Before they call I will answer them Let M. Bishop order the matter how
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
now he maketh of it Which meaning of his cannot in any sort be true because it is faith which first heareth and beleeueth and receiueth the words of God thereby prescribeth vnto charity the way that it is to go and the duty that it is to performe without which what is charity but a wild a wandering affection easely swaruing and caried away from the due respect and loue of God so that by faith it is that charity pleaseth God and d Heb. 11.6 without faith it is vnpossible to please God Now seeing with God we cannot thinke that the greater is accepted for the lesse but rather the lesse for the greater not the mistresse so to speake for the handmaides sake but rather the handmaid for the mistresse sake we must needes make faith not the handmaide as M. Bishop doth but the mistresse because by faith it is that charity is acceptable vnto God But he telleth vs that S. Iames doth demonstrate charity to be the life and as it were the soule of faith when he saith Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charitie But he wrongeth his Reader in citing thus falsly the words of S. Iames. For S. Iames saith not so is faith without charity but so is faith without workes Now charity cannot be without works but if there might not be workes without charity S. Paul would not haue said e 1. Cor. 13.3 Though I feede the poore with all my goods and though I giue my body to be burned and haue not loue it profiteth me nothing Charity is inwardly the affection of the heart seene onely to God but workes are outwardly visible and apparant to men and therefore there is a difference to be made betwixt charity and workes which wholy ouerthroweth all that M. Bishop here goeth about to prooue For the faith whereof we here dispute is inward in the heart because with f Rom. 10.10 the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse But that which is without cannot be the life or soule of that which is within nay it selfe hath from within all the life that it hath and if it receiue not life from within it is altogether dead Workes therefore being outward and issuing from within if they be true can by no meanes be said to be the life of faith that is within But that which S. Iames saith he saith it of workes He saith nothing therefore to prooue that charity is the life and soule of faith But how then will he say doth Saint Iames make workes as it were the life and soule of faith Very well according to that meaning of faith which he there intendeth For he speaketh of faith as it is outwardly professed to men g Iam. 2.14.18 Thâ—u saiest thou hast faith shew me thy faith I will shew thee my faith Now in this respect workes are rightly said to be the lifâ— of faith not charitie but workes because charity cannot be discerned by the eies of men but workes of behauiour and conuersation are discerned Yea there may be a profession of the faith and works thereunto correspondent outwardly when yet there is neither faith nor charity within Yet where it is so men outwardly to men and to the Church go for no other but liuing mâ—mâ—â—â—s of the Church vntill such time as the winde of temptation bloweth them away and discouereth them to haue bene but chaffe when in semblance they seemed to be good corne But where there is outward profession of faith and there is not conuersation thereunto agreeing a man is accounted but a dead branch fit to be cut off his profession wanteth that that should giue it life and grace he is euery mans by word and reproch his hypocrisie is detested of all men and therefore is much more lothsome vnto God In a word S. Paul speaketh of faith in one meaning as it is inward in the heart to God S. Iames speaketh of faith in another meaning as it is outward in the face to men If we vnderstand it according to Saint Paul it is faith that giueth life to all the rest as afterwards shall further appeare If we vnderstand it according to Saint Iames workes are the life of faith and giue it name and being because a man is not accounted faithfull for his words vnlesse there be also workes agreeable to his words Now therefore Maister Bishops comparison whereby he would make charitie as the life and soule and faith as the body cannot be made good out of this place nay indeede it cannot be made good at all For that which must be as the life and soule must be the internall and essentiall forme of the thing But h Bellarm. de iustificat lib. 2. cap. 4. Forma fidei extrinseca noÌ„ intrinseca quae dei illi non vt sit sed vt moueaturâ— sit res actuosa operans charitie is to faith a forme onely extrinsecall and outward not an inward forme saith Bellarmine not giuing it his being but onely his mouing actiuitie and working Charity therefore cannot be called the life and soule of faith Now because it is but an outward and accidentall forme the mouing and working that it giueth vnto faith is but outward and accidentall For the proper and naturall act and motion of a thing cannot proceed from an accidentall forme Faith therefore hath it owne inward essentiall forme whereby it hath life being within it selfe whence proceedeth a motion working that is proper to it selfe And thus doth the Apostle set it down distinctly as a vertue absolute in it self wheÌ„ he saith i 1. Cor. 13.13 Now abide these three faith hope and loue Where to say that faith is as the body and loue as the soule is to make the Apostle to speake absurdly as if a man for two should reckoÌ„ a body a soule According to this distinction doth the scripture still set forth faith in the nature of faith to be the instrument of our iustification before God eueÌ„ according to that life soule that is that proper essentiall forme whereby it hath the being of faith which yet in iustifying vs receiueth charity as an accidentall forme to be vnto it an instrument for mouing and stirring abroad in the performance of all duties recommended vnto vs both to God and men Thus Bellarmine perforce wresteth from M. Bishop yea and from himselfe also this assertion of faith being likened to the body and charity to the soule Yet M. Bishop once againe will assay to proue it by S. Paul making charity a more excellent gift then faith reckoning faith hope and charity and concluding the greatest of these is charity But this testimony auaileth him nothing at all for it followeth not that because the eie is a more excellent member then the eare therefore the eie is as the life and soule to the eare or the eare the instrument of the eie No more doth it follow that because charity is
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
added for the producing of the effect must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ as not being a totall and perfect cause our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie it cannot be denied but that our satisfactioÌ„s are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes why doth M. Bishop answer nothing but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction for it implieth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a totall cause and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect M. Bishop telleth vs that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction and to fulfil his will and ordinance A goodly and witty deuice I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing healing of my wound I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound which I must apply and lay to the former medicine My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt and I must my selfe pay the debt againe that my sureties paiment may stand good for me A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction is a toy so improbable senslesse as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts that could find no better cloke to hide their shame Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end bring into the Church what they list lewdly to deuise and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit passion of Christ The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ But here M. Perkins noted that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs and our receiuing of him God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word SacrameÌ„ts we receiue him by faith He required it to be proued that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part or receiued on our part Why did M. Bishop omit to do this why doth he neither bring reason example nor authority to shew vs that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application or in what sort it should be said to apply We haue shewed e Of Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before that faith is as it were the hand of the soule an instrument properly seruing for apprehending receiuing laying hold of and applying to our selues why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction But why do we require him to do more then he can do But here is a secret gentle Reader which I wish thee to take knowledge of and if thou be acquainted with him aske him if occasion serue the solution of this doubt He telleth vs through all this discourse that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin the eternal punishment therof that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins But now after the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactioÌ„s follow after how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ As for example M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him a release froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope What do we here then with applying the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance But his declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—at They thrust in words of truth that the poison of their falshood may find entrance It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—figurant They fashion their most vaine filthy deuices to the holy names and titles and arguments of true religion He telleth vs that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin and taketh fully away all paine due to sin But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge but yet did we neuer find but that baptisme for pain outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him sicke and diseased before sicke and diseased still lame before lame still blind before blind still We see that infants baptized who he saith haue no sin to satisfie for yet haue many pangs and frets and sicknesses and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin He who dieth in that state saith he goeth presently to heauen but he who dieth in that state dieth he without pain We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy not by reason neither do his eyes look which way his feet go Well let this passe What after baptisme If after we transgresse saith he then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized h 1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation or satisfaction for our sins What is the difference then if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement satisfaction for our sinnes Yea saith M. Bishop God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ but doth
worship of God p Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Sine cultis veri Dei etiam quod virtui videtur esse peccatum est nec placere vllus Deo sine Deo potest without which worship of the true God euen that that seemeth to be vertue is sinne and therefore it offended Austin and he retracted it as a thing mis-spoken that he had sayd q August Retract lib. 1. cap. 3 Displiâ—et mihi quod philosophos non vera pietate praeditos dixi virtutis luce fulâ—â—se that the Philosophers shined with the light of vertue who were not endued with true pietie or religion towards God A part of which pietie it is in all our good workes to haue a respect vnto him to do them for his sake thereby intending to serue and obey and to please him so that r Origen in Numer hom 25. Inanis est omnis actus omnis sermo in quo non est intrinsecus aliquid pro Deo pro mandato Dei vaine is euerie action and euerie speech that hath not somewhat inwardly for God and for the commandement of God and Å¿ August De ciuit Dei lib. 19. cap. 21. Virtutes cum ad se ipsas referuntur nec propter aliud expetuntur etiam tunc inflatae superbae sunt when vertues are referred to themselues and desired onely for themselues and not for some other respect to God they are swelling and proud and are not to be accounted for vertues but vices And this respect to God must acknowledge him to be the giuer of all our vertue and goodnesse and that we do but serue him with his owne so that t Idem cont Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 3. Non quia per seipsum factum quod est operire nudum peccatum est sed de tali opere non in Domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatum Et ante Cum non ad suum authorem referuâ—tur donae Dei hoc ipso mali his vtentes afficiuntur iniusts although to cloth a naked man or any other such like worke by it selfe be not a sinne yet of such a worke not to glorie in the Lord and not to referre it to him as the author of it none but a wicked man will denie it to be a sinne Now these conditions and circumstances being required to make a worke good u Arnob. in Psal 26. Fieri poterit vt obsequendi voto offendam si qualitèr debeant ante non discam it may be that a man minding to do a seruice may commit an offence if he do not first learne in what sort he should do it Which a man cannot learne by Free vvill and by the law of nature and therefore offendeth euen in those things wherein he seemeth outwardly to do well But M. Bishop telleth vs that in such workes God is glorified because albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto Where we may iustly wonder that so absurd a fancie should preuaile with him that God should be glorified there where he is neither thought of nor knowne and that actions should be directed to God where there is nothing to direct them that mens actions are the directors of themselues and that though a man haue no meaning to glorifie God yet he doth glorifie him so long as he propoundeth not to himselfe a contrarie end These are M. Bishops dreames and vpon the credit hereof we must beleeue that the Gentiles not knowing none but idol gods yet did glorifie God in those workes wherein they did not put a contrarie end nay the bruit creatures do direct their workes of naturall compassion to the glorie of God for their naturall compassion is a sufficient good fountaine to make their workes good and they propound no end contrary to the glorie of God But S. Austin telleth vs that x August in Psal 31. Bonum opus intentio facit imentionem fides dirigit it is the intent that maketh the worke good and that it is faith that directeth the intent and therefore where there is neither intent to glorifie God nor faith to direct the intent thereto there cannot be any glorifying of God neither can the worke that is done be called a good worke M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to ioyne with the Pelagians y Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 3. Introducens 〈◊〉 hominum genus quod Deo placere pessit sine fide Christi lege naturae Hoc est vnde voâ— maximè Christiana detestatur ecclesia to bring in a kind of men which without the faith of Christ by the law of nature can please God This is it saith S. Austin to them for which the Church of Christ most highly doth detest you I will end this point with the resolution of Origen z Origen in Iob. lib 1. Omne opus bonum quod visi fuerint hominâ—e facere nisi in Dei cultura nisi in Dei agnitione atque confessione fecerint sine causa faciunt superuacuè AudeÌ„tèr dicam omnia gratis faciunt si non in fide fecerint sine causa agunt nisi in agnitione vnius Dei patris in confessione filij eius Domini nostri Jesu Christi illuminatione Sp. Sancti hoc fecerint Omnem iustitiam qui foris a vera Dei cultura atque vera fide fecerit gratis facit in perditione facit non prodest ei non adiuuat eum in die trae c. Ad quod testis est Apostolus Omne quod ex fide c. Quare Quia bona fecisse videntur non quaesita fide non quaesita agnitione eius propter quem hoc fecerint A quo enim accipiet mercedem Ab eo quem non requisiuit quem non agnouit cui non eredidit quem non est confessus non accipiet ab eo remunerationem nisi iudicium iram condemnationem c. Sicut enim nihil est delectabile hominibus sine luce sic nihil est delectabile neque acceptum Deo absque fidei lumine Euerie good worke saith he which men seeme to do except they do it in the worship of God in the acknowledgement and confession of God it is but bootlesse and vaine I will boldly say that they do all in vaine if they do it not in faith they do all to no purpose except they do it in the acknowledgement of one God the Father and in the confession of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ and by the enlightening of the holy Gbost He that doth a worke of righteousnesse being a stranger from the true worship of God and from true faith he doth it to no good he doth it in destruction it profiteth him not it helpeth him not in the day of wrath Whereof the Apostle is witnesse saying Whatsoeuer is not
though in regard of our selues our own indisposition we cannot THE DISSENT 1. VVE hold that a man may be certaine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinarie and speciall faith They hold that a man is Certaine of his Saluation only by hope both hold a Certainty we by faith they by hope 2. We say our Certaintie is infallible they that it is onely probable 3 Our confidence in Gods mercy in Christ commeth frō certaine and ordinary faith theirs from hope False Thus much of the difference now let vs come to the reasons to and fro R. ABBOT In this first diuision M. Bishop giueth vs onely some briefe notes which need not to be stood vpon In the third conclusion he denieth their agreement with vs but if he vnderstand it as M. Perkins doth of ordinary assurance he had no cause to denie it For seeing in the first conclusion of dissent he graunteth Certainty or assurance by hope and requireth therewith doubting yea affirmeth still that it cannot be without doubting what reason had he to denie the conclusion being indifferently propounded of assurance afterwards more particularly to be distinguished but that he well knew not what he was to say But in that conclusion he should haue taken knowledge what manner of Certainty or assurance of Saluation it is that we teach not such as whereby a man is meerely secure and made absolutely out of doubt but such as many times is assaulted and shaken with many difficulties and feares and doubts which oft do intricate and perplexe the soule of the righteous and faithfull man Which notwithstanding arise not of the nature and condition of faith as if it ought so to be but of the frailty and corruption of our euill nature by reason whereof faith is not such as it ought to be For the true and proper worke of faith is to giue to the beleeuer a stedfast and vnmoueable assurance of the loue of God that he may fully enioy the comfort thereof without interruption or let and whatsoeuer is aduerse and contrary to this assurance and comfort is to be accounted the enemie of faith Therefore it is not the office of faith to cherish and maintaine such feares and doubts but to resist them to fight against them and so much as is possible to expell them and driue them out But yet by reason of the strength of our naturall corruption and the weakenesse of our faith we attaine not to this and how much the weaker our faith is so much are we the further from it So that the case standeth betwixt faith and doubting as it doth betwixt righteousnesse and sinne For there is true righteousnesse in the faithfull and sometimes it mightily preuaileth and the conscience euen gratulateth it selfe and reioyceth in the vse and practise thereof But anone it beginneth to find defect the temptations of sinne iustle it aside the man stumbleth falleth and the light whereby he shined before as a starre in the firmament becommeth eclipsed and darkned and he seemeth to himselfe not to be the man that he was before Neither doth this seldome fall out but euen daily is there a vicissitude and change by turnes euery day bringing his griefes of infirmity and weaknesse and sometimes giuing occasion of great lamentation and mourning by great and grieuous trespasse against God and men But God that a 2. Cor. 4.6 commaundeth the light to shine out of darknesse and can of a poison make a preseruatiue turneth these infirmities to their good making them by experience of sinne to loue righteousnesse the more and to become more wise and warie against temptation and in rising to take the better heed not to fall againe Euen in like sort the case standeth with the assurance of faith wherein is a comfortable testimonie of the loue of God towards vs which we receiue as b 1. Kings 19.7.8 Elias did his meate from the hands of the Angel securing our selues to go in the strength thereof vnto the mount of God and that c 1. Pet. 1.5 thereby we shall be kept through the power of God vnto that saluation which is prepared to be shewed in the last time But yet in the course thereof there is much variety and change by reason that we apprehend not this assurance directly and immediatly as a principle but by consequence and collection as a conclusion so that being subiect to alteration in the apprehending of the premisses there must necessarily be an alteration in the apprehending of the conclusion Our eies are not alwaies alike intent to the word of God we do not alwaies alike conceiue the promises of God nay temptation sometimes hideth them out of our sight The effects of grace do not alwaies appeare the same yea sometimes they seeme to be quite ouerwhelmed with contrarie effects Moreouer in nature it selfe is a voluntary shrinking and relinquishing of the comfort of faith through the seeds of vnbeleefe that originally are sowen in vs so that the ground of our owne hearts is euery while casting vp obiections and questions as mire and dirt to trouble d Iohn 7.38 the spring of the waters of life that they runne not so pure and cleare as otherwise they should do By all which occasions it commeth to passe that the daies of faith are as the daies of the yeare some faire some foule one while a sunne-shine sommer another while a long and tedious winter sometimes no more but a storme and away one while cast downe as it were to hell another while seeming to be as it were in the courts of heauen where is assured standing and no falling sometimes labouring and strugling some other times triumphantly reioycing but in all perplexities and distractions conceiuing still what it hath felt and striuing to attaine to the same againe And as a child affrighted runneth to the father looking for defence and helpe of him euen so in the middest of all feares and temptations faith is stil running vnto God stil importuning of him calling vpon him expostulating with him casting it selfe stil vpon him depending vpon his aid and expecting of him that things become otherwise then presently they are and seldome going so farre but that it seeth a glimse at least of light in darknesse of hope in despaire of comfort in distresse of life in death of heauen in hell or if it loose the sight thereof yet recouereth it soone againe Of all which we see pregnant example in the distresses and temptations of the Saints which for our instruction and comfort are recommended vnto vs in the word of God And this God doth to the intent that being in some sort for the time put off from him we may take the faster hold when we returne againe that the tast of his loue may be the sweeter and our ioy thereof the greater when out of these flouds of temptations we arriue vnto it that e Rom. 5.3 affliction may bring forth
faith properly so called cannot be without these then it is true which we say that true faith can neuer be without charity and good works But that he denieth in the other place and with common consent they all deny it Therefore he must denie that which here he himselfe saith that godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith is a necessary condition of faith properly so called and so as yet there is no exception but that their faith is the same with the deuils faith But taking this which he saith which indeed is true though he by no meanes must stand to it that godly and deuout submission c. is a necessary condition of true faith yet because it is but a condition adioined and not the very nature of faith it selfe surely vnlesse he describe faith in other sort then he doth he answereth yet nothing as touching the very act of faith but that the faith of deuils is all one with their faith His other exception is that the deuils trust not in God for Saluation nor indeauour any manner of way to obtaine it as Christians do Which is euen as vaine as the former was because he answereth nothing to put difference as touching faith it selfe he himselfe still denying that trust in God for a mans owne Saluation is any part of faith But he should haue answered directly to the point what there is in the very nature of faith it selfe whereby their faith is to be distinguished from the faith of deuils whereof he is not able to giue vs any certaine answer And to be short all that he hath here said is but framed for a shew to serue for present shift because he dareth not deny but that there haue bene and are many desperate rakchels yea of their Popes and Cardinals there haue not wanted such in whom there is no godly or deuout submission of vnderstanding to the obedience of faith no trust in God for Saluation no indeauour to obtaine it who yet haue had their Catholike faith to beleeue that Christ hath died and risen againe and that by his bloud there is forgiuenesse of sinnes though not for them yet for them that repent so that in that which he saith hitherto there is nothing at all whereby to put difference betwixt their faith the deuils faith and hereafter we shall see that he is able to say no more then here he hath said 4. W. BISHOP M. Perkins in his first exception graunts Pag. 54. That commonly men do not beleeue their Saluation as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith yet saith he some speciall men do Whereof I inferre by his owne confession that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith for whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith is as infallible as the word of God which assureth vs of it Then if the common sort of the faithfull do not beleeue their Saluation to be as infallible as the articles of our Creed yea as Gods owne word they are not by faith assured of it Now that some speciall good men either by reuelation from God or by long exercise of a vertuous life haue a great Certaintie of their Saluation we willingly confesse but that Certaintie doth rather belong to a well grounded hope then to an ordinarie faith R. ABBOT M. Perkins rightly saith that the Scriptures in this matter of faith assurance do direct vs the duty of faith what it ought to do and what we are to pray and labour for though we do not all and alwaies attaine vnto it Secondly that though commonly men do not with the like assurance beleeue their owne Saluation as they do the doctrine of faith expressed in the articles of the Creed yet that some speciall men do so as did Abraham and the Prophets and Apostles and martyrs of God in all ages who without doubting laied downe their liues for the testimony of God and for the name of Christ assuring themselues to receiue a better resurrection And so we make no question but that by the same spirit that certified them many faithfull also now do receiue the like certificate of eternall blisse and are thereby ready if occasion serue to do the same that they haue done Now because he saith that commonly men do not so infallibly beleeue their owne Saluation though some speciall men do hereof saith M. Bishop I inferre by his owne confession that our particular Saluation is not to be beleeued by faith But of his confession followeth no such illation For he cannot conclude that therfore our own Saluation is not infallibly to be beleeued by faith because men do not cōmonly so beleeue it but rather that it is so to be beleeued by faith because some special men do beleeue it so for that in those speciall men is example to the rest what they ought to striue vnto But saith M. Bishop Whatsoeuer we beleeue by faith is as infallible as the word of God that assureth vs of it And we graunt that it is as infallible in it selfe but not alwaies so in our apprehension feeling And if he will say that it is alwaies as infallible to vs and our vnderstanding and conscience he speaketh very falsly and absurdlie for there are diuers degrees of faith a Mat. 8.26 little faith b Cap. 15.28 great faith c Rom. 4.21 full assurance of faith euen as a weake eie and a strong eie And as a weake eie seeth but weakly and vnperfectly and a strong eie seeth strongly and more fully discerneth the thing seene so a little faith beleeueth faintly though truly greater faith beleeueth more stedfastly full assurance of faith d Ibid. ver 18. beleeueth vnder hope euen against hope The disciples of Christ said vnto him e Iohn 6.69 We beleeue know that thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God Which in it selfe was infallibly true and yet they did not so infallibly apprehend it but that this faith was soone shaken and because they did not yet infallibly beleeue it our Sauiour telleth them that therefore he forewarned them of his death resurrection that f Ibid. ca. 14.29 when it was come to passe they might beleeue namely as S. Austine saith g August in Ioan. tract 79. Quo vtso illud fuerant creditu ri quòd ipse esset Christus filius Dei viui c. Creditur autem hoc no fide noua sed aucta aut certè cū mortuus esset defecta cùm resurrexisset refacta Neque enim eum Dei filium non ante credebant sed cùm in illo factū est quod ante praedixit fides illa quae tunc quādo illit loquebatur fuit parua cùm moreretur penè tā nucta reuixit creuit that he was Christ the Son of the liuing God Which as he addeth they should beleeue not with a new faith but with a faith increased which was quailed in his death but
fall and runne into enormous offence thereby to be the better instructed how little safetie we haue in our owne defence and therefore how necessarie it is for vs to depend wholy vpon his grace Thus the Apostle Peter presuming too much of himselfe and being left thereupon to himselfe fell euen to the denying and abiuring of his maister Christ that he in himselfe and we in him might learne that q 1. Sam 2.9 by his owne might shall no man be strong and that euill would our state be if our safetie did not rest onely and altogether in the Lord. Thus therefore in both places cited by M. Bishop and in many other we read of feare to feare the iudgements and threatnings of God which the faithfull alwayes doth because faith beleeueth them to feare to trust in our selues which euerie faithfull man also doth because faith it selfe importeth trust in God but we no where reade any thing whereof to gather that which he affirmeth that the faithfull ought to stand in feare of their owne Saluation Now therefore his argument is easily answered for the minor proposition which he saith is plainely proued by the places cited is meerely false and hath no proofe at all either by those places of any other And how absurdly doth he abuse his Reader that whereas the proposition by him to be proued is not expressed in the places alledged he notwithstanding skippeth ouer with meere quoting of them without shewing how the matter to be proued is to be inferred thereof But such pretie shifts do best become the cause that he hath in hand About the maior proposition whereof there is lesse question he bestoweth a little paines to little purpose No man must stand in feare of that of which by faith he is assured Which we grant as it importeth a dutie that no man ought to haue any feare of that which he is taught to beleeue but we deny that which he saith for the prosecutiō or explication therof For it is false that there is no feare in faith that is that there is no faith where there is feare or feare where there is faith For whē our Sauior Christ vpbraideth his disciples with r Mat. 8.26 14.31 fearfulnes doubting and yet attributeth vnto them little faith as before is alledged he plainly sheweth that little faith it subiect to feare and doubt and yet ceaseth not thereupon to be faith He saith that he that feareth cannot giue certaine assent We answer him that our assent is according to the measure of our faith little faith yeeldeth but weake assent but yet it is a true assent whereby we embrace that whereto we assent The truth of which faith and assent hereby appeareth euen in feare because feare causeth it to fall to prayer which what is it else but as it were the casting forth of the armes of faith to catch hold of him in whom it beleeueth as expecting succour and helpe of him for s Rom. 10.14 how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued Thus the faith of the disciples appeared in the places euen now cited when their feare made them to go vnto Christ and say to him Maister saue vs which they would not haue sayd but that they beleeued to haue safetie and deliuerance by him Whereas therefore M. Bishop alledgeth the old sayd saw Dubius in fide infidelis est he that is doubtfull in the faith is an infidell or vnbeleeuer we tell him that it is true in him that wholy and absolutely doubteth But there is a difference to be made betwixt him that absolutely doubteth and him that weakly assenteth and in assent is only interrupted with some feare or doubt For which interruption I trow M. Bishop will not say that the disciples of Christ were faithlesse when Christ himselfe expresly acknowledgeth their faith And thus by reason the seeds of all impietie lie still hidden in the corruption of our nature it commeth to passe that faith sometimes is assaulted with doubts euen in the maine and principall articles of our beleefe and out of our owne sinfull condition we question vpon occasion the godhead the power the wisedome the prouidence the iustice and mercie of almightie God when yet our faith doth not wholy relinquish the assent thereof Which though in generalitie it more seldome come to passe yet in application of our generall faith to particular occasions we many times goe halting and lame and stagger somewhat at that whereof our faith should giue vs full assurance by the word of God Thus did t Gen. 18.12 Sarah cast doubt of Gods promise as touching the hauing of a child who yet is said u Heb. 11.11 through faith to haue receiued strength to conceiue when she was past age because she iudged him faithfull that had promised Thus did x Numb 11.21.22 Moses call in question the power of God as touching prouiding flesh for the people of Israel when he promised so to do So y Psal 73.2.3 Dauid and z Habac. 1.2.13 Habacuk staggered as touching the prouidence of God and his care of iust and righteous men So I shewed before how the disciples vpon the death of Christ were in a mammering concerning the godhead of Christ and the hope of redemption by him which before they had imbraced Yet we do not thinke that such doubts and mammerings did in these men wholy extinguish the light of true faith In like sort therefore we also resolue that the faith whereby we beleeue our owne Saluation is not by and by ouerthrowne because sometimes the assurance thereof is shaken and interrupted with casting of feares and doubts And thus the argument which he added for supplie of those which M. Perkins brought is found to be of as little indeed lesse worth then all the rest and it well appeareth that M. Perkins was better able to speake for M. Bishop then M. Bishop is able to speake for himselfe 11. W. BISHOP To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies taken as well out of the holy Scripture as out of the ancient Fathers First what can be more manifest to warrant vs that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their Saluation Eccles 9. then these words of the holy Ghost There be iust and therfore faithfull and wise men and their workes be in the hand of God and neuerthelesse a man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come Where is then the Protestants certaintie And because one heretike cauilleth against the Latine translation saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned heare how S. Ierome Comment in hunc locum who was most cunning in the Hebrew text doth vnderstand it The sence is saith he I haue found the workes of the iust men to be in the hand of God and yet themselues not to know whether they be
glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenienteÌ„ de eo opinioneÌ„ accipit cumque glorificat atque admiâ—atur nuâ—lo magis quà m operuÌ„ demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rectâ— factuÌ„ aliquod praeâ—titeriâ— haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac quâ—â—ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie wheÌ„ it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is wheÌ„ of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man
may conceiue or mind one of these without hauing consideration of the rest Now if M. Bishop by negatiue separation do remoue hope charity frō faith so as that his meaning is that if faith alone do iustifie thē though there be neither hope nor charity yet faith will neuerthelesse iustifie his maior proposition is false For though it be true that the totall cause of any thing being in act the effect must needs follow yet from the totall cause can we not separate those things together with which it hath in nature his existēce and being and without which it cannot be in act for the producing of the effect though they conferre nothing thereto because that is to denie the being of it and the destroying of the cause But if his meaning be that if faith alone do iustifie then though we consider not hope and charitie as concurring therewith yet it selfe doth iustifie we graunt his maior proposition for true but his minor is not true We say that faith considered without hope and charitie that is hope and charitie not considered with it doth iustifie Then saith he a man may be iustified without any hope of heauen and without anie loue towards God or estimation of his honour True say I if his meaning be that the hope of heauen or loue of God and estimation of his honour be excepted onely priuatiuely and only not considered with faith as causes of iustification But if his meaning be as it is that a man then is iustified without hauing any hope of heauen or loue towards God or estimation of his honour he playeth the part onely of a brabler inferring a reall separation of those things in the subiect which the argument supposeth onely respectiuely separated in the vnderstanding Here is then no presumption in the Protestants iustification but M. Bishop is much to be condemned of presumption that hauing left his head at Rome and broken his braines in contending against the Iesuites he would notwithstanding take vpon him to be a writer and do it so vainely and idlely as he hath done According to that that hath bene said M. Perkins answereth that though faith be neuer subsisting without hope and loue and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is alone without them all euen as the eye in regard of substance and being is neuer alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone for it is the eye onely that doth see Here is saith M. Bishop a worthie peece of Philosophy that the eye alone doth see Why I pray what is the default Marrie the eye is but the instrument of seeing saith he the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense and reason But did not your sense and reason serue you to vnderstand that M. Perkins meant accordingly that the eye alone doth see that is that the eye alone of all the mēbers parts is the instrument of seeing and proportionably that faith alone of all the vertues and graces of the soule is the instrument of iustification As the soule then seeth onely by the eye so the soule spiritually receiueth iustification by faith alone If his head had stood the right way he might verie easily haue conceiued that M. Perkins in saying that the eye alone doth see did not meane to exclude the soule that seeth by the eye but onely all other parts of the bodie from being consorted with the eye in the soules imployment seruice for that vse And that that M. Perkins saith therein is directly to the purpose because the question is not here of the whole cause of iustification but onely of the instrumentall cause Of the efficient and finall cause of iustification there is no question which is God in Iesus Christ for our saluation and the glorie of his name The materiall cause we say and haue proued to be the merite and obedience of Christ The formall cause is Gods imputation apprehended and receiued by vs. The instrument of this apprehension we say is faith alone which is the verie point here disputed of But here he will returne the similitude vpon vs the eye cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from the head before it can see Be it so no more can faith iustifie without Christ without God whose ordinance and gift it is of whom it hath it force and power being by him as peculiarly appointed to iustifie as the eye is to see The eye is a naturall instrument receiuing his influence frō the head wherof it is naturally a member and part but faith is an instrument supernaturall not any naturall part or power and facultie of the soule but the instinct and worke of God and therefore receiueth all the force and influence that it hath from the spirit of Iesus Christ But he maketh other application hereof So cannot faith iustifie without charitie because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life frō it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight So then charitie is the head and faith the eye and we must needs take it so because M. Bishop hath told vs that it is so But if it be so then it should be as strange a matter to see faith without charitie as it is to see an eye without a head as strange that charitie being extinguished and gone there should remaine a faith whereby to beleeue as that the head being dead there should remaine an eye whereby to see But that that giueth influence and life to another thing must needs haue a prioritie to that that receiueth it Charitie hath no prioritie to faith but charity it selfe is obtained by faith For a Eccles 25 13. faith is the beginning to be ioyned vnto God b Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 7. Fides prima daetur ex qua impetrentur caetera Faith is first giuen by which the rest is obtained c Prosp de voc gent. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cum fides data fuerit non petitae ipsius tam petitionibus bona caetera consequuntur which being first giuen vnrequested at the request thereof all other benefites or good things do ensue and follow d Aug. in Psal 31. Laudo superaedificationē boni operis sed agnosco fidei fundamentum fidei radicem Nec bona illa opera appellauerim quādiu non de radice bona procedant Faith is the roote and foundation of good works from which vnlesse they grow they are not to be called good euen e Origen in Ro. cap. 4. Fides tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo vt surgantromi qui fructus operū ferant illa scil radix iustitiae qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus that root of righteousnes wherby the Lord imputeth righteousnes without works which receiuing the deaw or showre sticketh in the groūd that thence the branches may spring which bring forth the fruits of good works Faith is
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
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
and loue to preferre the seruice of Christ before all the glory of this world Albeit it is not to be omitted that S. Iohn somtime following the Hebrew phrase vseth the terme of beleeuing in Christ abusiuely applying it to them who by the miracles of Christ and his manifest declaration of the truth were conuicted in conscience to acknowledge him to be of God but yet did not at all in their hearts submit themselues vnto him Thus he saith in another place that y Ioh. 2.23 many beleeued in the name of Christ when they saw his miracles which he did to whom yet he did not commit himselfe because he knew what was in them Thus might it be said of some of those chiefe rulers that they beleeued in Christ that is were perswaded in their minds that he spake the truth but yet preferring their credit and reputatiō with men gaue no regard vnto it But that there is another manner of beleeuing in Christ which is that wherof we speake not incident to them who cōtinue wholy possessed with such respects Christ himself sheweth saying z Ioh. 5.44 How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another seek not the honor that cometh of God alone They might therfore in some meaning be said to beleeue in Christ when yet they had no true faith which as appeareth by these words cannot be separated from loue and seeking of the honour that cometh of God alone which wheresoeuer it is begun beginneth to looke vnto God and winding by degrees out of all other regards yeeldeth it selfe entirely to follow him Therfore the distinction of faith being obserued which the Scripture it selfe enforceth vpon vs M. Bishop hath yet alledged nothing to proue that true faith and charitie may be diuided or that any man may be said truly to beleeue in whom there is not also loue to righteousnesse and good works 51. W. BISHOP Cap. 2. 5 This place of S. Iames What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith but hath not works what shall his faith be able to saue supposeth very plainly that a man may haue faith without good workes that is without charitie but that it shall auaile him nothing Caluin saith that the Apostle speakes of a shadow of faith which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our Creed but not a iustifying faith Without doubt he was litle acquainted with that kind of faith by which Protestants be iustified but he directly speakes of such a faith as Abraham was iustified by saying That that faith did worke with his works and was made perfect by the workes Was this but a shadow of faith But they reply that this faith is likened vnto the faith of the Diuell and therefore cannot be a iustifying faith that followeth not for an excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things as Diuels in nature are not onely like but the very same as Angels be euen so a full Christian faith may be well likened vnto a Diuels faith when it is naked and voyd of good works in two points first in both there is a perfect knowledge of all things reuealed secondly this knowledge shall not stead them any whit but only serue vnto their greater condemnation because that knowing the will of their master they did it not And in this respect S. Iames compareth them together now there are many points wherein these faiths do differ but this one is principall that Christians out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding vnto the rules of faith beleeuing things aboue humane reason yea such as seeme sometimes contrary to it But the diuell against his will beleeues all that God hath reuealed because by his naturall capacitie he knowes that God cannot teach nor testifie any vntruth Againe that faith may be without charitie is proued out of these words of the same 2. chapter Euen as the body without the spirit is dead so also faith without works is dead Hence thus I argue albeit the body be dead without the soule yet it is a true natural body in it selfe euen so faith is perfect in the kind of faith although without charity it auaile not to life euerlasting Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be without charity for they haue seuerall seates in the soule one being in the will and the other in the vnderstanding they haue distinct obiects faith respecting the truth of God and charity the goodnesse of God Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity as charity doth faith for we cannot loue him of whom we neuer heard Neither yet doth charity naturally flow out of faith but by due consideration of the goodnes of God and of his benefits and loue towards vs into which good and deuout considerations few men do enter in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passions This according to the truth and yet more different in the Protestants opinion for faith layes hold on Christs righteousnes receiues that in but charity can receiue nothing in as M. Perkins witnesseth Pa. 85. but giues it selfe forth in all duties of the 1. and 2. Table Now sir if they could not apply vnto themselues Christs righteousnes without fulfilling all duties of the 1. and 2. Table they should neuer apply it to them for they hold it impossible to fulfill all those duties so that this necessary lincking of charity with faith maketh their saluation not only very euill assured but altogether impossible for charity is the fulnesse of the law which they hold impossible Rom. 12. and then if the assurance of their saluation must needs be ioyned with such an impossibility they may assure themselues that by that faith they can neuer come to saluation R. ABBOT That faith may be without charitie and good workes it is true and we doubt not thereof according to the meaning of faith of which S. Iames speaketh which Caluin very iustly and rightly saith is but a shadow of faith For it plainely appeareth by the text that he speaketh of faith as only professed before men as before hath bene alledged Therefore he compareth it a Iam. 2.16 to the good words of him that wisheth wel to the poore man but doth nothing at all for him To this tendeth his question b Ver. 14. What auaileth it though a man say that he hath faith and his other demand c Ver. 18. shew me thy faith The vttermost that he extendeth it to by instance is a meere historicall faith d Ver. 19. Thou beleeuest that there is one God His purpose is to shew that faith if it be truly professed hath a root within from whence spring by obedience the fruites of al good workes and if it giue not foorth it selfe by workes it is no true faith Whereas M. Bishop saith that S. Iames speaketh directly of such a faith as Abraham was iustified
by he saith very vntruly and absurdly for S. Iames bringeth the example of the true and liuely and workfull faith of Abraham as opposite to that idle and dead faith concerning which he propounded that question of faith and workes Yea of Abrahams faith he sheweth that it was said e Ver. 23. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse which was neuer said of any man for saying that he had faith for beleeuing that there is one God for that faith that consisteth onely in profession before men Now the faith of Abraham which f Ver. 22. wrought with his workes and was made perfect by his workes g Beda in Epist Iac. cap. 2. that is saith Beda was proued by the performance of workes to be perfect in his heart this faith of Abraham I say is it whereby the Protestants hope to be iustified in the sight of God as Abraham was because h Rom 4.23 it was not written for him onely that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed beleeuing in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead We alledge further that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh is likened to the faith of diuels and therefore that it cannot be the same with that which the Scripture nameth for a iustifying faith M. Bishop answereth that that followeth not and for auouching thereof maketh Abrahams faith not onely the same with the faith of hypocrites and false Christians but also with the faith of diuels He would qualifie the matter in shew but in truth maketh no difference An excellent good thing may be like vnto a bad in some things saith he True but yet the bad cannot be like the good in that wherin standeth the goodnesse and excellencie of the good Now he maketh the Hypocrites faith if we consider the very act of faith the same that Abrahams faith was which was reputed vnto him for righteousnesse and for which the Scripture setteth him foorth as an excellent patterne of faith to be followed of all beleeuers But to auoyde the odiousnesse hereof he sophisticateth the matter and so much as in him lyeth blindeth his reader They are like saith he in two points where in the first point he comprehendeth the fulnes and perfection of that which he calleth Catholike and Christian faith consisting as here absurdly he saith in the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed as if euery one that hath their Catholike faith haue the perfect knowledge of all things reuealed but as more plainly he hath deliuered his mind before i Sect. 18. in beleeuing all to be true that God hath reuealed No more is there in Abrahams faith if we keepe within the compasse of the nature of faith no lesse in the diuell the same in euery Catholike Christian and so the diuel is become a Catholike whether he wil or not Come on M. Bishop rid vs of this doubt for we cannot find by you but that the diuell by Catholike faith is become a Catholike He goeth on Secondly this knowledge shal not steed them any whit But that is nothing to the very nature of faith whether is steede or not steed The essence act of faith whether it steed or not steed is no more but this to beleeue generally all to be true which God hath reuealed and therefore whether with good works or without the faith of the Catholike Christian in the act of faith is no other but the diuels faith Now albeit he say that these faiths differ in many points yet of those many he nameth but onely one and that nothing to the purpose For if he will shew a difference of faith betwixt Christians and diuels he must take it from faith it selfe and not from those things which to the nature of faith are meerely accidentall Christians saith he out of a godly and deuout affection do willingly submit their vnderstanding to the rules of faith But this is not to make a difference but to adde charity vnto faith This godly and deuout affection and willing submission is an act of charity and not of faith an act of the wil and affection wherein charity is seated not of the vnderstanding wherin he saith is the seat of faith And in this affection and submission faith it selfe still is no more then it was before to beleeue all to be true that God hath reuealed The diuel then still pleadeth for himselfe that if the Catholike faith which M. Bishop hath described do make a Catholike there is no reason to except against him for being a Catholike because he beleeueth all to be true which God hath reuealed Or if he wil say that true Christian faith doth alwaies actually necessarily imply this godly deuout affection and willing submission of the vnderstanding to the rules of faith then because this cannot be without charity let him grant the question let vs trauell no further about this point but let him say as we say that the true Christiā faith wherby it is said we are iustified cā neuer be separate frō charity good works Thus he casteth himself into he knoweth not what Labyrinths mazes cannot tell how to get out How much better were it for to acknowledge the simple and plaine truth of God then to intricate himselfe in these perplexities wherin he can find no place to stand secure But yet out of the words of S. Iames As the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead he will further prooue that faith may be without charitie and yet perfect in the kind of faith Now this is it that hath bene said that in the kind of faith considering faith intirely in it selfe he maketh Abrahams faith and the diuels faith to be all one As touching the words of S. Iames sufficient hath bene said before If faith be considered as outwardly professed to men as he intendeth it good workes are the life of faith If it be considered as it is inward in the heart to God good workes cannot be the life thereof because that which is without cannot giue life to that that is within Whereas he turneth workes into charitie he playeth the Sophister for it is one thing to talke of charitie another thing to talke of workes the one being in habite the other in act the one inward the other outward the one the tree the other the fruite the one the spring the other the streame But letting this passe as handled before let vs see how he argueth from the place of Iames Albeit the body be dead without the soule yet is it a true naturall body in it selfe But that is not true for a true naturall body is that onely which hath the true members and parts of a naturall bodie which a dead bodie hath not k Arist Polit. lib. 1. cap. 1 When the body is dead saith Aristotle there shall be neither foote nor hand but onely by
faith concerning which it is said of Abraham f Gen. 15.6 He beleeued the Lord and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse there followeth alwayes charitie as a necessary and infallible consequent and companion thereof 53. W. BISHOP The Protestants bold asseuerations that they cannot be parted are great but their proofes very slender and scarce worth the disprouing The first He that hath not care of his owne hath denied his faith 1. Tim. 5. therefore faith includeth that good worke of prouiding for our owne Answer That faith there seemes to signifie not that faith whereby we beleeue all things reuealed or the Protestants the certaintie of their saluation but for fidelitie and faithfull performance of that which we haue promised in Baptisme which is to keepe all Gods commandements one of the which is to prouide for our children and for them that we haue charge of so that he who hath no such care ouer his owne charge hath denied his faith that is violated his promise in Baptisme There is also another ordinary answer supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian beliefe to wit that one may deny his faith two wayes either in flat denying any article of faith or by doing some thing that is contrarie to the doctrine of our faith Now he that hath no care of his owne doth not deny any article of his faith but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith so that not faith but the doctrine of faith or our promise in Baptisme includeth good workes Ioh â— 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knew who beleeued and who was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith containeth in it selfe fidelitie This argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelity and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednesse goeth before falling from the faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with couetousnesse did not beleeue Christes doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulitie opened the diuell a high way to his heart to negotiate treason in it â— Ioh 2. 3. They obiect that Who saith he knowes God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyer Answer He is then a lyer in graine who professing the onely true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I know ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust Math 7. 25. Psal 1. Ioh. 14. that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commaundements as Christ himselfe testifieth If anie loue me he will keepe my word And he that loueth me not will not keepe my words Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charitie Answer That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by al which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinful and vniust man without charity who holding fast his former beliefe doth in transgressing Gods commandements breake the bands of charity And so it remaineth most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred societie of charitie R. ABBOT The Protestants asseuerations are indeed very bold but not vpon slender proofes Their proofes are stronger then that any such silly disputers as M. Bishop is shall be able to disproue them As for his proofes to the contrarie thou hast seene gentle Reader how miserable and poore and beggerly they be See now what choise he maketh of our arguments culling out those that he was best able to deale with and what slender shifts he maketh to auoid them a 1. Tim. 5.8 He that prouideth not for his owne saith S. Paul and namely for them of his houshold he denieth the faith and is worse then an infidell It must follow therefore that there can be no faith where this worke of charitie is wilfully cast off M. Bishop telleth vs that by faith is here meant either fidelitie as touching the performance of that we haue promised in baptisme or else the doctrine of faith But let him expound it as he list of either of them it shall yeeld an illation consequence of that which we affirme For seeing the introduction of iustifying faith is b Mark 1.15 repentance from dead workes iustifying faith must alwayes imply a conscience and care of conforming a mans selfe to the doctrine of the Gospell and to the promise and vowe that he hath made in baptisme of obedience vnto God and therefore where dead workes still raigne it cannot be said that iustifying faith hath there taken anie place Therefore he that shaketh off the yoke of the doctrine of the Gospell and by his conuersation disclaimeth the promise that he made in baptisme plainely sheweth that howsoeuer he professe the faith yet that he hath no true faith abiding in him And this the Apostle teacheth of him who is so inhumane and barbarous as that the commandement of God cannot moue him to prouide for them the care of whom euen infidels by instinct of nature do know and conceiue to belong vnto them But we would gladly vnderstand how M. Bishop diuideth the articles of faith from the doctrine of faith For what do the articles of faith containe but onely the doctrine of faith That then contrary to the doctrine of faith must needs also be contrary to the articles of faith He therfore that by his deeds denieth the doctrine of faith denieth in effect also the articles of his faith howsoeuer with his tongue outwardly to men he make shew to confesse the same M. Bishops answer then taketh not away the strength of this argument but rather addeth further force and strength vnto it But it is plaine by the very words that the Apostle vnderstandeth faith as it is opposed to infidelitie affirming that such though they be c Hieron in 1. Tim. cap. 5. Fideles nomine beleeuers in name as Hierome speaketh yet in deed are not beleeuers Therefore Chrysostome expounding the words by that saying of the same Apostle d Tit. 1.16 They professe that they know God but by their deeds they denie him inferreth e Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 14. Quomodo hutuâ—nodicredit qui Deum abâ—egauitâ— How doth he beleeue that hath denied God The argument therefore is firme and sure that howsoeuer there may be an outward profession of faith yet indeed there is no faith wheresoeuer there wanteth a correspondence of good workes In the second place it is strange to see how M. Bishop making choise of his aduersaries weapons yet is foyled in his owne choise The argument he saith
eased of the same burden The voice of Christ to the sicke of the palsie b Mat. 9.2 Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee doth it not giue him present release from the bond thereof Dauid saith c Psal 32.3 Whilest I held my tongue from acknowledging and confessing my sinnes my bones were consumed in my mourning all day for thy hand was heauie vpon me day and night and my moisture was turned into the drouth of Summer I acknowledged my sinne vnto thee and did not hide mine iniquitie I thought I will confesse against my selfe my wickednesse vnto the Lord and thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne By which wordes he giueth vs to vnderstand that the forgiuenesse of his sinnes vpon his repentance and confession thereof was the taking away of the grieuous malady wherwith he was so sore afflicted and vpon experience hereof vttereth those words in the beginning of the Psalme d Ver. 1. Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne as to note that one part of that blessing is to be released from the temporall punishments that are due to sinne Yea and to that purpose he addeth also after e Ver. 6. Aug. Pro hac Pro qua hac pro ipsa venia peccatoruÌ„ For this that is saith S. Austin for forgiuenesse of sinnes shall euery one that is godly make his prayer vnto thee in a time when thou maist be found surely in the ouerflowing of many waters they shall not come neere him Where by many waters he vnderstandeth the manifold crosses and afflictions of this life wherwith we are tossed to and fro by reason of our sinnes and signifieth that the godly man by obtaining forgiuenesse of sinnes obtaineth deliuerance and freedome from the punishment thereof Forgiuenesse of sinnes then is not vnderstood with reseruation of temporal satisfaction neither doth any thing remaine in the nature of punishment to him that by repentance and faith becometh partaker of that mercie As for his distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes applyed to the petition of forgiuenesse of sinnes we know no such neither is any such to be approued as f Of Iustification Sect. 41. before hath bene shewed By Gods hearkening to our prayer all sinnes become veniall if God heare not our prayer for forgiuenesse of sinnes all sinnes continue mortall Our Sauiour Christ knew no such difference as M. Bishop maketh that God when he heareth vs crying vnto him Forgiue vs our trespasses doth forgiue vs some sinnes wholy and othersome but in part or that our prayer should be a speciall meane in some sinnes to obtaine pardon of the fault and release of punishment and in othersome not so No neither did S. Austine euer dreame that God did forgiue sinnes with a reseruation of the punishment thereof he knew well that forgiuenesse altereth the case and nature of afflictions as hath bene before shewed Master Bishop citeth him saying that g Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. De quotidianis breuibus leuibusque peccatis sine quibus haec vita non ducitur quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit c. Delet omnino haec oratio minima quotidiana peccata Delet illa à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta sed poeniten â—â—in melius mutata discedit si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur Dimitte nobis c. ita veracitèr dicatur sicut nos c. id est si siat quod dicitur For the daily short and light offences without which this life is not led the daily prayer of the faithfull satisfieth But as he saith so of these daily and light offences so he saith of other also in the next words It blotteth out also those from which the life of the faithfull wickedly led but by repentance changed to better is departed if as it is truly said Forgiue vs our trespasses so it be truly said As we forgiue them that trespasse against vs that is if it be done which is said So then as it satisfieth for the one so it satisfieth for the other also as for the lesser so for the greater and for both obtaineth pardon at Gods hands But Master Bishop here doth meerely abuse his Reader by an equiuocation of the name of satisfaction For Satisfaction with Saint Austine as with all the auncient Ecclesiasticall Writers importeth the meanes whereby we are to intreate and obtaine of God pardon and forgiuenesse of our sinnes but with Master Bishop and his fellowes it importeth a punishment still remaining for sinnes past and already pardoned to be endured either in this life or after death in Purgatorie as he hath before expressed in the beginning of this Chapter Saint Austines meaning then is that the daily prayer of the faithfull sufficeth to obtaine pardon at Gods hands for our daily and common trespasses yea and for greater offences also when by repentance and amendement of life we forsake them but no meaning hath he either that the saying of the Lords prayer should be a recompence to God for our trespasse or that our trespasse being pardoned there should still remaine a satisfaction to be performed for it Now here Master Bishop further denyeth that in the Lords prayer we vse onely plea of pardon for saith he we are taught also to pardon others euen as we will looke to be pardoned And what then what because we are taught freely to pardon others shall we hereupon conceiue that God is hired by our pardoning others to giue pardon vnto vs Our Sauior Christ noteth therby the affection of them to whom it belongeth to vse the plea of pardon he saith not any thing to be construed to the impeachment and derogation of the freenesse of the pardon Meekenesse and readinesse to forgiue is h Gal. 5.22.23 a fruite of the spirit i Rom. 8.15 of adoption by which we cry Abba Father in the voyce of which spirit onely it is that God hearkeneth vnto vs. k Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. EoruÌ„ est dicere Pater noster c. qui iam tali patri regene rati sunt exaqua Spiritu sancto It is for them to say Our Father which art in heauen saith Saint Austine who now are regenerate and borne againe to such a Father of water and of the holy Ghost If we speake not by this spirit our voice is as the voice of strangers and God giueth no regard vnto it Therefore our forgiuenesse of others is not alledged as the cause for which God is moued to forgiue vs but we present it to him as the mark of his spirit which he hath set vpon vs as the token that we are his childreÌ„ to whoÌ„ he hath assigned it for a portioÌ„ to be made partakers of the forgiuenes of sins to whoÌ„ Christ hath ministred coÌ„fort boldnes so to pray His 2. exception is very vaine also for although the Lords prayer contain not all things necessary to saluatioÌ„
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