worke it Lastly the same Apostle teacheth that sinne hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace which were false if concupiscence were properly sinne for that hath such dominion ouer euery good body that they cannot auoid the motion and sting of it No not S. Paul could be clearely deliuered 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. from that pricke of the flesh though he praied most earnestly for it wherefore by the testimony of S. Paul himselfe concupiscence is not properly sinne no more is it to lust if lust be taken for the first motions of concupiscence But concupiscence when it hath conceiued Iacob 1. vers 15. as S. Iames speaketh that is by our liking beginneth to take hold on vs bringeth forth sinne yet but veniall marry when it is consummate by our consent or long lingring in it then it engendreth death that is mortall sinne R. ABBOT EVen so might the adulterer pleade for himselfe that as Christ is said to haue been made sinne and yet is not properly sinne so adultery though it be called sinne yet is not so called because it is indeede and properly sinne but only because it is an effect of sinne and draweth on to many sinnes Surely in what manner the Apostle saith that adultery is sinne in the same manner doth he say that concupiscence is sinne and very vntowardly and shamefully doth M. Bishop bring that as a speech of the like kinde whereby it is said that a 2. Cor. 5. 2â— Christ for vs was made sinne As for that which he citeth out of St. Austin I haue b Of Original sinne after Baptisme sect 9. elsewhere before examined the places and haue shewed at large how falsly and wickedly they abuse him St. Austin neuer denying concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne but only as sinne implieth a guilt of punishment which to the faithfull is remitted and therefore the condition of sinne in that respect abolished If we consider the nature of sinne in the corruption and vncleannesse of it St. Austin acknowledgeth concupiscence to be such an euill quality as maketh vs euill which nothing can doe but sinne yea he saith that it is c August coÌ„t Iulian. l. 6. c. 5. Tale ac tammagnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non tenerâ—t in morte c. so great an euill as that only for that it is in vs it should hold vs in death and bring vs to euerlasting death but that the bond that is the guilt thereof is loosed in baptisme by the remission of all our sinnes I note these things but briefly because I choose rather to referre the Reader to the treaty hereof at large And thereby he shall perceiue how vntruly M. Bishop here saith as by the doctrine of St. Austin that if by the helpe of Gods grace we represse concupiscence we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Indeede St. Austin saith so much of the guilt but neuer did he say or thinke that we are or shal be deliuerâ—â—â— from the infection and vncleannesse of it d Aug. Epist 54. Malos diâ—it propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam vbi nihil omninò peccabitur vntill all whereof we consist healed from all corruption shall passe into that life where there shall be no sinne But if St. Austin will not take his part he will proue that which he saith by St. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter He demandeth saith he Who shall deliuer me from this body of death and answereth presently The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. Where we see how according to his vsuall manner he setteth downe the wordes as to haue his Reader thinke that he tendereth him a proofe of that which he saith but neuer goeth about to shew how that which he saith is to be deduced therfrom And here his falshood is the greater for that hee alleageth the Apostles wordes for that which he saith whereas that which he saith is vtterly ouerthrowen by the wordes which he alleageth For let me aske him doth the Apostle by deliuerance from this body of death meane a deliuerance from the infection of originall sinne He will say yes because for proofe thereof he citeth the Apostles wordes Well but tell vs then doe you not beleeue that St. Paul was a partaker of the grace of God and did thereby represse and resist the motions of concupiscence Neither will he here dare to say nay and if he should what Christian man would not spit at him But then we will aske him againe if the Apostle by the grace of Christ did resist concupiscence and euery one that so doth be deliuered from the infection thereof how standeth it that the Apostle did yet remaine in case to be deliuered from this infection Marke I pray thee gentle Reader the Apostle saith who shall deliuer me giuing thereby to vnderstand that he was not as yet deliuered He saith the grace of God shall deliuer me but he doth not say it hath deliuered me from the infection of concupiscence Here M Bishop is mute he hath taken a fall in his owne trippe and knoweth not which way to recouer himselfe The Apostle St. Paul though by the grace of God he resisted the motions of concupiscence yet was not as yet deliuered from the infection of it It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that if by the helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection of it I haue e Of Original sinne sect 4. before shewed that the Apostle in naming this body of death hath reference to this infection meaning thereby f Rom. 6. 6. the body of sinne as he hath termed it in the former Chapter g August de Temp. â—er 45. Per concupiscentiam dâ—ctum est hoc nostrummortis corpus which is to be destroyed and to which by and for concupiscence belongeth death It is true then which M. Bishop saith that the Apostle in desiring to be deliuered from this body of death did thereby intend a release from the infection of concupiscence but where was his vnderstanding that could not see that this maketh directly against himselfe and plainly sheweth that this release and deliuerance is yet to come and befalleth not vnto vs so long as we continue clothed with mortality and corruption But he telleth vs yet further that St. Austin out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne Now not I worke it any more but sinne that dwelleth in me argueth very soundly that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed without consent of the minde He quoteth for this Lib. 6. cont Iulian. cap. 23. whereas in that sixt booke there are but thirteene Chapters But the place which he meaneth I take to be in the eleuenth Chapter of the same booke where St. Austin hauing mentioned those words of the Apostle goeth
on thus h August coÌ„â— Iulian. l. 6. c. 11. Iam enim motus desiderioruÌ„ malorum non ipse operabatur quibâ— non consentiebat ad perpetranda peccata Peccati autem nomine quod in illo habitabat ipsam nuÌ„cupabat coÌ„cupiscentiam quia peccato facta est si consentientem traxerit atq illexerit conâ—ipit paritque pecoutuÌ„ For now did not he worke the motions of euill desires to which he did not consent to commit sinnes But by the name of sinne dwelling in him saith he he meaneth concupiscence because it was caused by sinne and if it draw and entice a man to consent doth conceiue and bring forth sinne Where we may obserue what a veine M. Bishop hath of racking and stretching here being no cause for him to say that Austin argueth so soundly that concupiscence is not properly sinne and although it be true the committing of sinne being alwaies vnderstood of the outward act that sinne is not committed but by the consent of the minde yet neither doth St. Austin here deliuer any such rule and though he had yet had it beene nothing to M. Bishops purpose because here is no question of committing sinne but of the roote and motions of sinne before it come to be committed Which distinction he may obserue out of that which the same Saint Austin in the very same booke answereth to Iulian the Pelagian asking i August coÌ„t Iulian. l. 6. c. 4 Explica inquis quomodo peccatii personae illi iustè possit ascribi quae peccare nec voluit nec potuit Aliud est perpetratio proprioruÌ„ aliud alienorum contagio peccatorum how sinne can iustly be ascribed to that person namely to the infant which neither hath will nor power to sinne The committing of a mans owne sinnes is one thing saith he the contagion of the sinnes of others is another thing Now the sinne whereof we speake here is the contagion and infection of Adams sinne k Rom. 5. 12. in whom all haue sinned of which St. Austin denyeth not but rather freely confesseth that as a punishment it hangeth vpon vs and presseth vs downe not only without our will but also against our will And therefore whereas in one place he had defined l August de duab animab cont Manich. cap. 11. Peccatum est voluntas retinendivel coÌ„sequâ—di quod iustitia vetat vnde liberum est abstinere sinne to be a will of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans liberty to abstaine as if there were no sinne but by the will he limiteth this definition in his Retractations to that m Idem Retract lib. 1. c. 15 Iâ— definitum est quod tantummodo peccatum est non quod est etiam pâ—na peccati Nam quando tale est vt idem sit pâ—na peccati quaÌ„tum est quod valet voluntas sub dominaÌ„te cupiditate nisi fortè si piaest vâ—â—ret auxiliii c. which is only sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne For in that sinne saith he which is also the punishment of sinne how little can the will doe vnder the dominion of concupiscence saue only if it be godly to pray for helpe In which words he plainly acknowledgeth that that against which the godly will and minde prayeth for helpe is not only the punishment of sinne but also sinne and therefore in the place by M. Bishop cited must be vnderstood to restraine the name of sinne to actuall and committed sinne laying guilt vpon him by whom it is committed which concupiscence as he often teacheth doth not lay vpon him that fighteth against it because to him it is already remitted and pardoned and therefore according to that construction is by the same St. Austin in sundry places exempted from the name of sinne As for the wordes of the Apostle which M. Bishop vrgeth n Rom. 7. 17. Now it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me he might easily conceiue that he saith not so as to acquit himselfe absolutely from being the doer or worker but only in some sort For if he be not the doer why doth he say o Vers 14. I am carnall sold vnder sinne p Vers 15. I doe that which I hate q Vers 19. The euill which I would not that doe I and for conclusion r Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I my selfe euen very I in my minde serue the law of God and in my flesh the law of sinne And if he be not the doer who shall it be said to be He saith indeede that it is sinne that doth it but is sinne a doer without the man Can the accident be an agent without the subiect This negation therefore must be vnderstood according to that whereby he would not doe that which he did according to the inner man according to that wherein he was in part renewed and desired to bee wholly that that hee was thereby But as touching this also I haue Å¿ Of Original sinne sect 3. before giuen full satisfaction and M. Bishop might well haue spared himselfe this trouble to repeate the same againe His next argument sheweth his learning in diuinity in that he plainly declareth that he knoweth not what the dominion of sinne meaneth Sinne saith he hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace as the Apostle teacheth But this were false if concupiscence were properly sinne Why so I pray Forsooth it hath such dominion ouer euery good body that they cannot auoid the motion and sting of it This he hath sucked out of his owne fingers ends who would haue made this argument but he Let the Apostle himselfe tell vs what t Rom. 6. 12. the dominion of sinne is who hauing said Let not sinne reigne in your mortall body addeth for exposition hereof that yee should obey it in the lusts thereof as to note that then sinne is said to reigne in vs when we giue obedience to it to fulfill the lusts thereof Hereupon St. Austin obserueth thus u August in loan Tract 41. Non ait Non fit sed Non regnet Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatuÌ„ in membrie tuis salteâ— illi regnum auferatur non fiat quod iubet He saith not Let it not be but Let it not reigne So long as thou liuest sinne must needes be in thy members yet let the Kingdome thereof be taken away let not that be done which it commandeth Where we see that the dominion of sinne is then vnderstood to be when we obey and doe that which it commandeth but the deniall of this obedience and refusall to doe the lust thereof that is the taking away of the kingdome and dominion of it To the same purpose Gregory Bishop of Rome speaketh of the same wordes x Gregor Moral lib. 14. c. 9. Non ait non sit sed non regnet quia non esse non potest non autem
of the Valentinian Heretikes and Heracleonites as I haue z Answere to the Preface of the second part sect 20. before shewed St. Iames doth not say Is any man in extremity of sicknesse past hope of life and now departing out of the world as M. Bishop in part speaketh and as they wholly vse that new deuised Sacrament but he saith absolutely Is any man sicke Againe St. Iames maketh the effect of that annointing to be bodily health saying that the Lord shall raise him vp or giue him ease which is the sauing or preseruing of which he speaketh namely from the perill and danger of sicknesse as a Bellarm. de Extr. vnct c. 8. Incipit à sanitate corporali cum ait Oratio fidei saluabit infir 〈…〉 Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth it whereas the effect of Sacraments is no corporall benefit but only inward and spirituall grace For albeit the water of Baptisme haue an effect to cleanse the body and bread and wine in the Lords Supper to nourish and feede the same yet these are no Sacramentall but only naturall effects belonging to these creatures without any Sacrament whereas the proper effect of that whereof St. Iames speaketh is bodily recouery and therefore by b OEcumen in Iac. 5. Hoc etiam Domino adhuc inter homines conuersante Apostoli sacrebant vngentes aegrotos olâ—o sanantes OEcumenius is made all one with that which the Apostles did as I haue alleaged whereof health is noted to haue ensued His last text is to proue that we must confesse our sinnes not to God only but also to men because the same St. Iames saith Confesse your sinnes one to another And who denyeth this who gainsayeth it when as our Sauiour Christ so plainly instructeth him that hath c Luke 17. 4. sinned against his brother to returne to him and say It repenteth me that so there may be reconciliation and peace betwixt them We make no question of confessing repentantly and charitably one to another but we question the necessity of confessing auricularly to the Priest by particular enumeration of all our sinnes and so farre is the text which M. Bishop citeth from deliuering expresly this as that his Masters of Rhemes doe plainly tell him that d Rhem. Testam Annotat. Iam. 1. 16. it is not certaine that St. Iames speaketh here of sacrament all confession who notwithstanding would haue bin glad if they could haue had any ground wherupon to affirme that he did so Now what did he then meane thus to heape together such a number of places as wherein their Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes when as there is not one of them that doth iustifie their Roman doctrine and his owne fellowes doe confesse so much of sundry of them What neede we to ransacke all the corners of our wits to deuise odde shifts to auoide the â—uidence as he calleth it of such places which without any shifts at all are so easily and plainly cleared as these are Yet according to his wonted and wise manner he concludeth that the Protestants doe not receiue all the written word who notwithstanding receiue all these places reade them cite them expound them acquaint the people vsually with them which they by no meanes dare to doe Yea but the Scriptures are not in reading but in vnderstanding and we doe not take them in the right sense Silly fellow what hindereth but that we should be thought able to vnderstand the Scriptures as well as he Forsooth we receiue not the Scriptures he saith according to the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition But be thou Iudge gentle Reader whether in this whole worke to goe no further I haue not brought the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition more frequently and firmely then he hath done He talketh of the Doctors for shew to blinde simple men but the true cause of their griefe is that wee receiue not the Romish exposition nor bee content to submit the whole Scriptures to the Popes will But because we finde no such rule amongst the most ancient and best learned Doctors that the Popes mouth should be any oracle of Scripture-sense we leaue his babling of the exposition of Scripture as partiall and idle and doe wish him to learne more wit then to take Scriptures in such sort as they that are at Rome are faine to doe W. BISHOP §. 8. NOw to draw towards the end of this clause not only neuer a one of M. Abbots assertions whereby hee went about to proue themselues and their Church to bee Catholike is true as hath beene shewed before but ouer and besides his very conclusion conuinceth himselfe euen by the verdict of himselfe to fall into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists Our faith saith he because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to bee an Apostolicall Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike Ex perfectione Page 16. lin 5. doctrinae By perfectnesse of their doctrine which was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatâ—sticall tricke reproued by S. Augustine whom in that point he then approued What doating folly is this in the same short discourse so to forget himselfe as to take that for a sound proofe which he himselfe had before confuted as hereticall We like well of Tertullians obseruation That our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine but that is not the question at this time but whether our doctrine or the Protestant be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in all nations ouer the world that is to be proued in this place M. Abbot if he had meant to deale plainly and soundly should not haue gone so about the bush and haue fetched such wide and wilde windlesses from old father Abrahams dayes but should haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiasticall Histories or of ancient Fathers who were in the pure times of the Church the most Godly and approued Pastors thereof that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles dayes ouer all Europe Afrike and Asia or at least had beene visibly extant in some one Country or other naming some certaine Churches in particular which had held in all points their faith and religion which he seeing impossible for any man to doe fell into that extrauagant and rouing discourse which you haue heard concluding without any premises sauing his owne bare word that in the written word There is no mention made of the Pope or his Supremacy nor of his Pardons c. Belike there is no mention made of S Peter nor ought said of his singular prerogatiues It hath not peraduenture That whatsoeuer hee should loose on earth should bee loosed in
viâ—tus tempus locus operandi suppetit tantò quis operatur quaÌ„tò Deum nouerat tantuÌ„ se nosse Deum indicat quantum pro Deo bona operatur c. Vnusquisque qui in hoc vitae exercitio versatur tantum credit quantum sperat amat tantum operatur quantum credit amat sperat also Gregory Bishop of Rome We finde saith he that faith hope charity and good workes so long as here we liue are equall in vs. For looke how much we beleeue so much also we loue and how much we loue so much we presume of hope Of faith and workes also St. Iohn confisseth saying He that saith he knoweth God and keepeth not his Commandements is a lyar For the knowledge of God appertaineth to faith the keeping of the Commandements to workes When therefore power and time and place of working serueth so much doth a man worke as he knoweth God and so much doth he shew himselfe to know God as he worketh good things for Gods sake To be short euery one saith he that is conuersant in this exercise of life beleeueth so much as he hopeth and loueth and looke how much he beleeueth hopeth loueth so much he worketh These wordes are plaine enough and yet the wordes of Sixtus the third if that bee his which they haue lately published vnder his name are somewhat more plaine p Sixt. 3. Epist de malis Doctor oper fidei c. Biblioth sanct Patrum tom 5. Intelligere noâ— norunt vbicunque fidei fructus non sit illâ—â— quoque nec ipsam fidem esse credendam Caeterùm quis prudens addubitet vbi fides sit illâ—â— esse â—â—morem vbi timor sit illic esse obedientiam vbi obedientia sit illiâ— esse iâ—stitiam sicut â— contâ—ario vbi iustitia non sit illic nec obedientiam nec timorem esse nec fidem Ita enim haec sibi inuicâ—m sociata atque connexa sunt vt diuisa penitus esse non possint Wheresoeuer is not the fruit of faith saith he it is not to be beleeued that there is faith What wise man doubteth but that where faith is there is also feare and where feare is there is obedience and where obedience is there is righteousnesse as on the contrary where righteousnesse is not there is neither obedience nor feare nor faith For so are these coupled and ioyned togither as that they cannot in any wise be diuided The collection from these testimonies is very manifest neither neede I to declare it but very plainly we see the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome according with ours and condemning as we doe the Popish separation that now is made betwixt faith and workes Thus then M. Bishops first conclusion is fallen to the ground and as for the second it deserueth not to be stood vpon because it is no wonder that faith auailed them nought nor saued them from the wrath of God in whom it appeareth by that that hath beene said that there was no faith CHAP. IX That the iustification of man before God is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE THe Apostle in expresse termes affirmeth imputation of righteousnesse without vvorkes c. to Paul teacheth that eternall life c. W. BISHOP WE hold with the Apostle that workes be not the cause of the first iustification whereof he there treateth nor to deserue it though inspired with Gods grace they doe prepare vs and make vs fit to receiue the gift of iustification neither doe the Protestants wholly exclude vvorkes from this iustification when they doe require true repentance which consisteth of many good workes as necessary thereto We hold that iustice is increased by good workes which we call the second iustification against which the Apostle speaketh not a word but doth confirme it when he saith in the same Epistle Not the hearers of Rom. 2. vers 13. the law are iust with God but the doers of the law shall bee iustified Marke how by doing of the law which is by doing good workes men are iustified with God and not only declared iust before men as the Protestants glose the matter Now touching imputation of See the place Rom. 4. vers 6. righteousnesse the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant of the outward imputation of Christs iustice to vs but of inherent iustice to wit of faith which worketh by charity which are qualities powred into our hearts Rom. 6. by the holy Ghost so that there is only a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants the true substance of the Text making wholly for the Catholikes R. ABBOT CVrsed is the glosse they say that corrupteth the Text but more accursed is the glosse which to corrupt the text dissembleth and concealeth the wordes of it I set downe the imputation of righteousnesse without works all in a speciall letter as the wordes of the Apostle M. Bishop in that speciall letter setteth downe imputation of righteousnesse and no more but without workes he addeth in the common letter as if they were mine only and not the Apostles wordes knowing that his deuoted Reader who hee knew would not looke into the Text it selfe should hereby faile to see both the force of the words and the simplenesse of his answere And with the like fraud it is that in the margent of his answere he setteth downe see the place Rom. 4. vers 6. as to insinuate to his Reader that if he see the place he shall there see somewhat for his turne whereas hee knoweth that his Catacatholikes for whose sakes hee writeth to keepe his credit with them would hold it sacriledge for them to goe about to see the place for feare least the handling of the new Testament should make them turne Protestants neither durst hee set downe the wordes himselfe least they should euen by this text grow to suspicion of his dealing with them But I will doe that for him which he himselfe durst not doe the words of the Apostle being these a Rom. 4. 5. 6. To him that worketh not that is saith Photius b Phot. apud Oecumen in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus siduciam non habet to him who hath no confidence by workes but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse euen as Dauid pronounceth the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne In which wordes wee see how the Apostle affirmeth accordingly as I said an imputation of righteousnesse without workes which he expresseth to be the reputing of faith for righteousnesse for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes To this M Bishop answereth that they hold with the Apostle that workes be not the cause of the first iustification nor doe deserue it though inspired
with Gods grace they doe prepare vs and make vs fit to receiue the gift of iustification Where I wish it first to be noted how he maketh workes before the first iustification to be inspired with Gods grace whereas they hold the first iustification to be the first infusion of the grace of God Now they hold workes before the first iustification not to be properly meritorious and yet that workes proceeding from Gods grace are properly dâ—sertfull and meritorious so as that we are come to haue grace before grace and workes meritorious before they be meritorious and I know not what for what the painter list that must stand vpon the wall But to let this passe his answere to the place is otherwise idle and impertinent for though he c See of Iustification sect 21. tell vs which yet he telleth vs falsly and against himselfe that workes be not the cause of the first iustification nor doe deserue it yet he doth not tell vs that either the first or the second iustification is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes which is the thing by the Apostle spoken of For in the imputation of righteousnesse without workes what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse Faith saith the Apostle is reputed for righteousnesse Tell vs then M. Bishop is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without workes Spit out man and tell vs whether in your first or second iustification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous without workes This the Apostle teacheth and doe you teach the same No forsooth saith he I dare not say so though the Apostle taught the Romans so when they were nouices in the faith yet that now serueth not our turne Consider it well gentle Reader and thou shalt see that his answere is a meere mockery and giueth no satisfaction to the point And that it may appeare further so to be it is to be noted how the Apostle bringeth Dauid for a witnesse of that he saith who hauing beene long a faithfull and iustified man that M. Bishop may haue no shift by his pretense of the first iustification yet still out of his owne present occasioned experience and feeling pronounceth as the Apostle saith the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works He was in great distresse and affliction of bodily sicknesse and in that misery he lay vntill God had throughly humbled him and brought him to true and faithfull acknowledgement and confession of his sinne Vpon this confession and repentance God remitteth the sinne and mercifully releaseth him from the grieuous punishment that had lien vpon him and hereupon hee breaketh out into those wordes which the Apostle citeth e Psal 32. 1. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Now therefore to speake of a man in the state of grace as Dauid was this is his blisse euen the forgiuenesse of his sinnes which is through faith the imputation of righteousnesse without workes And for further confirmation hereof Dauid hauing so spoken of himselfe addeth in generall f Vers 6. For this shall euery holy man make his prayer vnto thee For this that is as Austin saith g August in Psal 31. Pro qua hac Pro ipsa vema peccatorum for the forgiuenesse of sinnes And if the forgiuenesse of sinnes be as the Apostle expoundeth it the imputation of righteousnesse without workes then thâ— prayer of euery holy man of euery one that is godly is this that not hauing workes whereby to be iustified he may by faith in Christ be reputed righteous and accepted in the sight of God Here we haue M. Bishop fast tyed neither is there any way for him to breake loose because by comparing the Prophets wordes and the Apostles application thereof we finde that the holy or godly man looketh for blisse by imputation of righteousnesse without workes Euen the holy man prayeth with Dauid a holy man h Psal 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight no man liuing shall be found iust and therefore prayeth againe as Dauid by the exposition of the Apostle hath taught the holy man to pray that faith may be counted to him for righteousnesse that the Lord will impute to him righteousnesse without workes Of this imputation of righteousnesse without workes St. Austin saith i August Retract l. 1. c. 19. Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur All the commandements of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned which is not done And againe k IdeÌ„ in Psal 118. Conc. 3. In via sideâ— pro non peccantibus habentur quâ—bus peccata non imputantur In the way of faith they are reckoned for no sinners and therefore are reputed iust who haue not their sinnes imputed vnto them Thus Bernard saith that l Bernard in Cant. serm 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatorum Christ is made vnto vs righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and that m Ibid. ser 23. Hominis iustitâ—â— indulgentâ—a Dei. Gods pardon is mans righteousnesse To the like purpose it is that Ambrose saith n Ambros in Psal 118. ser 7. Potest pâ—â—â—atâ—r hoâ— ipso iustus esse qâ—â—a accusator est â—â—i A sinner may euen hereby be iust for that he is the accuser of himselfe And so saith Gregory Bishop of Rome o Gregor in Ezech. hom 7. Iustus aduocatus noster iustâ—s nos dâ—fendet â—â— iudicio quia 〈◊〉 ipsos cognosâ—â—mus accusamus iniustes Non ergò in sâ—etibus non in actibus nostris sed in aduocati nostri allegatione considamus Our iust Aduocate will in iudgement defend vs for iust because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust and therefore let vs not put confidence in our teares or in our workes but in our Aduocates allegation or intercession for vs. If as touching workes we know and confesse our selues to be vniust and yet notwithstanding be defended in iudgement to be iust what can our iustice be but the imputation of iustice without workes Against this M. Bishop alleageth that we doe not wholly exclude workes from iustification because we require true repentance which containeth many good workes as necessary thereto But of this he hath receiued answere p Of Iustification sect 25. before that repentance doth only make the subiect capable of iustification but is it selfe no part or cause thereof that it is as the feeling and paine of a wound or sore which causeth to seeke the medicine for cure and ease but it selfe healeth not that it is as hunger and thirst which feede not the body but prouoke the seeking of the meate whereby it is fed The penitent man touched in conscience with the guilt of sinne and seeing thereby the misery that lyeth vpon him by Gods anger and indignation denounced against the same
because he findeth nothing in himselfe or in his owne works to helpe himselfe doth therefore betake himselfe to Iesus Christ that through faith he may finde in him that iustification which is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes Thus is q Gal. 3. 24. the law our Schoole-master vnto Christ that we may be iustified by faith For r Rom. 3. 20. by the law is the knowledge of sinne Å¿ Rom. 4. 15. the law worketh wrath the law maketh it to appeare that t Rom. 3. 23. all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God This true repentance beleeueth and acknowledgeth and thereupon flyeth to the Sanctuarie which God hath prouided u Vers 24. Wee are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus whom God hath set forth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud As for the good workes which M. Bishop saith are contained in true repentance they are the fruits of repentance not the parts of it or rather the effects of that faith whereby repentance becommeth true repentance x August Epist 120. Ex hoc quippe incipiunt opera bona ex quo iustificamur non quia prâ—â—esserunt iustificamur hauing their beginning then when we are iustified not going before that we should be iustified thereby Now what they hold concerning the second iustification it skilleth not to vs we know they hold many things which they might very well let goe He telleth vs that the Apostle speaketh not a word against it and we tell him that it is a sufficient reason for vs to denie it because the Apostle treating purposely and at large of iustification saith not a word for it Albeit it is vntrue which he saith that the Apostle saith not a word against it because he defineth as I haue shewed the iustification of the iust and godly man to whom they referre their second iustification to be the imputation of righteousnesse without workes As for the wordes of the Apostle which he alleageth y Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the law are iust with God but the doers of the law shall be iustified they are farre from the intendment of their second iustification The Apostle though he speake not of their first and second iustification yet speaketh of two kinds of iustification the one presumed of man the other taught and giuen of God the one pertaining to the Law the other to the Gospell the one by workes the other by faith The Iewes presumed of iustification by the workes of the law they greatly gloried in their name and in the law they attributed much to themselues aboue all other for hauing the vse and knowledge of it and thought the Gentiles in that behalfe much inferiour vnto them But the Apostle telleth them that z Vers 11. there is no respect of persons with God and therefore if they sinned no prerogatiues otherwise could acquit them from his wrath For as on the one side a Vers 12. as many as haue sinned without the law saith he shall perish also without the law so on the other side as many as haue sinned in the law shall be iudged by the law that is shall receiue that iudgement that is pronounced by the law For confirmation whereof he addeth the words which M. Bishop citeth b Vers 13. For the hearers of the law are not iust before God but the doers of the law shall be iustified thereby signifying that to haue the law or to bee formall and zealous in the hearing of it is not that that sufficeth to make a man righteous with God and if any man would bee iustified by the law he must be a doer of it but if he were a trespasser and sinned against the law hee could not bee iustified thereby For the voice of the law is c Gal. 3. 12. He that doth these things shall line therein and d Rom. 10. 5. Moses thus describeth the righteousnesse of the law e Leuit. 18. 5. that the man that doth these things shall liue therein Which doing to what measure and perfection it must extend is to be knowen by that sentence which the Apostle reciteth out of the law f Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them It is true then that the doers of the law shall be iustified who denyeth it but they only are doers of the law which continue to doe all things that are written in the law What is here then to M. Bishops second iustification when as this iustification by the law requireth the doing of all and of vs euen the best it is true that g Jam. 3. 2. in many things we offend all and that h Eccles 7. 22. there is not a man iust vpon the earth that doth good and sinneth not Yea how crosly doth he deale that whereas the Apostle vseth these wordes to conuince i Rom. 3. 9. the Iewes of sinne and to beate downe their pride in opinion of righteousnesse by the law he alleageth them to vphold himselfe in the same pride and to defend thereby iustification by the law Marke saith he how by doing of the law men are iustified with God It is true M. Bishop and be you a doer of the law and you shall be iustified thereby But take heede least whilest you take vpon you to be a doer of the law there be found sinne in you If there be sinne in you you are not a doer but a trespasser of the law and must feare the reward of sinne and k â—â—m 6. 23. the reward of sinne is death That made the Apostle say that l Gal. 3. 10. so many as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse m Cap. 5. 4. they being voided from Christ and fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law Therefore he desâ—red for himselfe that n 〈◊〉 3. 9. he might be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the law but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through faith euen that which he calleth in the place here questioned the imputation of righteousnesse without workes But touching imputation of righteousnesse M. Bishop saith that the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant of the outward imputation of Christs iustice vnto vs but of inherent iustice Where it is much to be obserued to what good issue this exposition sorteth and how reasonably it standeth with the Apostles wordes For if the imputation of righteousnesse be as he saith the imputation of inherent righteousnesse then surely because inherent righteousnesse is the righteousnesse of workes it must needes follow that the Apostle by the imputation of righteousnesse without workes doth meane the imputation of the righteousnesse of workes without workes Which interpretation because hee saw it could bee taken
for no other but a madde and frantike dreame and yet perforce must vse it because hee knew no better shift therefore he thought good to colour it the best he could by curtolling the wordes alleaged naming only imputation of righteousnesse whereas the Apostle nameth imputation of righteousnesse without workes But let him take the wordes as the Apostle setteth them downe and then giue vs his answere and we shall apparantly see him to be a most impudent man making no conscience of that he saith but studying only to blinde the Reader from seeing that truth which he himselfe knoweth not how with any probable shew to contradict Yet he telleth vs for conclusion that there is only a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants the true substance of the text making wholly for the Papists So then the sound of the wordes by his confession is for vs but inasmuch as the wordes are very plaine and cleare how may we be informed that the true substance and meaning of them is wholly for the Papists when as they containe in shew a flat contradiction to the doctrine of the Papists Wee see here the vse of that caueat which the Rhemists haue giuen to their Reader aduertising him o Rhem. Testam ArgumeÌ„t of the Epistles in generall to assure himselfe that if any thing in Pauls Epistles sound to him contrary to the doctrine of their Catholike Church he faileth of the right sense By this meanes if Saint Paul say it is white yet we must not thinke that he meaneth it to be white if it please their Church to call it blacke And therefore though here he speake of imputation of righteousnesse without works and bring testimony of ancient Scripture for confirmation thereof yet he must not be taken to meane that there is any such or any other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of workes because there is no other approued by the Roman Church Well may we thinke the iudgement of God to be fearefull vpon them who are so blinde as to be led with such fopperies and grosse deceipts CHAP. X. That eternall life is meerely and wholly the gift of God and cannot be purchased by merit or desert ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul teacheth that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ c. to Hee telleth vs againe and againe c. W. BISHOP IN the same place you had a large solution of this obiection but he that hath made a couenant with hell will not looke vpon that which might helpe him to heauen We teach with the Apostle and with his faithfull interpreter Saint Augustine That eternall life is the gift of God both originally because we must receiue grace by the free gift of God before we can doe any thing that doth deserue the ioyes of heauen and also principally the whole vertue and value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace in vs which doth eleuate and giue such worth to our workes that they thereby deserue life euerlasting Notwithstanding if we take not hold on Gods grace when it is freely offered vs and doe not concurre with it to the effecting of good workes we shall neuer be saued and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen both which are prouedly this sentence of the same Apostle God will render to euery man according to Rom. 2. vers 6. 7. 8. his workes to them truly that according to patience in good workes seeke glory and honour and incorruption life eternall to them that are of contention and that obey not the truth but giue credit to iniquity wrath and indignation where you may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good workes to such men as diligently seeke to doe them and to others who refuse to obey the truth and rather choose to beleeue lies and to liue wickedly eternall death and damnation R. ABBOT WHether M. Bishop or I may bee thought more likely to flatter himselfe in an opinion of hauing made a couenant with hell I leaue it to be esteemed by the whole processe of this worke and the God of heauen shall make it one day more fully to appeare Against his solution of the obiection here propounded he knoweth well that I a Of Merits sect 8. haue returned a replication which sheweth the same to be infirme and vaine and seeing he can fortifie it no further the bare repeating of it is no other but womanish and idle talking The Apostle telleth vs that b Rom. 6. 23. eternall life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free grace or gift of God through Iâ—su Christ our Lord. We teach saith M. Bishop that eternall life is the gift of God originally and principally Thus by his shifting termes of originally and principally he limiteth the Apostles wordes and deludeth a maine Theoreme and Canon of Christian faith leauing it to be vnderstood that though eternall life be originally and principally the gift of God yet totally and absolutely it is not so Which iâ— it be true it must necessarily follow that as the Apostle saith truly that eternall life is the gift of God because in part it iâ— so so a man may truly say against the Apostle that eternall life is not the free gift of God because in part and in some sort it is not so And if no man may dare in this wise to gainsay the Apostle then wee must acknowledge that which Origen saith that c Origen in Rom. 4. Stipendia inquit peccati mors Et non addidâ—â— similitèr vt dicâ— et stâ—pendia aâ—â—â— iustitiae vita aterna sed ait Gratia autem Deâ— vâ—â—a aetâ—rna vt stâ—pend â—m quod vtique debiâ—o mercedi similé est retributionem poenâ— esse docâ—â—â—t mortis vâ—tam verâ— aternam soli gratiae consignareâ— the Apostle hauing said that the stipend of sinne is death did not adde in the like sort that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life but eternall life is the grace of God that he might teach that the retribution of punishment and death is a stipend which is like to a debt or wages but might assigne life eternall to grace only And thus the Apostle himselfe teacheth vs to conceiue when he saith d Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace then it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace For e August coÌ„t Pelag. Celest lib. 2. c 24. Gratia Dei non eriâ— gratâ—â— vllâ— modo nisigratâ—ita fuerâ—t omni modo grace saith Austin shall not be grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect f Idem Epist 120. c. 19. Haec est gratia quae gratis datur non meritâ—s operantis sed miseratione donantis That is grace saith he which is freely giuen not for the merits of the worker but by the mercy of the giuer Thus Hierome saith g Hieron Epist ad Demâ—trâ—ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non opâ—ruâ— retributio sed donamis est
worthy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth himselfe who hauing first told vs that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserue eternall life proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs presently altereth the case and saith that we must concurre with grace to the effecting of good works and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen Surely if the whole value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace then the desert of heauen ariseth not of our working with grace or if the desert of heauen doe arise of our working with grace then it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace But hereby wee may see that all the wordes which they vse as touching grace are but hypocrisie and deceipt and that their true resolution is that the desert of heauen issueth out of the free will of man vsing grace as a toole or instrument for the doing of workes whereby to deserue the same Thus of gift they make no gift and turne all wholly into merit and by the free will of man doe vtterly ouerthrow the grace of God carrying notwithstanding in the meane time a conscience of shame of that they teach and colouring all with good workes as Pelagius the Heretike and his followers in the same case were wont to doe But M. Bishop will proue all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans r Rom. 2. 6. God will render to euery man according to his workes c. where he saith we may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good works Where wee rather see his pertinacy in errour who rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe then to yeeld to the truth plainly deliuered by the Apostle But nothing can be deuised more fit for answere to him or more effectuall to stoppe his mouth then that which Gregory Bishop of Rome hath purposely set downe for satisfaction to those wordes f Gregor in Psalm Poeâ—itent 7. Quòd si illa Sanctorâ— soelicitas miserecordia est nö meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo miserecordia a stimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In co enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuiâ—s apparuerint bona opera eius sit retribut o gloriosa Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo viuitur nullus potâ—st aquari labor nulla opera comparari praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the felicity of the Saints bee mercy saith he and be not obtained by merits how shall it stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery man according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes and another thing to render for the works themselues For in that it is said according to workes the very quality of the workes is vnderstood so as that whose good works shall appeare his reward shall be glorious For to that blessed life wherein we shall liue with God and of God no labour can be equalled no workes can be compared for that the Apostle telleth vs The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come that shall be reueiled on vs. Where we see how he setteth it downe as a thing without question to be confessed that eternall life is mercy only and is not to be purchased or gained by merits and that the Scripture in saying that God rendereth to euery man according to his workes doth not import that God in giuing reward vnto good workes doth any thing for the workes sake as if he regarded the merit or value thereof but respecteth only the quality of our workes as vsing the same for a marke only wherby he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to shew mercy At these wordes of Gregory me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lippe and chafeth in his minde to heare him thus distinguishing like a Protestant and seriously approuing that which he with scorne hath reiected being spoken by M. Perkins t Of Merits sect 17. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit saith he doth God render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes What M. Bishop will you mocke Gregory in the same sort and twite him with a sharpe and ouer-fine wit He hath taught vs to distinguish thus he telleth vs that it is one thing to render for workes another thing to render according to workes which sith you admit not why doe you dâ—ale so impudently in chalenging to your selues a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches tending to the disabling of all humane works but that it followeth more properly to speake thereof in the thirteenth Chapter CHAP. XI That concupiscence or lust is sinne euen in the very habit and first motions of it ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE HE telleth vs againe and againe that concupiscence is sinne to lust is to sinne c. to S. Paul saith of the spirit of adoption c. W. BISHOP THe Apostle telleth vs againe and againe that our Sauiour Christ Iesus was made 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. sinne and yet no Christian is so simple as to take him to be properly sinne but the host or satisfaction for sinne so when the Rom. 8. vers 3. Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne wee vnderstand him with S. Augustine that it is not sinne properly yet so called not vnaptly both because it is the effect L. b. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de Nupt Concupisc cap. 23. and remnant of originall sinne and doth also pricke vs forward to actuall sinne but if by helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Which S. Paul in the very same Chapter declareth when he demandeth Who shall deliuer me Ibid. vers 25. from this body of death he answereth presently the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. And againe that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very soundly out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne but now not I worke it any more but the sinne that is in me that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed Lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 23. without the consent of our minde but that had no consent of the minde to it because it was not the Apostle that did worke it Now how can that be the euill worke of a man if the man himselfe doe not worke it as the Apostle saith expresly not I doe
regnare in cordibus bonorum potest The Apostle saith not Let it not be but Let it not reigne because it cannot but be but it may be without a kingdome in the hearts of good men M. Bishop saith that because it cannot but be in euery good man therefore it hath dominion ouer euery good man but Gregory saith it cannot but be indeede but yet it may be and be without dominion in the hearts of good men But somewhat more largely and effectually he speaketh hereof in another place y Ibid. l. 21. c. 3. Peccatum in mortali corpore non esse sed regnare prohibuit quia in carne corruptibili non regnare potest sed von esse non potest Hoc ipsum namque ei de peccato tentari peccatum est quo quia quaÌ„diu viuimus perfectè omnimodo non caremus sancta pradicatio quoniam hoc expellere plenè non potuit ei de nostri cordis habitaculo regnum tulit vt appetitus illicitus etsi plerunque bâ—nis nostris cogitationibus occultè se quasi fur inserit saltem si ingreditur non dominetur The Apostle forbiddeth sinne not to be but to reigne in our mortall body because it may be without reigning in corruptible flesh but it cannot but be there For euen to be tempted of sinne saith he is sinne vnto it which because we cannot be altogether without so long as we liue here the holy preaching for that it cannot fully expell and driue it out taketh away from it the kingdome out of the habitation of our hearts that vnlawfull desire albeit as a theefe it priuily thrust in it selfe many times amongst our good thoughts though it enter into vs yet may not haue dominion ouer vs. In which wordes as we see particularly against that which M. Bishop here saith that the motion and sting of concupiscence which Gregory calleth vnlawfull desire or lust though it cannot be auoided of the faithfull in this life yet is not therefore said to haue dominion ouer them the more absurdly doth he make application of his speech to St. Paul as though concupiscence because he could not be deliuered from it had therefore dominion ouer him so we see also as touching the maine question here in hand that that motion or sting euen the very temptation of sinne from which we cannot be freed so long as we continue in this life is sinne in vs though it haue not any kingdome or dominion ouer vs. Which is to be obserued against the collection which he maketh of the wordes of St. Iames as though there were no sinne vntill concupiscence gaine our liking and consent which is false if that be true which Gregory saith that the very temptation of sinne that is the first motion of concupiscence is sinne so well doe Gregory and he accord as touching the meaning of St. Iames his wordes which to haue no such meaning as he pretendeth I haue plentifully shewed z Of Original sinne sect 6. otherwhere And that it may be the more fully vnderstood that Gregory in the point here handled bare the same minde that we doe it shall not be amisse to set downe what he hath further said to declare his iudgement therein a Greg. Moral lib. 18. c. 5. ScienduÌ„ est quòd sunt peccata quae à iustis vitari possunt sunt nonnulla quae etiam à iustis vitari non possunt Cuius enim cor in hac corruptibili earne consistens in sinistra cogitatione non labitur vel si vsque ad consensus foueam non mergatur Et tameÌ„ haec ipsa praua cogitare peccare est sed dum cogâ—tationi resistitur à confusione sua animus liberatur Mens ergò iustorum etsi libera est à peruerso opere aliquandâ— tamen corruit in peruersa cogitatione Et in peccatum ergò labitur quia saltem in cogitatione declinatur tamen vnde semetipsampostmodum flendo reprehendat non habet quia antè reparat quà m per consensum cadat We are to know saith he that there are sinnes which the iust cannot auoide and there are sinnes which may be auoided by them For whose heart is there abiding in this corruptible flesh that doth not fall by sinister thought though he be not drowned so farre as to the pit of consent And yet the very cogitation of euill things is sinne albeit whilest the cogitation is resisted the minde is deliuered from it owne confusion The minde therefore of the iust although it be free from euill worke yet sometimes falleth by euill thought It falleth therefore into sinne because there is a declining at least in thought and yet it hath not whence afterwards with teares to reproue it selfe because it first recouereth it selfe before it fall by consent There is no obscurity in these wordes there is here a plaine confession that the euill cogitation before consent and without consent is sinne that to decline in thought is to fall into sinne and that this is the sinne which the iust cannot auoide so long as they liue here And to this purpose it maketh much which elsewhere the same Gregory telleth vs by occasion of those wordes of the Apostle which M. Bishop before vrged a Idem exposit in 1. Reg. lib. 6. cap. 2. Propè finem Peccatum quod se non operari perhibuit motum carnis intellexit Peccatum autem in se inhabitans originalem culpam c. Ex originali culpa fit peccatum motionis carnis c. Manens in nobis illa culpa nunc doctoris virtute perdi non potest Now it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me By the sinne saith he which the Apostle saith he worketh not he meaneth the motion of the flesh and by sinne dwelling in him he meaneth originall sinne and of originall sinne is caused the sinne of the motion of the flesh that sinne continuing in vs cannot now by the power of any teacher be destroyed Here is the roote originall sinne still dwelling and abiding in vs and the motion of the flesh the immediate effect thereof it selfe also sinne the same so abiding as that by no teaching it can be destroyed and why then doth M. Bishop tell vs that originall sinne after baptisme remaineth not and that that which remaineth is no sinne Surely the faithfull man will vse Dauids confession with the same mind that Dauid did b Psal 51. 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sinne hath my mother conceiued me and Gregory taketh it that Dauid meant thereby that c Idem iâ— Euangel hom 39 Nam cùm Propheta diâ—at Ecce in iniqâ—itatibus c. sine culpa in mundo esse non potuit qui in mundum cum cuâ—pa venit he could not be without sinne in the world who came with sinne into the world and expoundeth his wordes to this effect d IdeÌ„ in Psal Poenitent 4. Opus est Domine vt miserearis quia ab ineunte
there is no shadow of likelyhood that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face or that Erasmus being in most points a Catholike would report it But for the inducing of his Reader to this opinion see a trick of this honest man For if he had truly quoted the place as he found it by me set downe he thought his Reader would perhaps looke the place and so would finde it to be as I had said But to preuent this whereas I had noted in the margent Erasm de rat Concion lib. 3. hee setteth downe in steede thereof Erasmus de ratione that the Reader vvhen he should search for such a booke of Erasmus and finde no such written by him might thinke me to be as very a cozener as Doctor Bishop himselfe now is found to be Let me tell him once againe that Erasmus hath written a vvorke entituled Ecclesiastes or de ratione Concionandi in g Pag. 291. as it was printed at Basil by Frobenius 1535. the third booke whereof he hath left to future memory those vvorthy stories of Robertus Liciensis which I haue before reported For conclusion of this passage he termeth me a poore Robin simple and poore-blinde that can finde nothing in the Apostles writings for their Catholike cause telling vs that he hath shewed the contrary already and will further shew it in those very points which I my selfe haue made choise of But what he hath done already we haue seene it remaineth to examine the rest that follow that it may appeare whether the simple Protestants doe well or not in taking the Apostle St. Paul to be wholly for them W. BISHOP §. 2. TO beginne with the first there is plaine testimony that we are iustified before God by workes which I cited before VVith God the doers of the law shall be Rom. 2. vers 13. iustified There is much for free-will witnesse this Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortall body Ibid. 6. vers 12. 13. that you obey the concupiscence thereof but neither doe you exhibite your members instruments of iniquity vnto sinne but exhibite your selues to God of dead men aliue and your members instruments of iustice to God for sinne shall not haue dominion ouer you for you are not vnder the law but vnder grace See how the Apostle maketh it in the power and will of euery man indued with Gods grace either to doe well or to doe euill and that sinne hath no such dominion ouer them but that they may doe well if they will concurre with Gods grace Item that it is not grace which doth all but a man must worke with grace and exhibite the powers of his soule as instruments towards the producing of good workes which is flatly our doctrine of free-will And before we depart from this matter of iustification as M. Abbot doth very quickly you shall heare more of it out of the same Apostle he teacheth expresly that a man in the state of grace may fulfill the law in these wordes For that which was impossible to the law Ibid. cap. 8. v. 3. in that it was weakned by flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of the flesh of sinne euen of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might bee fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according to the spirit Which is seconded in the thirteenth Chapter where he concludeth loue to be the fulnesse of the law hauing Ibid. v. 9. 10. before said that he who loueth his neighbour fulfilleth the law And as for that certainty of saluation which many Protestants bragge of the Apostle doth wholly dispossesse them of it first in the place before cited where he willeth them that stand right in the true Rom. 11. ver 20. faith to beware that they fall not and assureth them that they shall fall as others had done before them if they did not diligently looke vnto it Elsewhere he aduiseth vs with feare and trembling to worke our Philip. 2. ver 12. saluation Marke how two points of the Protestant doctrine be wounded in one sentence and two of ours confirmed both that we must worke our saluation it comes not then by only faith and that with feare and trembling we are not then assured of it before hand by the certainty of faith which excludeth all feare and doubt of it Now that we ought to haue a firme hope of saluation S. Paul teacheth vs VVe haue accesse through faith Rom. 5. vers 2. into this his grace wherein we stand and glory in the hope of the Sonnes of God Also For by hope we Ibid. 8. vers 24. are saued Item we giue thanks to God c. for the Clooss 1. vers 5. hope that is laid vp for you in heauen With whom S. Peter consorteth Blessed be God and the Father of 1. Pet. 1. vers 3. our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his great mercy hath regenerated you into a liuely hope vnto an incorruptible crowne c. laid vp in heauen Not to prosecute all the particular points of iustification which haue euery one good ground in the Apostle S. Paul as in that question may be seene the very faith whereby Abraham was and we are iustified is no such kinde of faith as the Protestants claime to be iustified by that is by an apprehension and drawing of Christs righteousnesse to themselues but that faith whereby we beleeue all things to be true which God hath reuealed as S. Paul declareth in the fourth to the Romans where he reporteth Abraham Rom. 4. vers 19. to haue beene iustified by beleeuing that God according to his promise would giue him a Sonne and make him the Father of many nations so that finally there is not a word in S. Paul which in his owne meaning maketh for any one peece of the Protestants iustification but heapes of testimonies for euery branch of iustification as we beleeue it R. ABBOT H 〈…〉 M. Bishop beginneth to muster his abundance of 〈◊〉 like an armie of men whereof some want aâ—mes some legges some looke another way some turne quite about and fight against him He setteth downe a number of places but whether they hit or crosse or come short what careth he let the Reader looke to that He saith they proue this or that but how they proue it id populus curet scilicet he is too busie to trouble himselfe about it As for example There is plaine testimony saith he that we are iustified before God by workes namely a Rom. 2. 13. with God the doers of the law shall be iustified But it doth not follow that because the doers of the law shall be iustified with God therefore we are iustified before God by workes because it doth not appeare that we are doers of the law Let him put in for his minor proposition But we are doers of the law and then his absurdity appeareth because
it is manifest and our consciences force vs to confesse that we are not doers of the law For to be a doer of the law requireth the doing of all that the law commandeth to be done For b Iam. 2. 10. he that keepeth the whole law and yet faileth in one point he is guilty of all that is he is a transgressour of the law which commandeth all and because he is a transgressour of the law therefore cannot be called a doer of the law We therefore who are all transgressours of the law cannot be said to be doers of the law and because we are not doers of the law therefore cannot by the law be iustified before God And thus the Apostle telleth the Iewes that c Rom. 2. 13. not the hearers but the doers of the law shall be iustified but chargeth vpon them that they were d Vers 17. c. not doers of the law and groweth to this conclusion that e Chapt. 3. 9. all both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne and hence inferreth further f Vers 20. Therefore by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified in the sight of God Hath not M. Bishop now brought vs a goodly proofe that wee are iustified before God by workes when as the Apostle vseth those very wordes to enforce the contrary that we are not iustified by workes As handsomly doth he deale for the proofe of free-will There is much for free-will saith he witnesse this g Rom. 6. 12. 13. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies that you obey the concupiscence thereof c. Hence he inferreth that it is in the power and will of euery man endued with Gods grace to doe well And who denieth but that it is so who maketh doubt but that the grace of God giueth vs a power and will to doe well The question only is whether there be in vs any such power of our selues which is not the effect of the grace of God Thereof we say with St. Austin h August de Peccat Merit Remiss l. 2. c. 18. LaboraÌ„t homines inuenire in nostra voluntate quid boni sit nostrum quod nobis non sit ex Deo quomodo inueniri possit ignorâ— Men labour to finde in our will what good is ours which is not in vs of God and how it may be found we doe not know Otherwise we deny not free-will for vve say that vve are i Rom. 6. 22. freed from sinne and that k Iohn 8. 36. the sonne of God doth make vs free We deny not the power and vvill to doe well for vve say that l Phil. 2. 13. God doth worke in vs both to will and to doe But because we say that God doth worke it in vs and God doth make vs free therefore vve deny Popish free-will vvhich is a faculty and power of nature vvhereby by an act of our owne vvhich is not of God wee apply our selues to the grace of God and adioyne our selues to vvorke vvith it He againe collecteth that sinne hath no such dominion ouer vs but that we may doe well if we will concurre with Gods grace True it is but still the issue is vvhence we haue this vvill or vvhose worke it is that we doe concurre vvith the grace of God We say as St. Austin saith m August in Psal 77. Gratia facit sibi cooperantem hominis spiritum in opere bonorum factorum It is the grace of God that maketh the spirit of man concurrent with it in the doing of good workes and vvith St. Bernard n Bernard de Grat. lib. Arbit Coadiutorem facit cùm facit volentem hoc est voluntati suae conseâ—ticuâ—em God maketh a man concurrent when he maketh him willing that is consenting to his will It is true then that man doth concurre vvith the grace of God but it is grace it selfe that vvorketh it in man to concurre vvith grace But to open himselfe further he saith that it is not grace which doth all but a man must worke with grace and exhibit the powers of his soule as instruments to the producing of good workes Where againe we admit the latter part of his wordes that we must worke with grace and exhibit the powers of our soules as instruments of good workes but we say againe that so to doe is the gift of God o Leo de ieiun ser 1. Vt in nobis formaÌ„ suae bonitatis inueniat dat vnde ipsi quoque quod operatur operamur Who saith Leo that he may finde the image of his goodnesse in vs giueth vs whence to worke or doâ— the same that he doth But in the first part of the words he bewraieth his hereticall meaning taken out of the schoole of Pelagius when he saith it is not grace that doth all For hereby he will haue it vnderstood that man hath somwhat of his owne which is not any worke of grace and that by this power which he hath naturally of himselfe he worketh with grace and exhibiteth the powers of his soule vnto good workes But Gregory Bishop of Rome was not of this minde who saith of the elect and faithfull p Gregor in Psal Poenit. 7. Qui nihil boni sibi sed totuÌ„ gratiae Dei tribuunt scientes se nihil habere quod non acceperunt hoc enim operatus est in eis qui vasa misericordiae â—ecit eos They attribute no good to themselues but all wholly to the grace of God knowing that they haue nothing which they haue not receiued for he hath wrought it in them who hath made them vessels of his mercy It is not grace that doth all saith M. Bishop â—â— the iust doe attribute all to grace saith Gregory See how well the doctrine of the new Church of Rome agreeth with the old What the old Church of Rome taught in this behalfe the same also we teach not that we haue a power of free-will in nature whereby we can follow whither grace doth leade but what Gregory saith of Paul the same is true in vs that q Gregor in Ezech. hom 9. Praeueniens gratia liberum in eo arbitrium fecerat in bono libero arbitrio eaÌ„dem gratiam est subsecutus in opere the preuenting grace of God maketh the will free in that that is good and then we by free-will doe in worke follow the same grace For r Idem Moral lib. 16. cap. 10. Superna pietas priùs agit in nobis aliquid sine nobis vt subsequente quoque nostro libero arbitrio bonum quod iam appetimus a gat nobiscum the heauenly grace saith he againe doth first of all without vs worke somewhat in vs which is that which St. Austin saith Å¿ Aug. de grat l. arbit c. 17. Vt velimus sine nobis operatur Without vs he worketh in vs to will and St. Bernard t Bernard de grat lib. arbit
of the carnall high Priest and Priest-hood and to make way to the treaty of the Priest-hood of Christ and therefore not to be vnderstood themselues of Christs Priest-hood either executed by himselfe or by him instituted if there were any such to bee executed by men But this appeareth more plainely by Chrysostome who saith that y Chrysost in Hebr. hom 8. Vult ostendere beatus Paulus quà m multò melius sit testamentum hâ—c quà m vetus the Apostle here goeth about to shew that the new Testament is much better then the old Where Theophylact saying the same addeth further z Theophyl in Heb. 5. Vult arguere nouum vetere Testamentum longè esse praestantius orditurque sacerdotalia munera ipsa conferre cum priscorum sacerdotum illorum tum Christi ostenditque maximum in modum excellere Christi sacerdotium Hee beginneth to compare the Priestly duties both of those old Priests and of Christ and sheweth that the Priest-hood of Christ doth most highly excell Oecumenius goeth yet further and particulateth the difference a Oecumen in Heb. 5. Vult hic osten lere nonum testamentum praestantius esse veteri hoc intcrim facit velut indâ—cta à sacerdotibus comparatione quòd illud quidem homines habuit sacerdotes hoc autem Christum Hee goeth about to shew saith hee that the new Testament is more excellent then the old and this he doth by bringing in a comparison of the Priests that the old Testament hath men for Priests but the new hath Christ. Now if there be here an intention of a comparison betwixt the old Testament and the new and the wordes cited by M. Bishop belong to a part of the comparison to set forth the Priest-hood of the old then doth hee very absurdly apply them to an assertion of Priest-hood in the new and by taking away the distinction of the parts doth vtterly ouerthrow the whole comparison Yea and if one part of the difference betwixt the two Testaments consist in this as Oecumenius hence obserueth that in the old Testament men are Priests then more absurdly doth M. Bishop deale to force these words to the maintenance of their Popish Priesthood whereby men are Priests in the new Testament as well as in the old But there is yet further proofe that the wordes belong only to the Leuiticall Priest-hood in that he nameth it a Priest-hood appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sinnes there being herein implied another difference that in the old Testament the Priests offered gifts and sacrifices for sinnes but in the new Testament Christ our Priest offereth vp himselfe And this opposition Theophylact expresseth out of these wordes in question b Theophyl in Heb. 5. Qui Patrem conciliandi gratia seipsum obtulit aâ—ij verò alia quaeda donum videlicet sacrificium Christ saith he to reconcile vs to his Father offered vp himselfe but the other offered other things to wit gifts and sacrifices The same Primasius also setteth downe from the same wordes c Primas ibid. Quod dicit vâ— offeral dona sacrificia c. illi pro suis delictis offerebaÌ„t sacrificia boues scilicet arietes hircos caetera talia Chrislus veâ—â— seipsum They offered for their sinnes sacrifices of Oxen Rammes Goates and such like but Christ offered himselfe If the wordes then haue their vnderstanding of a Priest-hood offering other sacrifices then Christ offereth who hath offered vp himselfe and doe import an opposition betwixt the Priest-hood of Christ and the Iewish Priest-hood then can wee not here vnderstand M. Bishops Priest-hood wherein they take vpon them to offer the same that Christ offered euen Christ himselfe and to bee Priests of the same order as Christ is Here then wee see what conscience M. Bishop vseth in the allegation of this text for their Priest-hood and Sacrifice of the Masse when as it hath no affinity or agreement with it but goeth wholly another way Yea his iniquity and the iniquity of his fellowes in this behalfe is so much the greater in that it being the Apostles drift in this Epistle to exclude all Priesthood and Sacrifice for sinne saue only the personall Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ only they dare presume thus to wrest some sentences spoken by the way of the Iewish Priest-hood in the law as if they extended to another Massing Priest-hood to be continued in the Gospell But against this their deuised Priest-hood pretending daylie to sacrifice Christ when as it is no other but a meere blasphemy and derogation to the sacrifice of Christ wee are armed by that the Apostle telleth vs that d Heb. 7. 27. Christ needeth not daylie to offer vp sacrifice that e Heb. 9. 25. he is entred into heauen not to offer himselfe often because f Heb. 10. 14. by one offering hee hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified hauing thereby purchased g Mat. 26. 28. remission of sinnes and h Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne The wordes are plaine euery eye may discerne them that because by Christs once offering there is remission of sinnes therefore there is now no more offering for sinne and therefore no Priest-hood for that vse Howsoeuer therefore vse and custome haue brought the name of Priest-hood into the language of the Church yet as touching the propriety and truth thereof wee say as before with Cyril i Cyril ad Neslor Epist 10. Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipiam homini siue sacerdotij nomen siue rem ipsam ascribimus We ascribe not the name of Priest-hood or the thing it selfe to any other man saue to Christ and therefore doe wholly disclaime M. Bishops Priest-hood To which notwithstanding to get some further colour he falsifieth another text of the Apostle as if it had beene said Priests are Gods coadintours and helpers whereas the Apostle hath no name of Priests nor any intendement at all of such Priests as M. Bishop speaketh of but of Apostles Preachers and Ministers of the Gospell he saith k 1. Cor. 3. 9. Wee are Gods helpers or labourers togither with God Now who denieth this who saith that Preachers are only idle instruments as hee here obiecteth who doth not rather imagine that he is scant right that maketh motion of such a causelesse and idle quarrell But much more may wee thinke that his head stoode awry in his next conclusion That St. Pauld and Timothy did saue other men and therefore it is no blasphemy to pray to Saints to helpe and saue vs. For tell vs M. Bishop doe not you tell your Disciples that the end of your calling and trauell is to saue soules Doe not you beare them in hand that to saue them you aduenture the losse of your owne liues And what because you in your opinion doe saue them must all men in your opinion also make prayers to you to helpe and saue