of man dead as touching Free will to righteousnesse he answereth of naturall Free will only fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection What fortifying is there of a dead man and how should he be lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except he first recouer life Why doth he by babling and trifling bobbe his Reader and make shew to say something when indeed to the purpose he saith nothing at all The argument still standeth impregnable Man is not onely weake and vnperfect but dead not halfe dead but wholy dead in sinne and therefore by S. Austine likened to the b Aug. contra duas Epist Pela lib. 4 cap. 5. de verbis Apost Ser. 11. Shunamites sonne being dead whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from the dead He must be made c Rom. 6.13 aliue from the dead before he can concurre with grace Which if M. Bishop confesse or because he cannot deny therefore he must confesse also that as the dead man hath nothing whereby to helpe himselfe to receiue life againe so man spiritually dead d August de verb. Dom. Ser. 18. Mortuos eos vocat Vbi nisi intus in anima inwardly in soule dead hath nothing in him no facultie or power of the soule whereby he can any way further the recouerie of his owne life But to fill vp the measure of his folly he will set foorth this matter vnto vs by a comparison A Crab-tree flocke forsooth hath no abilitie of it selfe to bring foorth apples and therefore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so saith he albeit our sowre corrupt nature of it self be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to bring foorth the sweet fruite of good workes Similes habent labra lactucas as his doctrine is so must his similitudes needes be crabbed and crosse Is the Crab-tree stocke dead to the bringing foorth of apples which by it owne naturall life without alteration continueth life and giueth nouriture and increase to the siances and graffes of apples that are engraffed and implanted vpon it which receiueth nothing at all of the graffes or siances but ministreth vnto them that whereby they bring foorth fruite Is this the condition of the grace of God in vs that we giue it sappe and strength in vs to bring foorth good fruite vnto God And yet the Crab-tree stocke in the receiuing of the new graffes is meerely and wholy passiue and not actiue in any sort The engraffing thereof is altogether the worke of the gardiner or husbandman Yea and that they bring foorth such or such fruite they haue it not of the stocke but altogether and onely of their owne kind Therefore we must likewise say that the nature of man in the receiuing of the graft of grace is altogether passiue and doth nothing thereto and when e Iam. 1.21 the superfluitie of maliciousnesse being cast away and cut off the same grace vseth our naturall powers to the bringing foorth of the fruite of good workes the commendation of the fruite ariseth onely froÌ„ the graffe from grace it selfe and the power thereof not by the stocke but by it selfe digesting and turning all to the nature and qualitie of it selfe So that his owne comparison doth most effectually serue to strengthen our part and to ouerthrow his owne But as he vseth it it sauoureth very rankly of the Pelagian heresie For Pelagius made of the power of nature f August contrae Pelag. Celest lib. 1 ca. 18. Habemus possibilitatem vtriusque partis à Deo insitam velut quandam vt ita dicam radicem fructiferaÌ„ atque foecundam quae ex voluntate hominis diuersa gignat paeriat quae possit ad proprij cultoris arbitrium vel nitere flore virtutum vel sentibus horrere vieiorum Vbi non intuens quid loquatur vnam eandemque radiceÌ„ constituit bonoruÌ„ malorum concrae Euangelicam veritaetem c. a fertile and fruitfull roote which out of the will of man did bring foorth diuersly and might as the dresser thereof list either be garnished with the flowers of vertue or else grow wild with the thornes of vice Whereby as S. Austine noteth he made one and the same roote both of good and euill workes euen as M. Bishop doth by his Crab-tree stocke contrarie to the truth of the Gospell and the doctrine of the Apostle For in the Gospel we reade of g Mat 7.17.18 a good tree and an euill tree and that the good tree cannot bring foorth euill fruite nor the euill tree good fruite h Quid est bonus homo nisi voluntaus bonae hoc est arber raedicis bonae Et quid est homo malus nisi voluÌ„tatis malae hoc est arbor radicis â—ale The good tree is a tree of a good root and the euill tree a tree of an euill root not both of the same roote The tree of a good root is the man of a good wil the tree of an euill root is the man of euil will not growing both vpon the Crab-tree stocke of M. Bishops Free will Whereby we are giuen to vnderstand that for the bringing foorth of good fruite it sufficeth not to haue any thing ingraffed in vs but we our selues must become graffes to be implanted into a new stocke and to grow vpon a new root We must be engraffed into the i Ioh. 15.1 true vine Iesus Christ by him to be purged from the corruption that we haue drawne from our old root and to liue wholy by his spirit that we may bring foorth fruit not according to our owne nature and kind as other graffes do but according to a new life and nature that we receiue by being ioyned vnto him M. Bishop is of another mind he will haue Christ to be ingraffed vpon the Crab-tree stocke of our Free will he seeth no necessitie to leaue his old roote to be engraffed into Christ As for the place of S. Iames k Iam. 1 21. Receiue the engraffed word c. it auaileth him nothing at al for it doth not import in any wise that the word of God ingraffed in our naturall Free will doth bring foorth fruite vnto God but onely telleth vs in what sort the word of God is to be receiued of vs that it may saue our soules namely that it must be inwardly wrought in our hearts that it may become to vs l 1. Pet. 1.23 the immortall seed whereby through saith we are m Iam. 1.18 begotten and borne againe and n Ephes 2 10 created anew in Iesus Christ which is not done o Ioh. 1.13 by the will of man that is by Free will but God p Iam. 1.18 of his owne will hath begotten vs and that so as that though q 1. Cor. 3. â—
purpose but expecteth our will to make good that grace to our selues he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will but cannot endure to say that it is God that worketh in vs to will He answereth yet further that the whole may be attributed to God because the habits of grace infused be froÌ„ him as sole efficient of theÌ„ our actioÌ„s endued also with grace being onely dispositions no efficient cause of those habits But herein he absurdly trifleth by altering the state of the questioÌ„ For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace We say that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will they say that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat li. 4 Ex gratia libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuaÌ„ applicationis one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof They say that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil but we say that God without putting vs to condition of our wil worketh in vs to will and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same i Aug. Confess lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod â—ubes giuing what he commandeth and k De Praedest sanct cap. 11. Deus facit vt illa faciamus himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done The words of the Apostle are plain for vs and as plaine against theÌ„ But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby 9. W. BISHOP One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Answ Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giues his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting As for example a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring foorth apples therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes to which alludeth S. Iames Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word which can saue our soules Againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it what maruel then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely feed do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite R. ABBOT This obiection M. Bishop saith he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason He wold haue kept due order and haue answered the rest as well as this but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking and cutteth off what he list If man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins a Ephes 2.1 When we were dead in sinnes M. Bishop answereth sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent Which answer who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe Man must giue his free consent to grace that he may be quickened thereby and yet man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened by grace If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening because that that cometh after cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause And this is indeed the very truth iustified by M. Bishops owne words against his will But his whole discourse driueth the other way that a man not yet quickened must by Free will giue consent to grace and concurre with God that he may be quickened because though grace be offered yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie for asking the question againe How can that be namely that man should giue his free consent to grace if he were then dead he answereth Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions But what is this to the purpose seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting Where he doth but runne in a ring and in other words repeateth the same answer still sticking fast in the briars wherein he was tangled before For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection He hath told vs before by grace and that to grace man must giue his free consent So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection and yet it cannot be fortified by grace and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except it first concurre with grace I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is
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
our good workes directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob a Rom. 9.11 Before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not by works but by him that calleth it was said the elder shall serue the younger as it is written I haue loued Iacob and haue hated Esau b August Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed diâ—â—ret ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quastionem c. Where saith S. Austine if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood he would not haue said Not of works but would haue said for the workes that were to come and so would haue put the matter out of question c IdeÌ„ epist 105. Ideo inquiunt Pelagiani nondum natorum alium oderat alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat Quit istum aâ—utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur The Pelagians said as he obserueth that of them being not yet borne God therefore hated the one and loued the other because he did foresee their workes to come Who would not wonder saith he that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle But his resolution euery where is that Gods election is the cause of our good workes not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle d Ephe. 1.4 He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him through loue e De praedest sanct ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramuâ— sed vt essemus Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae c. not saith he because we would be but that we should be not because he foreknew that we would be so but that we might be so by his election of grace The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe f 1. Cor. 7.25 Aug. epist 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull but by his mercy made him so to be It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it deferreth the rest to the question of merits where he saith nothing directly to it It seemeth he was ielous of the matter and therefore was loth to wade too farre least it should too plainly appeare that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit 35. W. BISHOP The fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can do a good worke and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification and hauing before discussed the first and the second now remaining and expecting you why did you not say one word of it the matter being ample and well worthie the handling Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments as we bring to proue a second iustification Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification but these degrees must be made downward of euill worser and worst for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold Pag. 76. else-where let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse which can neuer after be either loosed or increased Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you well coursed read S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory Lib. 2. con Iouin Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against which I will put downe these reasons following R. ABBOT If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation What are they vertuous and yet are they not good Nay he hath called them a Sect. 30. 32. before good qualities good dispositions good preparations and what were they good then and now are they not good Tell vs M. Bishop your mind are your works of preparation good workes or are they not good If they be not good then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good If they be good then it is vntruth that you say here that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse that you haue said amisse Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand which is as he saith of the second iustification whereas Maister Perkins though noting their distinction of first and second iustification yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification whence it must follow that they haue no place in any second iustification And the argument here propounded directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatioÌ„ though he would not see so much For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified theÌ„ can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice Iustice is not full and perfect so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it There is still something to be added in their second iustification till it come to his full terme Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified Now the iustice that is not perfect if it be respected in it selfe cannot be pleasing vnto God It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands There can therefore be no good workes whereby a man should merit their second iustification M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument and hauing so done very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion graunting it in one sort when the premisses inferre it in another and yet braueth and faceth as if the matter were wholly cleare for him
saluation in Christ which in the law being a transgressour thereof he could not finde But of these words enough hath bene said before in the question of l Cha. 3. Sect. 3. the Certaintie of Saluation For conclusion of this point to quit M. Bishop I will alledge the words of S. Bernard m Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Non latuit praeceptoreÌ„ praecepti ponduâ— humanas excedere viâ—es sed iudicauit vtile ex hoc ipso suae ipsos insufficientiae admoneri et vt scirent sanè ad queÌ„ iustitiae fineÌ„ niti pro viribâ—s oporteret Ergo mandando impossibilia non praeuaricatores fecit sed humiles vt omne os obstruatur subditus fiat to tus mundus Deo AccipieÌ„tes quippe mandâ—tum sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum miserebitur nostri Deus sâ—temus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit It was not vnknowne to the commaunder that the waight of the commaundement doth exceede the strength of man but he held it expedient that hereby men should be aduertized of their owne vnsufficiencie and that they should know to what end of righteousnesse they should labour to their vtteâ—most Therefore by commaunding things vnpossible to vs he hath not made vs trespassers but humbled vs that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be made subiect to God For receiuing the commaundement and feeling our owne defect and want we shall cry to heauen and God will haue mercy vpon vs and we shall know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. In which words he giueth vs to vnderstand that God had reason sufficient to giue the law though he knew it vnpossible for vs in this state of mortality and weakenesse perfectly to fulfill the law 44. W. BISHOP Now that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I prooue first That good works be not stained with sinne by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single hearted and an vpright man Cap. 2. departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy Cap. 1. when you shal fall into diuers temptations knowing that the probation of your faith worketh patience And let patience haue a perfect worke that you may be perfect and entire failing in nothing 2. King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart Psal 16. thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there was no iniquity found in me It must needes then be graunted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinne and iniquity And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you will beleeue it reade then where it is of record 3. Reg. 15. That Dauid did that which was right in the sight of our Lord and not onely in the sight of men and turned from nothing that hee commaunded him all the dayes of his life except onely the matter of Vrias the Hethite 3. The Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 3. That some men do build vpon the onely foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choise members of Christes Catholike Church doe manie perfect good workes such as being tried in the fornace of Gods iudgement will suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherefore they must needes be pure and free from all drosse of sinne otherwise hauing bene so prooued in fire it would haue beene found out 4. Many workes of righteous men please God Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quick sacrifice holy acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God Phil. 4. And S. Paul calleth almes bestowed on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of sweet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected with sinne all which he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his sight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sin or as the Protestants speake not impute it to the person but to say that a sinfull worke is of sweet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him were blasphemie wherefore we must needs confesse that such workes which so well pleased him were not defiled with any kind of sinne Mat. 5. 1 Tim. 6. Ephes 2. Finally many workes in holy writ be called good as That they may see your good workes To be rich in good works We are created in Christ Iesus to good workes but they could not truly be called good workes if they were infected with sinne For according to the iudgment of all learned Diuines it can be no good worke that faileth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it for bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore we must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good which were blasphemie or else acknowledge that there be many good workes free from all infection of sinne R. ABBOT The wise man hauing prefixed this title That good workes be not stained with sinne which we say they be taketh vpon him in his text to proue that iust mens workes be no sinnes which no man saith they be We must beare with him because his vnderstanding doth not serue him to take that for gold wherein there is any drosse for if it did he would easily conceiue that the staine of mans sinne doth not destroy or take away the nature of the good worke which in man by man is wrought by the grace of God But leauing that peece of his folly let vs examine his proofes that good workes be stained with sinne And first he will proue it by the example of Iob because it is said of him that a Iob. 2.3 he continued still a single hearted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie But it were very hard to say how M. Bishops purpose should be made good out of these words We find here a relation of Iobs goodnesse but we find nothing to proue that that goodnesse of his was no way touched or stained with sin Now the reader is to vnderstand that this coÌ„mendation of Iob set down in the 1. Chapter after repeated in the 2. chapter to shew his constancy therin was of old vrged by the Pelagian heretikes as now by M. Bishop to prooue the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But S. Austine well waighing the circumstance of the text how it is withall said There
galled himselfe in the riding of him We do imagine that by that time he hath better aduised of this whole matter he will thinke that some body did ride him when first he tooke this businesse in hand We may here see the blinde insolencie of a presumptuous vaine man who hauing said nothing but what is iustly to be derided and scorned yet taketh vpon him as if he had giuen vs some very admirable and learned answer Yea in this very place he bableth as if his wits were to seeke crossing and thwarting that in one line which he vttereth in another He telleth vs that the words of Esay were spoken in the person of the sinfull who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath and yet by and by he saith that their good workes though but few were free from all spots of iniquitie Againe as vncertaine where to stand he telleth vs that their euill works defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath If their good works were free from all spots of iniquity how did their euil works defile them and make them like a stained cloath Or if their euill workes did defile their good and make them like a stained cloath how were they free from all spots of iniquitie Againe we would demaund of him how sinfull or as he hath called them before euill and wicked men should do good workes free from all spots of iniquitie seeing our Sauiour so plainly saith that a Mat. 7.18 Luk. 6.43 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite no more then we can gather grapes of thornes or figges of thistles S. Paul telleth vs that b Tit. 2.15 to them that are vncleane nothing is pure their mindes and consciences being defiled Which made S. Bernard to say that c Bern. in Cant. Ser. 71. Si fuerit nâ—â—us in conscientia nec quod ex ea prodieriâ— carebit naeuo if there be a blemish or blot in the conscience nothing that commeth from it shall be without a blot How then can it stand good which M. Bishop saith that sinfull and wicked men do good workes which are free from all spots of iniquitie But thus he turneth all vpside downe and according to the present occasion letteth goe whatsoeuer commeth next to hand without feare or wit But vpon the place I neede not to stand I referre the Reader to that that hath bene d Seâ—t 3. before said thereof where it hath bene shewed that the Prophet by way of prophecie endited the praier in the name of the faithfull that were to liue in the desolations of Ierusalem and the Temple that the praier of the Prophet Daniel at that time fully expresseth the effect of the same praier of Esay and therefore that it is the confession of the faithfull godly that their righteousnesse is as a stained cloth and that the auncient Fathers haue vsed the place for proofe thereof 49 W. BISHOP 3. There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him and such like I answer that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is onely enquired whether the good workes that the iust do be free from sinne and not whether they at other times do sinne at the least venially This is all which M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter but because some others do alledge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the besieged minde of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnesse is ouerthrowne vp starts lechery and so forth Answer All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his owne frailty he may be somtimes foiled Dial. 1. cap. Pelag S. Hierome affirmeth That then we are iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners Answer That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne Epict. 29. S. Austine hath these words Most perfect charity which cannot be encreased is to be found in no man in this life and as long as it may be increased that which is lesse then it ought to be is faulty of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man who doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do and consequently doth not so well but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Woe be to the laudable life of a man Lib. 9. confess cap. 13. if it be examined without mercy All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life do many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath bene proued They alledge yet another place out of S. Austine Lib. 3. con duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else-where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faults Now come we vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of whose sweet words ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob Lib. 9. moral cap. 1. because he did see all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be straightly examined of the inward Iudge doth rightly adde if I will contend with him I cannot answer him one for a thousand I answer that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue which we haue of our owne strength without the aide of Gods grace which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice that S. Gregory so tooke it appeares by the words both going before and following before he writeth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For whosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good which he had receiued for he that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God with his owne gifts And after thus To contend with God is not to giue to God the glory of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of
c Cap. 4. Sect. 4. What need any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge Hence are those most insolent speeches of theirs that good workes are d Rhem. Annot. 2. Tim. 4.8 truly and properly meritorious and fully worthy of euerlasting life that heauen is the due and iust stipend which God by his iustice oweth to the persons working by his grace that we haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily that it is our owne right bargained for and wrought for and accordingly payed vnto vs as our hire e Ibid. Heb. 6.10 that good workes be so farre meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for the same Thereupon Tapper sticketh not to say f Ruard Tapper in explic art Louan tom 2 art 9. Absit vt iusti vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam Multò namque gloriâ—sius est ipsoâ— quasi victores triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmaÌ„ suit sudoribus debitam God forbid that the iust should expect eternall life as the poore man doth an almes for it is much more glorious that they should haue it as conquerers and triumphers as the prize due vnto their labours Thus you your selues haue written M. Bishop and do we slaunder you in reporting truly what you haue written No no your speeches are impudent and shamelesse in this behalfe and such as we wonder that your foreheads serue you to auouch Why doth it not suffice you to preach good workes simply as Christ and his Apostles did with commendation of Gods mercy in rewarding the same What need this vaine foolery of merite so improbable so absurd so impossible whereby you do not magnifie God but set vp the righteousnesse of man against the grace of God As for the definition of the Councell of Trent we esteeme it not knowing the same for the most part to haue bene but a conuenticle of base Italianate Machiauels who by equiuocations and sophistications haue deluded the world and by casting the chaffe of some phrases of the Fathers vpon the meeres and puddles of the schoolemen haue laboured to couer and hide the filth and mire thereof and indeed haue left them still to serue by false confidence and trust for gulfes and whirlpools to swallow vp and deuoure the soules of men Although the words of the Councell may beare some good construction according to the auncient fathers meaning of the name of merites yet by them they are deceitfully set downe to leaue open a gappe to the absurd and intollerable presumption of men in aduancing and lifting vp the desert of mens workes as if God were thereby greatly bound and beholding vnto them How farre their meaning extendeth will appeare by M. Bishop who will not haue vs thinke that he will speake any thing but by the authoritie of that Councell And first he telleth vs that they hold that eternall life is a grace which indeed they dare not denie because the Scripture expresly so affirmeth g Rom. 6.23 Eternall life is the grace or gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. But he addeth to grace a supply of workes quite contrary to the Scriptures for it is expresly sayd h Chap. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace i August contra Pelag. Celest lib. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo Grace saith Saint Austin is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort It is of grace saith M. Bishop and yet it is of workes also But still to make a shew of vpholding grace he telleth vs that though eternall life be by workes yet the first grace out of which those workes do issue is freely bestowed vpon vs. Which he saith only as ashamed to deny grace altogether and not of any conscience that hee maketh faithfully to auouch the same For if the grace whence those workes do issue which is the grace of iustification be freely bestowed vpon vs why doth he before labour to approue that we are iustified by workes Or if we obtaine the grace of iustification by workes how doth he say that the same is freely bestowed vpon vs The plaine truth is that by their works of preparation they make a man at least in some sort as we haue heard before out of Bellarmine to merit and deserue euen the first grace if by the first grace we vnderstand the grace of their first iustification as M. Bishop vsually doth But beside grace it is also a reward due in iustice saith he And how so Marry partly by the promise of God Now if he rested here we would not contend with him For promise is indeed grace and iustice in respect of promise is nothing but truth in the performance thereof neither is here any impeachment of the free gift of God But not contented herewith he addeth that it is due in part also for the dignitie of good workes And thus he confoundeth those things which the Scripture still very precisely distinguisheth aduertising vs that k Rom. 4.14 if they which are of the law that is of workes be heires then is faith made voide and the promise is made of none effect and againe l Gal. 3.18 if the inheritance be of the law that is of workes it is no longer by promise To be inheritors by workes and to be inheritors by promise are things so opposite as that the one wholly excludeth the other neither can they possibly stand together As for that which he saith of infants merite and dignitie it is also the schoolemens fiction and deuice Remission of sinnes is their saluation as it is ours and in them it standeth good which the Apostle saith m Rom. 5 2â— As sinne hath raigned ouer them vnto death so grace also raigneth by righteousnesse that is by imputation of righteousnesse vnto eternall life not by any dignitie in them but through Iesus Christ our Lord. But as touching them that arriue to yeares of discretion he telleth vs that either they must by good vse of grace merite life or for want of such fruite fall into the miserable state of death A very hard sentence for himselfe for if he neuer haue life till he merite and deserue it we can well assure him that he shall go without it And I wonder that his heart did not tremble at the writing hereof but that he hath hardened the same against the truth and writeth but only for maintenance of that occupation and trade that must yeeld maintenance backe againe to him What will he say in the end when he shall lie wrastling with death and readie to resigne his soule into the hands of God Will he then craue for mercie who writeth now so earnestly for merite Let him take heede that God do not then answer him n Luk. 19.22 Out of thine
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
quoniam poenitentiae Dei clementia Deique pietas iuncta est confide I haue spent all my life in sinne and if I repent dost thou thinke I shall be saued Yea verily saith he But how shall I be certaine of that or what perswasion can induce me to thinke so I take assurance hereof from the mercie of the Lord not from thy repentance For thy only repentance auaileth not to wash away so great filth of sin If there be thy only repentance thou art iustly to be afraid but because Gods mercy coÌ„passion is ioyned with repentance therefore be of good cheare Here is nothing attributed to repentance for it selfe but onely to the mercy of God vouchsafing to yeeld fauour and forgiuenesse to the repentant Therefore do they hang the whole fruit of repentance vpon faith for x Aug. de vera falsa poenâ—t cap. 2. Fides fundamentum est poeniteâ—tiae c. Poenitentia itaque quae ex fide non procedit vtilis non est saith saith S. Austin is the foundation of repentance and the repentance which proceedeth not from faith is vnprofitable y Ambros de poenit lib. 1. ca. 8 Ergo agendaÌ„ poeâ—â—tâ—nâ—am tribuendâ—m veniam credere nos conuenit vt veniam tamen taÌ„quam ex fide speremuâ— non tanquam ex debito We are so to beleeue saith Ambrose both the doing of penance and the yeelding of pardon as that notwithstanding we hope for pardon as by faith and not as of debt Here is then no popish opinion of penance and satisfaction expecting remission by way of debt and duty as a thing deserued but in the middest of our repentance or penance we are taught to hope for pardon onely by the faith of Iesus Christ Therfore S. Bernard saith that z Bernard de verb. lib. Iob. In sex tribulat Sola nimâ—ruÌ„ secundi Adae tribulatio purgat quos contaminauit offensio sola prioris non quod propriae cuiquaÌ„ sufficere possit satisfactio Quid est enim omnis poeniteÌ„tia nostra nisi quod si non compatimur omninò non possumus conregnare it is the onely suffering of the second Adam that purgeth vs whom the only offence of the first Adam did defile I say not saith he alluding to that which before he hath said concerning repentance and mortification that any mans owne satisfaction can suffice him for what is all our repentance but onely that if we suffer not with him we cannot raigne with him By our repentance then which he expresseth before in weeping for our sinnes in bearing our crosse in mortifying our members in offering our selues a sacrifice to God herby he saith we become like vnto Christ in suffering and so are fitted to raigne with him but yet the purging of vs from sinne he denyeth to these things and reserueth it to Christ alone For we may aske as Ambrose doth a Ambros in Psal 118. Ser. 20 Quibus laboribus quibâ—s iniurijs possumus nostra leuare peccata By what paines or by what sufferings or bearing of wrongs can we abate or ease our sinnes By which question he plainely declareth that they did not hold the paines and sufferings of repentance or penance to be properly any purgation or satisfaction to take away sinnes And this appeareth by Saint Austine when he saith b Aug. in Psal 129 Quae propitiatio ista nisi sacrificium Et quod est sacrificium nisi quod pro nobis oblatuÌ„ est Sanguis innocens fusus deleuit omnia peccata nocentium What propitiation is there but sacrifice what sacrifice but that which was offered to vs The innocent bloud being shed hath blotted out all the sinnes of offendours To which purpose elsewhere he saith that c Jdem contra aduers Leg Proph. lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari solo vero sacrificio pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est for the singular and onely true sacrifice the bloud of Christ was shed for vs. But most religiously and Christianly is that spoken which hee saith yet in another place d Idem contrae 2. Epist Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum sub hoc onere corruptibilis carnis in huius vitae infirmitate gementium spes vna est quòd aduocatuÌ„ habemus c. It is the one onely hope of all the godly groning vnder this burthen of corruptible flesh and in the infirmitie of this life that we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes If there be no propitiation that is no satisfaction but only sacrifice no sacrifice but the bloudshed of the Son of God if our only hope with God be this that we haue with him Christ for our aduocate attonement for our sins if by al our paines and sufferings we cannot ease our selues as touching our sinnes but onely the suffering of the second Adam be the purgation thereof if amidst all our penances we are to hope for pardon by faith that is by fauour and not by debt not trusting to any merit of our repentance but to the mercy of God and referring all the fruite thereof to Iesus Christ then farewell Popish satisfaction the Fathers that speake of satisfaction say nothing for that satisfaction but at Rome this brat was borne and we must leaue it to be buried there The Fathers haue spoken of redeeming our sinnes purging our sinnes washing our sinnes blotting out our sinnes by prayers by almes-deeds by fasting by good workes but amidst this improprietie of words they haue retained as we see a faithfull acknowledgement of the true Christian faith Albeit why do I speake of improprietie of words as in them when we our selues vpon occasion forbeare not to speake as they haue spoken For which of vs is there that maketh question to say It is a satisfaction to God when a sinner turneth from his euill way repent thee of thy sinnes amend thy wicked life humble thy selfe before God aske mercy and forgiuenesse and God is satisfied Redeeme thy former crueltie with mercie thine oppressions with almes-deeds and let the Mammon of iniquitie serue thee for the sauing of thy soule Wash away the filth of thine vncleanenesse with bitter teares and with fasting and mourning blot out that guilt which the delights and pleasures of sinne haue written against thee Thou hast hitherto bene retchlesse towards God make him recompence hereafter both in thine owne deuotion and care and in seeking the recouerie of other men Thus we speake and who doth not thus speake both in this kind and in other sort also when yet we impute not to those things which we commend any vertue of cleansing or washing of vs from our sins but onely intend to note the affections and dispositions which are the fruites and testimonies of that true faith and repentance wherby we seeke the washing away of out sinnes onely in the bloud of Iesus Christ And if we sometimes doubt not thus
verie shamefull and miserable shifts to giue shew of answer to it Do thou learne hereby to loue the truth which thus triumpheth in the aduersaries owne campe and euen in their owne bookes insulteth ouer them whilest either perforce they subscribe it or shew themselues so exceedingly distressed to resist or stand against it Take no offence whosoeuer thou art at the continuance of this fight because the order must stand which God set downe in the beginning betwixt the Woman and the Serpent a Gen. 3.15 I will put enmitie betwixt her and thee betwixt her seede and thy seede and therefore there shall neuer want b 2. Thess 3.2 absurd or vnreasonable men * 1. Tim. 4.2 hauing their consciences seared with a hote Iron with whom no euidence of truth shall preuaile to make them desist from oppugning the seede that is contrarie to them The beginning of which absurditie is to be seene in wicked Cain towards his brother Abel whom the voice of God personally speaking to him could not diuert from that malice whereby hee had intended the destruction of his brother The succession whereof we may behold in the Scribes and Pharisees and Elders of the Iewes whom neither the innocencie of the life of Christ neither the authoritie of his doctrine neither the glory of his miracles nor any euidence of the hand of God working with him could any way moue but that they were stil cauilling and quarelling against him stil accusing and condemning him and neuer ceasing euen against their owne consciences to fight against him What maruell is it then that the voice of God speaking to vs in the scriptures and testifying what the faith and religion is that we are to yeeld vnto him doth not end the quarel and appease the fury of our aduersaries against vs but that in a mad conceit of themselues and of their Church they go on still to make of religion what they list and with impudent faces labour to perswade men that howsoeuer in plaine words the Scriptures seeme to make for vs yet in meaning they are against vs. And surely incredible it were but that we see it that men hauing vse of wit and will should dare in that sort as they do to mocke and delude the word of God At their pleasure they bring in their abhominations into the Church and when the Scriptures are alledged against them they tell vs by lame distinctions which stand one legge in the Scriptures the other quite beside that the Scriptures meane thus or thus but in no sort touch that which is done by them though the verie letter of the text do apparently contradict them As if the adulterer should say that the Scripture condemneth not his adulterie with a Christian woman but onely that which is with Infidels and Pagans or the drunkard should alledge that it meaneth nothing of his drunkennesse but onely of the drunkennesse of them who haue not wherewith to maintaine their drinking How many distinctions haue they whereof there is no greater reason to be giuen then may be giuen of these answers Now what heresie what idolatrie what damnable fancies haue there euer beene in the world which may not finde meanes for their defence if this licencious kinde of distinctions and deuices may take place If these mockeries be deemed intolerable in the laws of men what impiety what wickednesse is it thus to dally with and to mocke the word of God But the light of the Scripture doth plainly discouer the vanitie of these shifts and that is the cause why they hate and shun the Scriptures as the theefe doth the gallowes and the Beare the stake What a worke do they make how many deuices do they vse how readie are they to apprehend euery pretence to discourage the people from medling with the Scriptures and to breed in them an vncertaintie and doubt of resting their faith there But there is no cause for thee to be moued at such bugs and scar-crowes wherewith these malignant aduersaries seeke to fright thee out of the garden of Iesus Christ desiring to haue thee rather to continue vpon their stinking dunghils then to gather the sweete and delightsome flowers that yeeld the sauour of life vnto eternall life Assure thy selfe that the most absolute assurance of truth is in the voice of truth it selfe and thou mayst be secure that howsoeuer men may speake partially and may deceiue thee yet God who speaketh to thee in the Scriptures which the aduersary himselfe dareth not denie will neuer deceiue thee They pretend great difficulties and obscurities in the holy Scriptures but is it a reason for thee to forbeare to drinke and to wash thy selfe in the shallow places of the riuers of God because there are also gulfes and depthes the bottome whereof thou art not able to search or sound c August epis 3. In ijs quae aperta sunt tanquam familiaris amicus sine fuco loquitur ad cor indoctorum atque doctorum In those things which are manifest in the Scriptures saith Saint Austine d Idē de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae apertae posita sunt in Scripturis inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi In which are contained or found all things that belong to faith and behauiour of life God speaketh as a familiar friend without glosing or guile to the hart both of the learned vnlearned e Hieron in Psal 86. Non vt pauci intelligerent sed vt omnes not that a few saith Hierome but that all may vnderstand the Scripture being f Gregor ad Leand. de exposit lib. Iob. Fluuius in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet a riuer saith Gregorie wherein both the lambe may wade and the Elephant may swimme g August de vtil cred ca 6. Planè ita modificata vt nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum deuotè ac pie vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine thereof being so tempered saith Saint Austine againe as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him so that he come to draw with deuotion and pietie as true religion requireth he should do When they then seeke to barre thee from the vse of this heauenly light what canst thou conceiue but that they are the agents and factors of the Prince of darknesse The h Tertul. contra Marcion Sepia or Cuttle-fish Tertullian saith when he is in danger to be taken casteth about him a blacke inkie matter wherewith he darkeneth the water that the fisherman cannot see him What is the reason why those men in that sort seeke to compasse themselues about with the blacke and dark clouds of ignorance of the scriptures but that their owne consciences tel them that their deuotions must needs be descried to be superstitious and damnable if they come to be viewed and surueyed by
not foorth except it conceiue So then saith M. Bishop it is not sinne of it selfe But we deny his argument for a mother bringeth foorth a woman and yet she her selfe is a woman also A woman bringeth not foorth a woman except she first conceiue and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne except by consent it first conceiue and yet it is sinne before conception There is nothing in Saint Austins words but standeth well with that that before hath bene said that concupiscence being the habite of sinne doth by gaining the consent of the will bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue but that concupiscence is sinne M. Bishop might very well haue seene if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth where speaking of the same being in vs he saith z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset verùm granitèr obesset nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset It should not onely be in vs but also greatly hurt vs but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes We would haue M. Bishop tell vs how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him but onely sinne especially the hurt being such as S. Austine anone after speaketh of a Tantum quis inest pertraheret ad vltimanâ— mortem to draw vs onely by being in vs to euerlasting death The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust b Cyrilâ—â— Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet ante peccandi actum before the actuall sinne but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue that lust also is not sinne nay in the words immediatly following he proueth that it is sinne affirming that c Vt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpeÌ„ ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus by circumcision we should learne that we shal not be cleane vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane it must needes be sinne because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point Such as the fruit is such is the tree was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree neither is it any thing but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne concupiscence which is the tree must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne But M. Bishop answereth that not concupiscence but the will of man is the tree Which is all one as if he should haue said that not the will of man but the will of man is the tree For it hath bene before shewed that concupiscence is nothing else but the corrupted will of man which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad vntil God do create it anew and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good In a word the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence d 1. Pet. 2.11 the lusts of the flesh so it calleth also the effects deeds of those lusts the workes of the flesh thereby shewing that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9 flesh and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes and all wickednesse do spring 7. W. BISHOP Lib. 5. contr Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I answer that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renew a man perfectly so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgment but may be called euil because it prouoketh vs to euill To this place of S. Augustine Tract 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason where he saith that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answerserueth that sin there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmitie or weaknesse R. ABBOT That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne which before hath bene declared a August contr Julian lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione coÌ„sentientis vel contagione nascentis As blindnesse of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not and the punishment of sinne wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit desireth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind and the punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it or by infecting of him that is borne of it Concupiscence then is sinne as blindnesse of heart is sinne But
debtor but a suretie and do name what befalleth him to befall him by suretiship and not by debt so do we content our selues to say with safetie that Christ did beare our sinnes and suffered for our sinnes or with the Apostle was made sinne for vs but the name of sinner we do not giue vnto him 12. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect If a man be righteous onely by imputation he may together be full of iniquitie whereupon it must needs follow that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and wicked but that is absurd when Gods iudgement is according to truth Here M. Perkins yeeldeth That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing Originall sinne a deadly wound And yet elsewhere he sayd That Originall sinne Of Originall sinne Pag. 31. which remained after iustification in the partie did beare such sway that it infected all the workes of the sayd partie and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he will abide in it Let vs go on R. ABBOT It had bene strange if M. Bishop could haue set downe this argument without full of iniquitie for it had not otherwise sufficiently filled his mouth But we denie that if a man be righteous onely by imputation speaking as we do of perfect Righteousnesse in the sight of God it must follow that he is still full of iniquitie as before because Iustification in the sight of God by the imputation of Christs merits is alwayes accompanied with the sanctification of the holy Ghost whereby the inward qualitie of the man a August de peccat mer. remiss lib. 1 cap. 27. Hominis qualitatem non totam continuò mutari c. though not wholy yet in part is altered and changed and is thencefoorth further to be renewed from day to day In part I say because together with this sanctification there is still a remainder of originall corruption by the touch and staine whereof the holinesse and newnesse that is wrought in vs is defiled and standeth in need of mercie and fauour to accept it which made Gregorie the Bishop of Rome to say b Greg. Moral lib. 9. cap. 11. Omnis humana iustitia iniustitia esse conuincitur si districte iudicetur Prece ergo post iustitiaÌ„ indiget vt quae succumbere discussa poterat sola iudicis pietate conualescat All the righteousnesse of man is proued to be vnrighteousnesse if it be strictly iudged therefore a man needeth prayer after Righteousnesse that that which being sifted might quaile by the only mercie of the iudge may stand for good For although it be true that Originall sinne haue receiued a deadly wound yet it followeth not thereof that it is straightwayes wholy dead It is dead indeed c August cont Iulian lib. 2. Mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat c. as touching the guilt of it as Austine saith but it is not yet dead as touching corruption and infection and therefore doth indeed infect the workes of the regenerate and by lusting and rebelling giueth him occasion to cry out with the Apostle d Rom. 7.24 Miserable man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death This M. Perkins vniformely teacheth he doth not here amend what he had sayd before because in the former place there was nothing to amend and therefore it was but M. Bishops dreame that made him imagine a contradiction there where all things well agree and stand together 13. W. BISHOP 5. Obiect Or fifth reason is inuerted by M. Perkins but may be rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall but by him we lost Inherent iustice Ergo By him we are restored to Inherent iustice Rom. 5. The Maior is gathered out of Saint Paul vvho affirmeth that vve receiue more by Christ then vve lost by Adam Lib. 3. cap. 20. lib. 6. de gen 24. â—6 26. and is Saint Irenaeus and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine vvho say How are we sayd to be renewed if we receiue not againe which the first man lost c. Immortality of the bodie we receiue not but we receiue iustice from the which he fell through sinne R. ABBOT This obiection proueth nothing that we denie being vnderstood according to the meaning of Austin and Irenaeus whom he alledgeth Christ came to restore to vs that which we lost in Adam But in Adam we lost inherent iustice Therefore Christ came to restore the same We affirme the same and say that what Christ came to do he beginneth to do and to bring to effect in euerie man that is iustified but in no man doth he perfect it so long as we continue in this life and therefore inherent iustice is not such in any man here as that thereby he can be found iust in the sight of God Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith that Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall if he meane it as the Apostle doth when he saith that a Ephe. 2 6. God hath quickned vs together with Christ and hath raised vs vp together and hath made vs sit together in the heauenly places in Christ Iesus that is b August de bapt cont Donatist lib. 1. ca. â— Nondum vnâ— sed in spe not yet really but in hope as S. Austin speaketh we admit the proposition to be true and it is nothing against vs. But if his meaning be that Christ hath really and alreadie in possession restored vnto vs what we lost in Adam the proposition is absurdly false and all this discourse tendeth to proue the contrarie 14. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall dureth after this life and is crowned in heauen but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life Ergo. M. Perkins answereth First that imputed Righteousnesse continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we shall haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answer ouerthroweth the other Wherefore I need not stand vpon it but will proceed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers The first place I take out of these words of Saint Paul And these things certes were you Drunkerds Couetous 1. Cor. 6. Fornicators c. But you are Washed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord S. Chryso Ambr. Theophilac in hunc locum Here Iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sinnes and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and for the sake of Christ
necessarie as faith Be it so yet he doth not say that we are iustified by charity We say as he there saith that Å¿ Basil ser de fide Character insigne Christianorum loue is the badge and cognizance of Christian men much commended vnto vs by our Sauior as a marke whereby he will haue vs to be knowne to be his disciples We say further that it is as necessarie as faith to the full perfection of a Christian man and yet we say it hath nothing to do in the act of iustification To his question as touching the words alledged If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ how can he acknowledge that he wants true iustice I answer him that a man acknowledgeth himselfe to want in himselfe true inherent iustice confessing himselfe to be sinfull and corrupt when yet he wanteth not that iustice or righteousnesse of which S. Paule saith t Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not that is u Oecumen in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus fiduciaÌ„ non habet who hath no confidence by workes but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is reputed for righteousnesse and so as Basil saith he is iustified by faith alone x Bern. in Cant. ser 23. Charitas patris ipsoruÌ„ cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Et ser 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum the loue of the Father and the righteousnesse of Christ the Sonne couering the multitude of his sinnes so that they are as if they had neuer bin and he as if he had offended nothing as before hath bene declared Origens testimonie which is the last of all declareth plainly the same that Basils doth that y Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credeÌ„s tan tummodo quis iustificetur etiaÌ„si nihil ab eo operis fueriâ— expletum the iustification of faith alone is sufficient so that a man onely beleeuing is iustified though there haue bene no good worke performed by him For example hereof he alledgeth the Thiefe on the crosse z Pro sola fide aâ— ei Iesus AmeÌ„ dâ—cot tâ—bi c. to whom for faith alone Christ said This day shalt thou be with me in paradise M. Bishop answereth againe that Origen excludes no good disposition in vs to iustification A strange matter that these Fathers should haue so little discretion still to be vrging faith alone faith alone and yet should meane to leaue a place to M. Bishops good dispositions whereby faith alone is ouerthrowne But he addeth out of his maister Bellarmine that faith is opposed to outward workes so that Origens meaning is that a man may be saued without doing outwardly any good workes if he want time and place And what are those outward workes Forsooth Bellarmine nameth to fast and to giue almes Absurd Friar as if there were no outward good workes to be done but onely fasting and giuing of almes M. Bishop here vnder the name of dispositions setteth forth vnto vs many good works of the theefe in that short time of his being vpon the crosse the feare of God hope faith repentance confession of sinnes loue towards God and his neighbor in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie and defending Christs innocencie and yet of him Origen affirmeth the same that Chrysostome did before of Abraham that not for any workes but he was iustified by faith alone a Super hoc non requisiuit Dominus quid priùs oporatus esset nec expectauit quid operis cùm credidisset explesset sed sola confessione iustificatum comitem sibi Paradisum in gressurus assumpsit Christ did not enquire concerning him saith he what he had wrought before nor did looke what worke he performed when he had beleeued but being to go into Paradice tooke him to accompany him being iustified onely by his confession that is by his faith which he vttered and shewed by his confession of Christ The other example there alledged by Origen maketh the matter as plaine which is of the woman in the Gospell that washed Christs feet with her teares and wiped them with the haires of her head whose good workes M. Bishop hath noted also b Sect. 21. before to whome notwithstanding c Origen ibid. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide not for any worke of the law but for faith only saith Origen Iesus said Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee Yea but Origen faith d Idem in ca. 4. that faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they do withall put off the old man And we say no lesse that iustification cannot be separated from sanctification but where the one is there is the other also and yet it is distinctly to be considered what belongeth to the one and what belongeth to the other He correcteth the opinion of them who thinke profession of faith to be faith and thereupon saith as we do that to such their faith because indeed it is no true faith cannot be reputed for righteousnesse Therefore of faith he said before e Jbid Ne putes quòd si quis habeat talem fidem ex qua iustificatus habeat gloriaÌ„ apud Deum possit simul cum ea habere iniustitiam si enim quâ— credit quòd Iesus est Christus ex Deo natus est qui natus est ex Deo non peccat manifestuÌ„ est quia qui credit Jesu Christo non peccat quòd si peccat certum est quia non creditet c Certum est eum qui verè credit opus fidei iustitiae operari totius bonitatis Do not thinke that he that hath such a faith as whereby being iustified he hath to reioyce with God can together therewith haue vnrighteousnesse For if he that beleeueth that Iesus is Christ be borne of God and he that is borne of God sinneth not it is manifest that he that beleeueth in Iesus Christ sinneth not and if he do sinne that is giue himselfe to sinne it is certaine that he beleeueth not Certaine it is that he that truly beleeueth doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnesse and of all goodnesse Thus he saith as we do that true faith cannot be separated from godly life so that a man cannot haue fellowship with Christ by iustification who by sanctification also hath not fellowship with him But the roote of all is faith by which alone we are iustified and so the barre of sinne is taken away that diuided before betwixt God and vs that so the sanctifying spirit of God may haue accesse vnto vs to worke in vs the good worke of God and so to prepare vs to that inheritance to the hope wherof he hath called vs. As for the other place that he citeth it is the same in effect with that of Ignatius f Sect. 26. before alledged and containeth nothing
But this is nothing to his purpose howsoeuer It pleaseth God who knoweth the heart and whatsoeuer is within vs yet to take vpon him the knowledge of our loue faith feare c. by the fruites thereof Hereby he will try vs he will approoue vs and giue testimony witnesse vnto vs and so shall he do at the last day But what will Bishop inferre hereof If that that he would prooue be that that he saith that it was acceptable vnto God we will easily graunt him so much and so send him backe againe as wise as he came If he would prooue hereby that Abraham was iustified before God by his works let him consider his argument well God tooke knowledge of Abrahams fearing him by his works therefore Abraham was iustified by works in the sight of God But if we follow the construction that S. Austin often maketh of those words this collection will appeare much more absurd b August coâ—â— Maximin lib. 3. cap. 19. God as he saith knoweth all things before they come to passe It was not now that God first knew that Abraham feared him Therefore as c Gemere dicitur spiritus quâ— nos gemere facit sicut dixit Deus Nunc cognoui quando cognoscere hominem fecit the spirit is said to pray and groane because he maketh vs to pray and groane so he saith that God is said to know when as he maketh vs to know d Jbid. lib. 1. Nunc cognovi id est nunc cognoscere te feci de Genes ad lit lib 4. cap. 9. feci vt cognosceretur Now I know then is as much as if he had said Now I haue made thee to know or I haue made it to be knowne that thou fearest me M. Bishops argument then is come to this God made Abraham to know by his worke in offering his sonne Isaac that he was one indeed that feared God therfore Abraham was iustified by his works in the sight of God But he will now conuince all obstinate cauilling and to that end saith that it is said that Abrahams faith in this fact did cooperate with his workes and that the worke made his faith perfect And what of that This coniunction of them both together doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his iustification before God This is as he said before iust as Germaines lips nine mile asunder He ioineth faith and workes together therefore he speaketh of iustification before God The argument much better serueth vs If he had spoken of iustification before God as S. Paul doth he would haue spoken of faith onely as he doth but because he ioineth faith and works together it plainly appeareth that he speaketh not of the same iustification whereof S. Paul speaketh and therefore must be vnderstood of iustification before men Well his friends are beholding to him for his good will but he is able to stand them in little steede Yet to helpe the matter it is added saith he and he was called the friend of God But why did he not alledge the whole text Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God and so conclude thereof therefore he was iustified by his workes in the sight of God He might as well inferre it of the one as of the other and if the one part of the sentence be against his purpose what sence was there in him to seeke for it in the other The meaning is euident plain that it appeared by Abrahams obedience and workes that it was not without cause said of him Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse and that he was called the friend of God e Mat. 12.33 The tree is knowne by his fruites and Abraham by his fruites is iustified and prooued to be a good tree Now it is not hereby onely declared that he was iust before men as this wrangler cauilleth but it is hereby declared vnto men that he truly beleeued and by his faith was iustified before God To be short in the text there is not so much as one word or peece of word whereby Maister Bishop can make it good that Saint Iames speaketh of iustification in the sight of God But because the text will not Saint Austine is brought to prooue it who speaketh neuer a word to that effect M. Bishop very lewdly falsifieth his words and maketh him to say that which he doth not say nor euer meant to say He speaketh the idle dreames of his owne head and propoundeth them to his Reader vnder Saint Austines name The very words of Austin are these f August lib. 83. quaest 76. Non sunt sibi contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli Iacobi cùm dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem absque operibus alius dicit manem esse fidem sine operibus quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt hic de ijs quae fideÌ„ sequuntur The sentences of the two Apostles Paule and Iames are not contrarie one to the other when the one saith that a man is iustified by faith without workes and the other saith that faith without workes is vaine because the one speaketh of workes that go before faith the other of workes which follow faith Here is no mention of first or second iustification not so much as the name of iustification by workes much lesse any expounding of the meaning of it not a syllable in all that Chapter whence he should deriue that meaning of iustification which he setteth downe for Austins to be made more and more iust Nay I remember not in my reading that Austin any where in any meaning affirmeth iustification by works but onely in his Hypognosticon the wordes whereof are before handled which worke though we commonly cite vnder Austins name yet there is no man much conuersant in Austin but will easily conceiue by the phrase and style that it is none of his to say nothing that in his Retractations he maketh no mention of it The wordes that here he speaketh out of S. Iames are that faith is vaine without workes hereby willing it to be vnderstood that though faith do iustifie without any workes going before yet where it iustifieth it hath alwaies good workes thencefoorh accompanying it and that that faith which is not thus accompanied with good workes is not g August de fide oper cap. 14. Salubris illa plancque Euangelica that healthfull or sauing health which the Gospell commendeth nor doth iustifie him in whom it is h Lib. 83. quaest vt suprà Nam iustificatus per fidem non potest nisi iustè deinceps operari quamuis nihil anteà operatus iustè ad iustificationem peruenerit For he that is iustified by faith saith he cannot but thencefoorth worke righteously though he attaine to iustification without hauing wrought any thing righteously before The intent that S. Iames had alledging the example
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
idol is nothing that is it is no god It is nothing formally saith he that is though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially yet they represent a thing that is not that is such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse But it is one thing not to be another thing not to be a god neither can a thing be said to be nothing because it is no god and therefore very wretchedly doth he peruert the words of Origen by drawing them from things vnderstood simply not to be to things vnderstood onely respectiuely to be no gods Yea he hereby ouerthroweth all that Origen there saith because if by representing that that is not he meane the representing of such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse then those images and resemblances which he there speaketh of of men and beasts and birds set vp amongst the Gentiles to be worshipped shall be said also to be nothing and to represent a thing that is not because they represented such things to be gods which are nothing lesse which is wholly repugnant to that which Origen hath set downe Thus either Origen and Theodoret both must be taken with one breath instantly to crosse another or else we must take M. Bishop to be a lewd man who seeketh to father a bastard vpon them which is begotten by himselfe Albeit neither can we approue that construction which Oâ—igen maketh of the Apostles words as if an idoll were onely a representation or forme to which there is nothing correspondent in the world For who is ignorant that the idols of the Gentiles were for the most part the images of men and set vp in the names of men deceased in the like sort as Popish images Thus Tertullian vpbraideth the Pagans that in their owne Å¿ Tertul. Apolog. cap. 10. Prouocamus ad conscientiaÌ„ vestraÌ„ c. illa nos damnet si poserit negare omnes istos deos vestros homines fuisse c. testimonium perhibentibus ciuitatibus in quibus naâ—â— sunt regionibus in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur consciences they knew well enough that the gods which they worshipped were but men that it was to be proued in what places they were borne where they had liued and left remembrance of their workes where they were buried Therefore he telleth them of their custome of making gods t Cap. 11. Quos ante paucos dies luctu publico mortuos sunt confessi in deos consecrant They consecrate them for gods whom a little before by publicke mourning they confessed to be dead Thus did parents take vpon them to honour their owne children that were dead before them as u Lactan Instit lib. 1. cap 15. ex M. Tull. lib. de consolat Approbantibus dijs immortalibus ipsis in eorum caetâ—â— locatam ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo Lactantius sheweth that Tully did his daughter Thus did the louer to his beloued as did the Emperour Adrian to his paramour x Origen contra Cels lib. 3. Antinous building a temple to him and causing him to be worshipped So did the children consecrate their parents as y Lanctant vs supra Bacchus Apollo Mercury and Pan did their father Iupiter and their children afterward the like to them And this z Cypr. de Jdolo vanit August de ciuit Dei lib. 8. cap 5. Cyprian and Austine note to haue bene reuealed to Alexander the great as a great secret by Leo an Egyptian Priest that not only their petite gods Hercules Aesculapius Romulus and such like but also those of the higher ranke Iupiter Iuno Saturnus Vesta Vulcanus and the rest were but men and women to whom such honors had begun to be yeelded after they were dead it being by custome receiued when men were renowned either for strange acts or good deserts to honour them as gods when they were dead by setting vp their images and doing sacrifice and deuotion to them Hereupon Lactantius saith as noting the most vsuall shape and forme of their idols a Lactan. Instit lib 2. cap. 18 Simulachra quae colunt effigies sunt hominum mortuorum The idols which they worship are the shapes or images of dead men Yea they who conceiued better of the conditioÌ„ of their gods acknowledged that b M. Tull de nat deor lib. 1. Quis â—aem caecus in contemplandis rebus vnquam fuit vt non videret species istas hominum â—ollatas in deos aut consilio quodem sapientuÌ„ quò faciliâ—s animos imperitorum ad decrum cultum à vitae prauitate cooâ—erterent aut superstitione vt essenisimulachra quae venerantes deos ipsos se adire crederent the shapes of men were applied vnto them and that either by the aduice of wise men that they might the more easily turne the minds of ignorant men from naughtinesse of life to the worship of the gods or of superstition that there might be images which the people comming to should beleeue that they came to the gods themselues It is plaine therefore that Origen erred in vnderstanding the Apostle to say that an idoll is nothing that is a shape fitting to nothing in the world because idols were most commonly the shapes of men and set vp as popish images in remembrance and honour of dead men supposed for their merits and good deserts to be aduanced to heauen And in this respect S. Austine preferred the Pagans and heathens before the Manichees for c August contra Faust li. 20. ca. 5. Pagani colunt c. quae sunt sed prodijs colenda non sunt c. Vos ea colitis quae omninò non sunt sed vestraruÌ„ fallaciuÌ„ fabularum vinitate finguntur the Pagans worship things that be though they be not to be worshipped but you saith he worship those things which be not at all but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales The meaning then of the Apostles words An idoll is nothing is that which the Scripture elsewhere telleth vs d Esa 44 10. it is profitable for nothing e chap. 41.23 it can neither do good nor euill neither saue nor destroy neither make cleane nor vncleane f August ibid. Sunt idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt Es cap. 9. Ad salutem vel aeliquaÌ„ vtilitateÌ„ nihil sunt Idols are saith Austin but to saluation they are nothing to steed vs or profit vs they are nothing g Chrysosti in 1. Corin homil 20. Sunt quidem sed nihil possunt non magis intelliguÌ„t quaÌ„ alij lapides They are saith Chrysostome but they can do nothing they haue no more vnderstanding then other stones Hitherto then all that M. Bishop saith is but an Idoll according to his owne construction making shew to be somewhat when indeed it is nothing But yet he maketh a further challenge Let M. Perkins quote but
him to make two Cherubins one at the one end of the mercy-seat and the other at the other end so as that with their wings stretched out they shold couer the mercy-seate Which done he saith d Exod. 25.22 There will I declare my selfe vnto thee and from aboue the mercy-seate betweene the two Cherubins which are vpon the Arke of the Testimonie I will tell thee all things which I will giue thee in commandement vnto the children of Israel According to this commaundement Moses did but what was done with those Cherubins which Moses set vp it is vncertaine whether by the enemies taking of the Arke as most likely it is they were taken away or whether they fitted not the place of the Temple where they should stand the Tabernacle and furniture thereof being before made portable to be remoued from place to place Howsoeuer that were this is certaine that Solomon by vertue of the same commandement and to obserue that which by Moses was prescribed made two Cherubins to stand in the same place as the other did and to the same vse The worke therefore being finished e 1. King 8.5.6 king Solomon and all Israel being assembled together the Priests brought the Arke of the couenant of the Lord into his place into the oracle of the house the most holy place euen vnder the wings of the Cherubins for the Cherubins stretched out their wings ouer the place of the Arke and the Cherubins couered the Arke Inasmuch then as God had by the law directed in what sort this should be done Solomon needed no further speciall cōmandement for the doing of it but had trespassed against God if being appointed to build a house vnto God he had not done it according to such rules as the law before had limited for the doing of it so idle a fancy is it which M. B. here deliuereth that out of his owne high wisedome onely he thought it lawful for him to imitate that which Moses had done before and consequently so vaine a cauill is it which he vseth that the obiection being mooued of the Cherubins made by Solomon M. Perkins answereth by the commandement giuen thereof to Moses when as there was the very same respect of both and Solomon renewed them by the same commandement by which Moses at first made thē Now these 2. Cherubins of which the questiō is specially moued were erected in the most holy place whether as the Christiā saith to the Iew before spokē of in the 2. Nicen coūcell f Nycen Synod 2. Act. 5. ex Leont Quo sanè nulli mortalium dabatur accessus praeterquam summo Sacerdoti idque semel in anno it was grāted to no mortal man to haue accesse but onely to the high priest that once only in the yeare yea and there was also g Exod. 26.33 2. Chron. 3.14 a veile drawne before to make a separation betwixt the holy place and the most holy so that no man had the sight of any thing therin Very falsly therfore vnhonestly doth M. B. deale to cōfound these Cherubins with the rest as touching their place and generally to say There they were placed not onely in the inward but also in the outward parts of the Temple vpon the walles and very doores that they might be seene of all the people it being euident that these were neuer to be seene of the people nor of any saue onely the high Priest and consequently were such as can giue no warrant at all to setting vp of Popish images As for the rest of the Cherubins which the text mentioneth they were of other sort wrought in the curtaines and feeling of the wals and vpon the dores and vessels onely for garnishing and beautifying the works but Cherubins that were standing images there were none but only those two The veile of the most holy place was h 2. Chro. 3.14 wrought with Cherubins i Kings 6.29 the wals were carued with grauen figures of Cherubins palme trees and other grauen flowers k Ver. 35. the doores also with the like l Cap. 7.29 the bases whereupon the caldrons were to stand were grauen in the borders with Lions Buls and Cherubins Here it is plaine then that the Cherubins were of no other respect or vse but as the figures of palme trees Pomgranats Flowers Lions Buls and other such like not in any sort for exercise of the deuotion of the people but onely for the adorning of the house Yea and to these also the people had no accesse within the house being prohibited to come any further thē to the doore neare to which stood the altar to which they were to tender their sacrifice the Priest receiuing the same to do with it according to the law but they themselues might not go in There was one part of the Temple which was called m Exod. 26.33 Heb 9.6.7 the holy place into which the Priests and Leuites ordinarily went to performe their ordinary seruice another part was called the most holy place into which only the high Priest went once a yeare these two parts are most properly called n Luk. 1.21 the Temple in which Solomon bestowed all that curiositie of worke But without these was the vast roome into which the people resorted where they waited o Ver. 10. in prayer whilest the Priests performed the seruice wherin they were accustomed to be taught and our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles preached vnto them going also in generall vnder the name of the temple yet not hauing in any sort that glorious beauty of workmanship that the other parts had neither can M. B. tell vs of any Cherubins therein Seeing then there were no standing Cherubins in Solomons temple but onely two which were wholy remooued out of sight and the rest had no other vse but onely the same as the figures of Lions and Bulles and Flowers and Palme trees and such like and of dead men there were no images at all not of Abraham Isaac Iacob or any other we should thinke that that temple yeeldeth so small grace to Romish Idols as that like Dagon they must fall to the ground and breake their necks vnlesse there be some better means and helpe found for the vpholding of them As for the vse whereto Solomon intended those workes of his who is there that maketh question of it Who doubteth but that by curiositie of Imagerie of caruing and grauing and painting men may beautifie either their houses or their Churches in the like sort as he did Yea M. Bishop well knoweth that we do not thrust Images wholly out of our Churches because we haue in Westminster in Paules and commonly in the rest of our Churches throughout the land many images of our deceased Kings and Queenes of our Nobles and States higher and lower which we preserue and adde more to them from day to day We determine nothing absolutely against Images but we determine against images in case of superstition and