PAUL and S. IAMES reconciled The old Prophets and ancient Fathers made new Papists by the Informers INFORMERS HEe speaketh of an Accesse of Iustification or of a second Iustification His words are these S. IAMES Cap. 2. 24. meaneth that a man is justus declaratus by his holy life and conversation or that a man hath Accesse of Iustification as it is also taught by your owne men CHAP. XVIII pag. 148. MOUNTAGU HEe nameth indeed an Accesse unto Iustification but it is as out of the mouth of Popish Writers and not out of his owne opinion Is there no difference in your understanding betwixt these two Affirming positively and relating reservedly Many Protestants give answer unto Popish objections satisfactorie out of Popish Tenents who yet I think subscribe not unto those their Tenents B. MORTON is most frequent in this course and yet I hope you hold him no Papist But I farther adde Though I said not so in that place by you recyted I may and I doe also avow an accesse of Iustification made unto it by workes of an Holy and a Lively Faith Not as essentiall thereto or ingredient intrinsically for Iustification is properly the work of GOD and eatenus without magis or minus but as accessory and circumsistant for destruction of the Body of sinne by contrary actions of new Righteousnesse to speake properly is a worke of Sanctification not of Iustification according unto S. PAUL But in what place do I speake by name of a second Iustification Goe save your honest credits and name mee the place quote the very words I distinguish indeed betwixt the phrase of S. PAUL and S. IAMES that HEE speaketh of Iustification in attaining it S. IAMES of Iustification attained which cannot be separated from good works as anon is declared and cited out of the twelfth Article of our Confession In briefe the Information is rather an inference upon the passage than the passage expressed as it should be It is known unto all that the Romane Professors have ever in their mouths the Text of S. IAMES What doth it profite though a man saith he hath Faith and hath no Works can his Faith save him Unto this allegation amongst other things this is answered S. PAUL speaketh of Iustification in the attayning it That onely Faith doth justifie and that it is the Act of Faith in regard of man For properly and causally and originally GOD doth onely Iustifie But S. IAMES meaneth of Iustification had and obtained the which necessarily is accompanied with good workes and can bee no more separate from good workes than light from the Sunne So that justus factus through Faith by the grace of God is also justus declaratus by his holy life and conversation that is the tree is knowne by the fruit it bringeth forth Well may we beare the name of Christian men say the Homilies but we lacke that true faith which belongeth thereto for true faith doth evermore bring forth good workes as Saint IAMES speaketh Shew mee thy Faith by thy Workes Thy deeds and workes must bee an open testimonie of thy faith otherwise thy faith being without good workes is but the Divels faith the faith of the wicked a phantasie of faith and not a true Christian faith This is the very declaration of the Homilies for which and no more my Informers have promoted me for a Papist For that Accesse unto Iustification is not by me made essentiall unto Iustification but onely declaratory as I have plainly expressed in direct words It nor is in it selfe nor is delivered by mee nor conceived of by mee to bee any part of or ingredient into the entire Act of proper Iustification I say proper for as your owne Divines acknowledge the word being as most words are extensive ambiguous and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime extend it selfe unto all the naturall consequents unto and proper Acts of Iustification and so it may be said there is a twofold Iustification When S. PAUL saith they are M. PERKINS his words No man is justified by the Law in the sight of GOD he maketh a double Iustification One before GOD the other before men Iustification before GOD is when GOD reputeth a man just and that onely for the merit and obedience of CHRIST Iustification before men is when such as professe faith in CHRIST are reputed just by men The first is peculiarly the act of GOD. Not long before Iustification is a certaine action in GOD applied unto us which is wrought in instanti Good Popery also yet to be found in the same man For if Faith justifieth by disposing the heart thus hee disputeth against the Papists then there must be a space of time between Iustification and justifying Faith But there is no space of time betwixt them for so soone as a man beleeveth he is presently justified Doe you heare M. PERKINS speak of Iustification in instanti according to that old Rule Nescit tarda molimina Spiritus sancti grantia which was learned I thinke from S. AUGUSTINE which place I will presently report who learned it of S. CYPRIAN who Epist 1. speaketh thus Accipe quod sentitur antequam discitur nec per mor as temporum longâ agnitione colligitur sed compendio gratiae maturantis hauritur This he saith seemed to him at the first impossible but in conclusion being called and justified he found it true Vt repentè ac perniciter exuatur quod vel genuinum situ materiae naturalis obduruit vel vsurpatum diu senio vetustatis inolevit I know Renovation Sanctification or the second Iustification for why contend wee about words that agree upon the point is distinct from Remission of our sins by GOD and imputation of CHRISTS righteousnesse unto us wherein is our Acceptance and Iustification and for them both I conclude with S. AUGUSTINE Sanè ista renovatio non momento uno fit sicut momento fit uno illa renovatio in Baptismo remissione omnium peccatorum Neque enim vel unum quantulumcunque remanet quod non remittatur Sed quemadmodum aliud est carere febribus aliud ab infirmitate quae febribus facta est revalescere itemque aliud est infixum telum de corpore demere aliud vulnus quod eo factum est secundâ curatione sanare ita prima curatio est causam removere languoris quod per omnium peccatorum indulgentiam fit Secunda ipsum sanare languorem quod fit paulatim proficiendo in renovatione hujus imaginis Quae duo monstrantur in Psalmo ubi legitur Qui propitius fit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis quod fit in Baptismo Deinde sequitur Qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas quod fit quotidianis accessibus cùm haec imago renovetur De quae re Apostolus apertissimè loquutus est dicens Et si exterior homo noster corrumpitur sed interior renovatur de die in diem Renovatur autem in agnitione DEI hoc est justitiâ sanctitate
proper acts thereof To will though drawne to performe many acts in course of life as willingly it could wish them to be otherwise Those in that Councell were Men as well as Pontificians learned men they were at least the major part and spake as well like men as for a factious party in the Church In that place they speak of Free-will in enlarged tearms and not in reference unto actions of grace of piety of repentance or regeneration and godlinesse toward GOD. Now it is I take it a ruled case with all reasonable men that in ADAM and through his Fall non amisimus naturam sed gratiam Indowments of grace above nature or additaments unto nature wee lost in ADAM Nature and naturall indowments were impaired and not extinct and abolished in his Fall Nec qui à Spiritu DEI igitur ideò se putet LIBERUM NON HABERE ARBITRIUM quod ne tunc quidem perdidit saith PROSPER quando Diabolo voluntate suâ se dedit à quo IUDICIUM VOLUNTATIS DEPRAVATUM EST NON ABLATUM Quod ergo NON INTERFECTUM EST per vulnerantem NON TOLLITUR per medentem vulnus sanatur non natura removetur In which sense and regard I inferred then and there a second decision of that Councell Liberum arbitrium non quidem EXTINCTUM esse sed viribus ATTENUATUM The which I might have enlarged and commented upon by the XVI Canon of the Synod of Dort in the IIII. Decision de conversionis modo where the Conveners will in these words proove either themselves Arminians or you Ignorántees or malicious Calumniators will they not Sicuti verò per lapsum homo non desiit esse homo intellectu voluntate praeditus nec peccatum quod universum genus humanum pervasit naturam generis humani sustulit sed depravavit spiritualiter occidit It a etiam haec divina regenerationis gratia non agit in hominibus tanquam TRUNCIS stipitibus nec VOLUNTATEM EIUS QUE PROPRIETATES TOLLIT aut INVITAM VIOLENTER COGIT No otherwise than so saith M. MOUNTAGU peradventure not so much as so but you say He concludeth this his Chapter thus Our Conclusion and yours is all one wee cannot wee doe not deny freedome of will in man whoso doth so is no CATHOLICKE I adde no nor PROTESTANT For I did not conceive that any Protestant till you professed your selves so senselesse would have denied that Conclusion There is FREE-WILL We eat we drinke we sleep wee wake wee walk we rest wee runne wee talk wee hold our peace we consent assent disagree freely wittingly willingly without any constraint out of the naturall power of our Free-will And yet further for your sakes I adde It were well done and worth the while as SCOTUS said well to cudgell him well and thriftily that should deny FREE-WILL so long untill hee did confesse it to be in our power to goe on to cease or hold our hands And if he should commence an action of battery to put in this Barre It was not I that beat him it was FATALL NECESSITY and I was thereby compelled to doe it I had not any FREE-WILL to resist it was not in my power to doe or not to doe otherwise But concerning Freewill the power possibility and activity of the will in the things of GOD towards GOD in the state of grace I have set downe my Errors as you call them in two propositions tendred unto mee and unto you also of the Church of England First that Man in state of naturall corruption cannot turne nor prepare himselfe unto GOD by or through his owne naturall and humane power and strength Secondly that Prevented by grace and by grace assisted hee putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that grace as also continuance unto the end in that grace No man commeth unto GOD but he is drawne being drawne hee runneth or walketh as his assistance is and his owne agility and disposition unto the end No man beareth fruit in CHRIST IESUS the Vine unlesse that by the Husbandman hee bee engraffed To engraffe is opus Hortulani ALONE When as the branch is engraffed that it may prosper and beare fruit the root must supply the slip sucke and retaine sap supplied from the root This is enough no more need bee curiously insisted on or disputed of The Church of England doth no way contradict this it is the precise doctrine of our Church ARTIC X. The condition of man after the Fall of ADAM it such that he cannot turne nor prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to faith and calling upon GOD. Wherefore we have no power to doe good works pleasant and acceptable unto GOD without the grace of GOD by CHRIST preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have it Man is heer in this passage by the Church considered two waies as in Nature depraved as in Nature againe by Grace restored In Nature depraved Freewill is totally denied unto man for any workes of righteousnesse acceptable or pleasing unto GOD before conversion or for works of actuall concurrency in the very act of first converting but not for workes of Nature or Morality of which works only the Proposition was to be understood Si per morale opus virtutes intelligas Philosophicas non neganius posse hominem sine speciali gratiâ multa fortiter temperanter juste agere saith D. WHITAKER And that saying of DAMASCEN is denyed of no man that hath his braines in his head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man being a creature endued with reason doth rather leà de nature than is led by nature and upon appetite or desire may shake off if he please and acquit himself of that desire or close in with it and give consent unto it In state of Grace repayring and restoring Nature Free-will is not denyed man but how Not as in or unto naturall objects hic mota movet It worketh with us we with it together with Grace when wee have once that good will wrought in us And surely if wee have it working at all it is not titulus sine re nor is it inane nihil as some it seemeth thought which the Councell of TRENT condemneth very justly This is not my singular fancy as your opinions most-what are private imaginations of opiniative men ignorant of others wedded to their owne conceits OPERATUR ille COOPERAMUR nos NON enim AUFERT sed ADIUVAT bone voluntatis arbitrium saith S. AUGUSTINE Quaest XV. super Deuteron And againe Quaest L. In spirit ualibus conflictibus sperandum est et petendum est adjutorium DEI. Non ut NOS NIHIL OPEREMUR sed ut ADIUTI COOPEREMUR And again Retract I. XXIII Vtrumque Credere velle DEI est NOSTRÛM utrumque est DEI DEI est quiae praeparat voluntatem NOSTRÛM est quia non fit nisi volentibus nobis and Epist CVII Quomodo dicuntur
at least what danger consequent unto Error I should thinke it a preservative against danger rather inasmuch as the difficulty and obscurity pretended will in all probabilitie keep men off from meddling in it above their Modell and so from any consequent trouble or danger if any such can be about it I have not heard ARMINIUS taxed for any such assertion which if he had held he had beene in the right The Question of Freewill so canvassed and discoursed of up and downe is indeed a point and so ever hath beene held of very great obscurity fitting rather Schooles than popular eares or auditories If it bee not an obscure Question what then meane those many and manifold intricated and distracted divisions amongst men touching Freewill the nature state condition of it since ADAM'S fall the power efficacy and extent thereof in naturall morall civill divine indifferent good bad determined indetermined acts the concurrence and cooperation thereof with grace the constitution and connexion thereof with necessity prescience providence predestination the decrees purposes and will of GOD Protestants and Papists together by the eares Papists at odds amongst themselves and Protestants with Protestants upon no better tearms To my capacity that is obscure which is so much intangled with contradictory disputations upon all hands and so much perplexed with oppositions BELLARMINE a man no disparagement to your worth of as strong a braine and piercing apprehension as eyther of you M. WARD and M. YATES or any new upstart Master in Israel of the pack confesseth that the Concurrence of Grace and Free-will is Res omnino difficilis fortassè in hâc vitâ incomprehensibilis which saying of his our Bishop MORTON I hope nor Papist nor Arminian disliketh not and remembreth withall out of BENIUS this De modo quo liberum arbitrium vel movetur vel movet ad exercitium boni clamant alij rem non posse in hâc vitâ percipi sed omnem ingenij humani captum superare OCHAM SA CAIETANUS ALII This is strange Arminianisme is it not CHAP. IX Controversies unnecessarily multiplied the AUTHOR no Favourer of them Questions of obscurity and speculation not fit for Pulpits popular eares Freewill made no such controversie among moderate men either of the Pontifician or Protestant side as people are borne in hand withall INFORMERS BUt M. MOUNTAGU saith It might better have beene omitted and overpassed in silence especially the differences hanging as they doe upon such niceties and the controverted particulars being of no great moment upon due examination CHAP. XVI pag. CVII MOUNTAGU I Must and do confesse I am of that mind and thinke so still that the idle fellow the Gagger had done much better had merited more at GOD and mens hands to speake in his owne language and deserved better of the Church and have done better service to GOD Almighty as also might the major part by much of his Side if they would bee more sparing in multiplying controversies and disputes and so in disquieting the peace of the Church in points of that nature which doe not so concerne the state of mans soule or his walking in the waies of GOD'S commandement or knowing of Him the onely true GOD and whom he hath sent IESUS CHRIST Now was ARMINIUS also of that opinion If he were not how am I or can I bee an ARMINIAN for this If he were of this opinion then hath hee been deeply wronged by you and others that make him an Incendiary a Bontifeu a Flabellum of faction and sedition so much undeservedly in both Church and State that charge him so deeply as you have done with troubling the Netherlands and endangering that State by moving Disputes about Prescience Perseverance Predestination universall Grace Free-will and losse of Faith And surely M. MOUNTAGU deserved a more moderate and lesse empassioned censure than to bee informed against for moving of sedition which toucheth deep and will beare I trowe an ACTION of the Case who hath evermore detested that humour of Innovators that take the disquieting of things established a sufficient hire to set them on work who for feare of offending that way concealed both his owne opinion often and sometime the doctrine of the Church which haply he should not have done Is hee therefore seditious because he refused to dispute discourse or talke de omni Ente to contest for every thing ut pro aris focis to make a Case of faith or conscience of every speculation or because hee professeth his dislike of multiplying controversies in those kindes which increase rather discord and troubles in Church and in State than serve to edification It is strange that for wishing advising and in his owne particular using and ensuing that moderation thereby not to engarboile the Church and disturb the course of piety he should so by you and yours be blamed accused and traduced for a PAPIST and an ARMINIAN calumniated almost in every Ordinary by your means for a dangerous driver at Popery and Sedition being with one breath in the selfe-same points blamed for being so temperate for saying no more for not mooving favouring fomenting unnecessary quarrels and disunions in questions of speculation and of obscurity advising rather to reserve them for and referre them to the Schools though your honest simplicity or PURE charity thought it fit to conceale this his moderate wish or advice rather than to thunder and lighten in your Pulpits with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by buzzing them into popular eares and capacities incapacious of them unable to comprehend them O vertiginem may I not well say that men should have such whirle-gigs in their brains and be so farre at variance with their owne wits as to imply contradiction in adjecto to charge M. MOUNTAGU because he had delivered such and such errors in Doctrine and yet to accuse him because he misliketh the delivering of such errors For in such and so great variety of errors or opinions touching free-will it may be that not one of them all is true but that more than one of them should be true it cannot be as CICERO spake in another case If OF the defenders of Free-will some beleeved not the necessity of grace which doctrine the IESUITES condemne of PELAGIANISME some denied that GOD can absolutely determine the will and are confuted by the most part some disliked that GOD should bee said by his exciting grace to work physically in man and are gaine-said by BENIUS as therein Adversaries unto Fathers and Councels some hold that GOD doth not morally determine the will and are excepted against by SUAREZ some gave to mans will in the Act of conversion an equality with yea a preeminence before grace and are therefore contradicted by others as repugnant unto Scriptures and to Fathers and finally some laboured to satisfie all doubts concerning the concurrence of grace and will and yet confesse they cannot assoile them as is confessed in these many words by the