Christ we be to follow Paul then by our faith we are to beleeue of our selues as he beleeued of himselfe and what he wrote in that behalfe we are to take it as written for our learning not as a matter particular and peculiar to himselfe The other place is most notable where Paul first propoundeth it as f 1. Tim. 1.15 a true saying and worthie by all meanes to be receiued that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners He addeth Of whom I am chiefe that is of which sinners whom Christ would saue I was a chiefe I was the formost man g August in Psal 70 Primus non tempore sed malignitate not in time but in badnesse as S. Austine expoundeth it Notwithstanding for this cause I was receiued to mercy saith he that Iesus Christ should shew on me being the chiefe all long suffering to the ensample of them that should in time to come beleeue in him vnto eternall life Now how doth the place import that Paul should be an ensample to them that beleeue in Christ but that all that beleeue in Christ may learne in him not to be dismaied at the greatnesse and grieuousnesse of their sinnes whereof they haue seene the like in him but with him to receiue that true saying that Christ came into the world to saue sinners and therefore resolue that he would saue them as he had saued him that they should not feare to say euen as he could say Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me h August de Temp ser 49. Talem se peccatoreÌ„ consitetur fuisse vt omnis peccator propterea de se non despereâ— quia Paulus meruit indulgentiaÌ„ He confesseth himselfe such a sinner saith Austine as that therefore no sinner may despaire of himselfe because Paul obtained pardon It was not therefore the vnskilfulnesse of a sectarie but true diuinitie that made Maister Perkins to make that vse and application of the Apostles words but it was M. Bishops absurdity to say that the place importeth only that Paul was made an example of patience without expressing how or what patience he meaneth there being no patience there spoken of but the patience of Christ bearing with men long in great and fearefull sinnes and yet at length of his owne mercy calling them to be partakers of his saluation 16. W. BISHOP M. Perkins 2. Reason That which we must aske of God in praier that we must beleeue shall be giuen vs but in prayer we must aske the merits of Christes righteousnesse to our selues ergo Answer Of the Maior much hath bene said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and denie that we must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that were greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacitie may be powred into our soules whereby we may lead a vertuous life and make a blessed end But it is goodly to behold how M. Perkins proueth that we must pray that Christs righteousnesse may be made our particular iustice because saith he We are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this we must say Amen which is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans wits were gone a pilgrimage when he wrote thus Good Sir cannot our sinnes or debts be forgiuen without we apply Christes righteousnesse to vs in particular we say yes Do not then so simply begge that which is in question nor take that for giuen which will neuer be graunted But a word with you by the way Your righteous man must ouer-skip that petition of the Pater noster forgiue vs our debts for he is well assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christes righteousnesse applied to him and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherefore he cannot without infidelity distrust of his former iustificaâ—ion or pray for remission of his debts but following the famous example of that formall Pharise in liew of demaunding pardon Luc. 18. may wel say O God I giue thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vniust aduouterers as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sinnes or the certaintie of my saluation but am well assured thereof and of Christes owne righteousnesse to and so forth But to go on with M. Perkins discourse Here we must note that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall duty of faith for in faith saith M. Perkins are two things first knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation Secondly an applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance the first they acknowledge So then by M. Perkins owne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation then he and his fellowes erre miserable The second which is the substance and principall they deny Answer Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and merits of Christes Passion so they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assure himselfe by faith of Christes righteousnesse and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to do that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come See S. Tho. 22. q. 21. art 1. R. ABBOT The Maior proposition he graunteth yet with this limitation all due circumstances of praier being obserued But his circumstances as he intendeth them are but a Labyrinth to intricate and perplexe the consciences of men and to bereaue them of all ioy and comfort of their praiers We beleeue that a Psal 145 18. God is nigh vnto all them that call vpon him in truth We know that many are the weakenesses and imperfections of our praiers many our distractions in that deuotion but yet we beleeue that God respecting the truth and not the measure of our hearts pardoneth the same for Christes sake who is our high Priest b Exod. 28.38 to beare the iniquitie of our holy offerings to make them acceptable before the Lord. To the Minor proposition he answereth that we must not pray that Christes merits may be made ours in particular for that were greatly to abase them As though the Prophet Dauid did abase God in making him his in particular saying c Psal 18.2 The Lord is my rocke and my fortresse my God and my strength my shield the horne of my saluation and my refuge with infinite other speeches of
is absurdly by M. Bishop restrained to the taking away onely of the guilt of eternall punishment for that that is infinite admitteth no restraint Wherefore that which he addeth of our satisfaction for temporall paines is a meere fable neither without nor in the state of grace can we make satisfaction to God for any sinne Iustification he saith requires no infinite perfection and it is true indeede as he meaneth it but the true iustification requireth an infinite perfection and worth to purchase vnto sinners forgiuenesse of sinnes attonement with God regeneration of grace and euerlasting life which none could doe but onely the Sonne of God And whereas he saith that there is not any infinite perfection necessarie to be worthie of the ioyes of heauen he wonderfully deceiueth himselfe vpon a false ground There is no infinite perfection necessary to come to the enioying or possessing of the ioyes of heauen but there is an infinite perfection necessarily required to be worthie thereof because that that is finite can haue no proportion in woorth to that that is infinite and therefore the finite perfection of man cannot be worthie of the infinite ioyes of heauen But saith M. Bishop the ioyes of heauen are not infinite as they are enioyed of men or of Angels either of whom haue all things there in number weight and measure Wherein he againe mistaketh much because the ioyes of heauen as touching time and continuance are infinite and come within no bounds or compasse of number or measure in which sort the damned beare the infinite wrath of God according to the guilt of sinne being not thereof capable in any other sort Which being so it would be knowne of M. Bishop or some of his how it should come to passe that the perfections of men in the state of grace should be of sufficient woorth to purchase the infinite ioyes of heauen and the satisfactions of men in the state of grace should not be of the like sufficient woorth to purchase deliuerance from the infinite paines of hell But in this we shall hereafter haue occasion further to appose him Here he goeth on and telleth vs that it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debt of another and we willingly admit it to be true But then what we were in debt vnto God for want of wisedome and iustice what hindereth but that Christ our surety might pay the same If he pay for vs what we want for our selues then his payment acquitteth vs of all imputation of our want And surely though a man bestow not his wisedome or iustice vpon another yet nothing is there to let but that what one man by wisedome or iustice doth for another the same should stand good for him for whoÌ„ it is done But we would gladly know of M. Bishop if his holy harlot mother haue instructed him so farre how it should stand with reason that they by the Popes indulgences should be made partakers of the merits and good works one of another and that it should be against reason that we by the ordinance of God should be partakers of the merits righteousnesse of Iesus Christ The Abbots of the Cistercian Friars being gratified in a request by the King of Fraunce are said by Mathew Paris g Math. Parisan Henrico 3. anno 1244. Spâ—ciale suorum bonorum operum ei participium concesserunt to haue graunted vnto him the speciall participation of their good works The Friars here in England made men beleeue that they h Out of the copy of a pardon graunted by the Carmelite Friars in London anno 1527. gaue them participation of all the masses praiers fastings watchings preachings abstinences indulgences labours and all good works that were done by the brethren of their order here in England With what face doe these wretches deny that to the righteousnesse and merit of the Sonne of God which thus blasphemously and lewdly they attribute to the blinde deuotions and imagined righteousnesse of sinfull and wicked men Yea but saith M. Bishop it is not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity no more theÌ„ a simple man wil take a Black-moore for white although he see him in a white suit of apparel And indeed it is not credible that God will repute him to be inherently iust whoÌ„ he hath taught to acknowledge himselfe a sinner but credible it is true that God doth accept as iust for Christes sake by forgiuenes of sins impute righteousnes vnto him whoÌ„ he seeth in himself to be vnrighteous i August in Ioan tract 3. Omnes qui per Christum iustificati iusti non in se sed in illo Si in se interroges Adam sunt in illo si interroges Christi suus All that are iustified by Christ saith Austin are iust not in themselues but in him If a man aske of them in themselues they are Adam if in him they are Christs It should not then seeme so strange to M. Bishop that men though being vniust in themselues yet by faith should be reputed iust and righteous in Christ And surely S. Bernard painely sayth k Bernar. in CaÌ„t. fer 61. Et in me quideÌ„ operit iustitia tua multitudinem peccatorum n te autem quid nisi pietatis thesauros diuitias boâ—itatâ— Thy righteousnes couereth in me a multitude of sins but in thee ô Lord what but the treasures of pietie the riches of goodnes Thus he is coÌ„tent to acknowledge himselfe a blacke-moore blacke in himselfe but clothed with the white sute of Iesus Christ So doth the Church the spouse of Christ say of her selfe l Cant. 1.4 I am blacke O daughters of Ierusalem but comely that is saith Theodoret m Theod in CaÌ„t. Ego sum Aethiopissa I am a Blacke-moore not onely for that she hath bene but also for that she still in part is n Ambros de ijs quiâ—nit myster cap. 7. Nigra per fragilitatem conditionis humanae decora per gratiam nigra quia ex peccatoribus decora fidei sacramento blacke saith Ambrose by frailtie of humane condition comely by grace blacke because she is of sinners comely by the sacrament of faith o Iustus in Cant. num 8. Nigra coâ—fessione peccatorum formosa gratia sacramenti blacke saith Iustus by confession of sinnes comely by the grace of the sacrament This is the beautie of the Church for the time not her being without sinne but remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes testified by the sacraments of Christ being pledges of the redemption that she hath obtained in him And hereof Bernard well sayth that p Bernar. in CaÌ„t. ser 25 Pâ—test spoÌ„sa cum pulchritudine vtique compositionis naeuo noâ— carere nigredinis sed sanè in loco peregrinatiocus suae Alioqum erit eùm eam sibi in patria exhibebit sponsus gloriae gloriosam non habenteÌ„ maculaÌ„ aut rugam
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
take to be that which M. Perkins doth meane by those his words that the will must be first moued and acted by grace before it can act or will He mistooke vs thinking that we required some outward helpe onely to the will to ioyne with it or rather that grace did but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will was fettered and then Will could of it selfe turne to God Not vnderstanding how Catholikes take that Parable of the man wounded in the way Luk. 10. betweene Ierusalem and Ierico who was not as the Papists onely say but as the holy Ghost saith left halfe and not starke dead Now the exposition of Catholikes is not that this wounded man which signifieth all mankind had halfe his spirituall strength left him but was robbed of all supernaturall riches spoyled of his originall iustice and wounded in his naturall powers of both vnderstanding and Will and therein left halfe dead not being able of his owne strength either to know all naturall truth or to performe all moral duty Now touching supernaturall workes because he left all power to performe them not being able so much as to prepare himselfe conueniently to them he in a good sence may be likened vnto a dead man not able to moue one finger that way of grace and so in holy Scripture the father said of his prodigall Son Luk. 15. He was dead and is reuiued Yet as the same sonne liued a naturall life albeit in a deadly sinne so mans will after the fall of Adam continued somewhat free in actions conformable to the nature of man though wounded also in them as not being able to act many of them yet hauing still that naturall facultie of Free-will capable of grace and also able being first both outwardly moued and fortified inwardly by the vertue of grace to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation which is as much as M. Perkins affirmeth And this to be the very doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent where in the Session are first these words in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Iewes by the letter of Moses lawe could arise out of that sinfull state After it sheweth how our deliuerance is wrought and how freedome of will is recouered in speciall and wherein it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Iesus Christ that is from his vocation whereby without any desert of ours we are called that we who were by our sinnes turned away from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our owne Iustification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and working with it So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration who might also refuse it neither yet can he without the grace of God by his Free will moue himselfe to that which is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this doctrine of the Councell is no other then that which was taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknesse as Heretikes deeme 12. q. 109. Art 6. see what S. Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillars hath written of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these words of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. No man can come to me vnlesse my Father draw him he concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God mouing him inwardly thereunto And this is all which M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons following the which I will omit as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him reade the most learned workes of that famous Cardinall and right reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine R. ABBOT Here is another contradiction framed vpon the anuile of M. Bishops ignorance whilest he vnderstandeth not that workes morally good may be spiritually euill and whilest they a Luk 16.15 are highly esteemed with men for the substance of the act yet may be abhominable with God by the vncleannesse of the heart Which if he had duly considered he might well haue seene that both these assertions may stand together that man hath freedome of will to do the outward acts of morall vertues and yet that all that man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholy euill because his morall vertues without grace are in Gods sight but so many corruptions of good workes being poysoned in the roote of vnbeleefe and wholy diuerted from their true and proper end so that God hath no respect to them because in them there is no respect at all to God This followeth afterwards more fully to be handled towards the end of this question but in the meane time we see how simply he collecteth of this latter point that M. Perkins leaueth a man no naturall strength to performe any part of morall dutie and as if he had very wisely handled the matter addeth his epiphonema So vncertaine are the steps of them that walke in darknesse very fitly agreeing to himselfe who neither vnderstandeth what the aduersarie saith nor what he himselfe is to say for his owne part Whereupon it is that he conceiueth that M. Perkins fully agreeth with the Romish Church in this matter of Free will whereas they are as farre different one from the other as heauen is from earth The agreement forsooth is in that M. Perkins granteth Free will in the state of grace But so did Luther Caluin and so do we all as far as M. Perkins doth The Papists say that man hath in his owne nature a power of Free wil which being only stirred and helped can and doth of it selfe adioyne it selfe to grace to accept thereof and to worke with it This is it that we denie we say that freedome of the will to turne to God and to worke with him is no power of nature but the worke of grace that it is in no sort of man himselfe but wholy and onely the gift of God that howsoeuer God do offer grace yet that man hath no power in himselfe or in his owne will to assent and yeeld vnto it but it is God himselfe that withall worketh in him to accept thereof that to the conuersion of a sinner there ariseth nothing from the motion of his owne will howsoeuer assisted and helped of God but what God by his Spirit doth worke in it Vpon this point onely Luther and Caluin and we all insist to chalenge all wholy vnto God
was sayd calling it a defilement a contagion a blot a pestilent poyson c. and saying thereof What can there be found in man cleaue from this blot free from this contagion thereby plainly conuincing that it is sin because as hath bin before said nothing defileth blotteth infecteth the soule but onely sinne S. Austin S. Cirill he saith haue bin cited alreadie I hope he hath had a full answer to those citations As for Hierome and Gregorie when we heare what it is that he will oppose out of them he shall haue our further answer but neither they nor Caluins confession do proue at all that approued antiquitie is wholly for them as he fondly presumeth without cause But now forsooth to hit the naile on the head If any saith he desire to know the founder of our aduersaries doctrine in this point let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius And what shall he reade there Forsooth he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him which saith he is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Now he that had stood by him when he read this matter in Epiphanius might very well haue sayd to him Animus est in patinis your mind is on your mustard-pot ye reade ye know not what For that which he alledgeth of Proclus was not deliuered by Proclus but by Epiphanius is recorded out of a speech of Methodius a Catholike and godly Bishop against Proclus Yet this he thought a fit matter wherewith to delude his liege and soueraigne Lord hauing before mentioned it in his Epistle dedicatorie to the kings most excellent Maiestie in the answer whereof I haue set downe the words of Methodius at large and the heretical fancie of Proclus against which they were directed Now because the words to which he alludeth are the words of Methodius and approued by Epiphanius let it be remembred that Methodius and Epiphanius two ancient and holy Bishops haue taught that sinne is not taken away in Baptisme but is onely couered that is that sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed vnto him and so as M. Bishop himselfe confesseth haue taught iust the same that M. Perkins and the Protestants do now teach 10. W. BISHOP Now let vs come vnto the arguments which the Church of Rome as M. Perkins speakes alledgeth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate not to be sinne properly 1. Obiect In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne Which being pardoned is taken quite away and therefore after Baptisme ceaseth to be sinne M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answer is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent in confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feete Iohn 13. for he is wholy cleane Take with this the exposition of Saint Gregorie the great our Apostle Lib. 9. Ep. 3â— He cannot saith he be called wholy cleane in whom any part or parcell of sinnes remaineth But let no man resist the voyce of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him whom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to he wholy cleane The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are we iustified and sanctified Epist ad Ocâ—â—num Psal 50. if any sin be left remaining in vs Againe if holy Dauid say Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter then snow how can the blacknesse of hell still remaine in his soule briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious bloud of our Sauiour to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost-through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence Rom. 5. so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie albeit other defects and infirmities do remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument stands insoluble Now to the second R. ABBOT This argument as it was long ago vrged by the Pelagians so in them long ago hath receiued a full answer It was rightly sayd by S. Austin to them a August cont 2. epist Pelag. li. 3. ca. 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus corrumpit fidem quisquâ— autem tam nunc tribuit quod quidem per ipsuÌ„ sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem Whosoeuer doth derogate or detract from Baptisme that which now we receiue by it corrupteth Christian faith but he that euen now attributeth to it that which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receiue cutteth of Christian hope We confesse that Baptisme doth seale vnto vs the full remission and forgiuenesse of all our sinnes that thereby we are engraffed into Christ to become members of his body and to be made partakers of his spirit that by the sanctification of the same spirit sinne may be destroyed and decayed in vs from day to day that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death perfect righteousnesse may thenceforth take place for euer at the resurrection of the dead But this doth not satisfie M. Bishop he will haue it that Originall sinne is not onely forgiuen in Baptisme but also quite taken away and therefore reiecteth M. Perkins answer that it is abolished as touching imputation but that otherwise it remaineth still Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin that b Cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Maliâ— quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo not it selfe but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptisme that c Ibid lib 6. ca. 8. Manet actu praeterijt reatu it remaineth as touching the actuall being but is taken away as touching the guilt Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poore one that thus directly crosseth S. Austins assertion and hath no further warrant but his owne bare word We haue examined
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
goodnesse f Idem de verb. Apâ—st se◠〈◊〉 lloâ— peccati nomine appelat vnde oriuntur cuncta peccata id est ex carnali concupiscentia from which root of concupiscence he saith againe that all sinnes do spring and grow Thus S. Austine confesseth that albeit there be remission of sinnes in baptisme and nothing remaining of any actuall sinnes yet the root of Originall sinne continueth still which being the same that it was before must needs be sinne as it was before albeit in respect that the guilt thereof is released he forbeareth to call it by the name of sinne But of this root M. Perkins further saith and that rightly that though it be in substance the same that it was before yet in extent and power and strength it is not the same It holdeth not the whole man captiue as before the yoke thereof is broken the kingdome of it is dissolued it is as an enemie conquered and disarmed not hauing the g Rom. 6.13 members at commandement to be the weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne as before it had In the first instant of the conuersion of a sinner saith he sinne receiueth his deadly wound in the root neuer afterward to be recouered Now here M. Bishop though he knew not well what to say yet to shew both his wit and his honesty would not forbeare to say somewhat He wisheth the Reader to conferre this last answer of M. Perkins with his former doctrine bearing him in hand that he shall find him no more constant then the wind And why so Forsooth he saith here that sinne is deadly wounded is the root and had 〈◊〉 before that sinne remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it 〈◊〉 â—mouted But what contradiction it there betwixt these 〈…〉 deadly wounded and yet remaineth stiâ— What hinâ—◠〈…〉 his deadly wounded 〈…〉 may truly be said to 〈…〉 to had 〈◊〉 the guiltâ— wherewith it held vs and vntill it be healed by perfect buriall it still rebelleth being dead Yea but M. Perkins saith it remaineth sâ—ill with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed But I answer him that he abuseth M. Perkins who for this matter stopped this wranglers mouth in the answer last before and he dissembleth it as though he saw it not The guilt of sin he saith remaineth potentially not actually that is it remaineth such as that in it owne nature it is sufficient to make a man guilty but yet it doth not so became the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned which S. Austine manifestly proueth as I haue said before He doth not say then that it remaineth with all the guiltinesse of it though not imputed because it cannot be said to remaine with all the guiltinesse of it but it must also be said to be imputed Therefore in this whole disputation he confesseth with S. Austine as touching actuall guilt that Originall sinne is wholly and fully dead to the regenerate but yet remaineth still to rebell though it be dead And yet as touching rebellion it hath also receiued a deadly wound because it hath not now the same power to rebell as it had before to raigne and if sometimes it do gather power againe yet doth it neuer totally or finally recouer the kingdome that it had or preuaile vtterly to separate the faithfull from the loue of Christ as naturally it doth but by the first stroke and wound that it receiued by the grace of Christ becommeth in the end euery way and altogether dead and is vtterly abolished neuer to be againe He further alledgeth that M. Perkins first saith that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable and yet here blusheth not to conclude that he holdeth it at the first neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots But where doth he find this conclusion in M. Perkins words Surely the paper whereon he wrote this would haue blushed if it had had a forehead for very shame to carie the report of so manifest a lie But let the paper do what it will M. Bishop blusheth not for if he had bene a man of a blushing face he had wanted the name of being the writer of this booke What M. Bishop is it all one to be deadly wounded in the root and to be pulled vp by the roots M. Perkins saith not any where that concupiscence or sinne is pulled vp by the roots but as a man hauing receiued a deadly wound yet liueth afterwards for the time and stirreth and moueth euen so concupiscence though it receiue a deadly wound whereof in the end it dieth yet liueth and strugleth and rebelleth for the time stirring vp many noisome and euill motions and lusts from the consent whereof no man can say that he is altogether free and therein maketh a man to sinne and entangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable in such sort as before hath bene declared I may here turne M. Bishops words vpon himselfe Learne here gentle Reader what credit is to be giuen to such maisters as he is to such Maisters did I say nay to such remorselesse beasts who make no scruple or conscience to lie to falsifie to depraue those things against which otherwise they can haue nothing to except As for that which he glaunceth at in the end that concupiscence defileth all the works of the regenerate so that though they be in themselues good works yet they are stained with that which though it be not imputed yet is in it selfe mortall and deadly sinne it hath bene in part already declared and proued in the i Sect. 19. answer to his epistle dedicatorie and shall be more fully handled in his due place in the question of iustification where he professedly disputeth of that matter CHAPTER 3. OF THE CERTAINTIE OF SALVATION 1. W. BISHOP M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION VVE hold and beleeue that a man in this life Pag. 37. may be certaine of saluation and the same doth the Church of Rome teach M. P. 2. Conclu We hold that a man is to put certaine affiance in Gods mercy in Christ for the saluation of his soule and the same holdeth the aforesaid Romane Church M. P. 3. Conclu We hold that with assurance of saluation in our hearts is ioyned doubting and there is no man so assured of his saluation but he at sometime doubteth thereof especially in the time of temptation and in this the Papists agree with vs. Not so Sir M. P. 4. Conclu They goe further and say that a man may be Certaine of the Saluation of men and of the Church by Catholike faith and so say we M. P. 5. Conclu They hold that a man by faith may be assured of his owne saluation through extraordinarie reuelation In this sence onely the first conclusion is true M. P. 6. Conclu The sixt and second be all one that we may be assured of our Saluation in regard of God that promiseth it
be no assurance by faith of our owne Saluation vnlesse we beleeue it with the like infallible Certainty as we do the truth of the word of God 5. W. BISHOP The thâ—rd reason for the Catholikes is that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sinnes But that were needlesse Math. 6. if we were before assured both of pardon and Saluation M. Perkins answereth First that we pray daily for the remission of new sinnes committed that day Be it so What needs that if we were before assured of pardon Marrie saith he because our assurance was but weake and small our prayer is to increase our assurance Good Sir do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe If your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and as strong as the truth of God We giue God thanks for those gifts which we haue receaued at his bountifull hands and desire him to increase or continue them if they may be lost But to pray to God to giue vs those things we are assured of by faith is as fond and friuolous as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Sonne or that there may be life euerlasting to his Saints in heauen of which they are in full and assured possession And so these three Arguments by M. Perkins propounded here for vs are very substantiall and sufficient to assure euery good Christian that he may well hope for Saluation doing his dutie but may not without great presumption assure him by faith of it R. ABBOT The comfort of the faithfull mans praier is the same assurance that Dauid had a Psal 4.3 When I call vpon the Lord he will heare me it being a promise of God to his people b 50.15 Call vpon me and I will heare thee in which sort our Sauiour Christ giueth vs incouragement to pray saying c Iohn 14.13 Whatsoeuer ye aske in my name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Sonne Therefore S. Iohn saith d 1. Iohn 5.14 This is the assurance that we haue of him that whatsoeuer we aske according to his will he heareth vs and if we know that he heareth vs we know that we haue the petitions that we aske of him Being therefore bidden to pray for the forgiuenesse of sinnes and hauing the promise of God e Ierem. 31.34 I will be mercifull vnto them and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more we beleeue and by faith stand assured that when we do pray to haue our sinnes forgiuen vs God heareth vs and giueth vs pardon and forgiuenesse thereof We do not then teach at randon the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes but in such tenure and forme as we are directed by the word of God according to which S. Austine saith of himselfe f August cont Iulian. Pelag. lib 6. ca. 5. Qua gratia liberor vt scio ne intrem in tentationeÌ„ c. atque vt exaudiar cum confortâ—hat meis dicens Dimitte nobis c. By the grace of God I am freed I know that I enter not into temptation and that I am heard saying with my fellowes Forgiue vs our trespasses g Psa 32.6 For this therefore that is h August in Psal 31. Pro hac pro ipsa venia peccatorum for forgiuenesse of sinnes shall euery one that is godly saith Dauid make his praier vnto thee in a time when thou maiest be found so being assured that in the great water flouds they shall not come nigh him Our faith then assureth vs not of forgiuenesse of sinnes without praier but that God forgiueth vs when we pray so that his obiection being framed to our doctrine aright is as if he should say Seeing faith assureth vs of forgiuenesse of sinnes when we craue it of him by praier what need we pray Which was one of Wrights drunken reasons whereby he would haue laied an absurditie vpon our Church being himselfe an absurd blind-asinus and not vnderstanding what we say But to make the matter more plaine it is to be noted that in three respects we continue daily to aske of God forgiuenesse of sinnes of which M. Perkins hath noted two First as S. Austine saith i August de vera fals paenit ca. 5. Quia quotidimana est offensio oportet vt sit quotidiana etiam remissio because we daily commit offence we haue need daily to craue pardon But what needs that saith M. Bishop if we were before assured of pardon I haue answered him that our assurance before hand and alwaies is that our praier obtaineth it at Gods hands Therefore we pray and by faith do rest assured that vndoubtedly we haue that for which we pray Secondly we pray for forgiuenesse not for that we haue no assurance thereof but for that we desire greater assurance and more comfortable feeling of it that as forgiuenesse with God is full and perfect so the same may accordingly be sealed in our hearts Our faith being weake giueth but weake assurance and therefore we begge of God that our hearts may be enlarged that k Bernard in Annunciat ser 1. supra sect 3. the testimonie of the spirit may more freely sound vnto vs Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Now here saith M. Bishop Good Sir do you not see how you ouerthrow your selfe And why so Forsooth if your assurance be but weake and small it is not the assurance of faith which is as great and strong as the truth of God But good Sir we haue alreadie shewed you that therein you tell vs a sencelesse and vnlikely tale The truth of God is alwaies alike not subiect to alteration neuer increased or diminished but our faith is greater and lesse somtimes hath a full and sometimes a wane and to vs the truth of God is according to our faith and according to our apprehension feeling of it Wherein we are variable and diuerse euen after the manner of Peters faith of whom S. Austine saith l August de verb. Dom. ser 13 Illum vidite Petrum qui tunc erat figura vestra modo fidit modo titubat modò immortaleÌ„ confitetur modoÌ„ timet ne moriatur Peter was the patterne of vs all sometimes he beleeueth sometimes he wauereth one while he confesseth Christ to be immortall another while he is afraid least Christ should die The poore distressed man saith in the Gospell m Mar. 9. Lord I beleeue helpe my vnbeleefe n August de verb. Dom. ser 36. Credo inquit ergò est fides Sed adiuua incredulitatem meam ergo non est plena fides He saith I beleeue therefore there is faith saith Austine helpe my vnbeleefe saith he therefore there is not yet full and perfect faith If there be true faith and yet with faith a remainder of vnbeleefe then the assurance of faith cannot be said to be as great and strong as the truth
your Saluation with feare and trembling There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy writ wherein the Holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our Saluation out of which I thus frame my argument No man must stand in feare of that of which he is by faith assured But the faithfull must stand in feare of their Saluation Ergo they be not assured of it by faith The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before the Maior is manifest there is no feare in faith he that feareth whether the thing be assured or no cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto Dubius in fide infidelis est Put the case in another article to make it more euident He that feareth whether there be a God or no do we esteeme that he beleeueth in God So he that feareth whether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian hath he a true faith You must needs answer no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saued or no can haue no faith of his Saluation R. ABBOT The place of S. Iohn doth fully ouerthrow that which M. Bishop laboureth to build inuincibly prouing that reuolters and renegates wholy falling away from Christ were neuer of the faithfull though for the time outwardly they held profession with them For if they had bene of vs saith he they would haue continued with vs therein implying this rule that they that once are of the faithfull do certainly continue with them so as that they neuer wholie and finally depart from them For as falling starres were neuer starres indeed though they seemed to be starres so apostataes and backsliders were neuer faithfull indeed though they seemed so to be But here Maister Bishop answereth If they went out from vs they were before with vs. Be it so but yet as the glosse saith a Thom. Aquin. in Ioan. ca. 2. ex glossa Erant de ecclesia numero non merito sacramentorum perceptione non charitatis communione by tale and account not by woorth by participation of sacraments not by fellowship of loue This place then proueth that men may depart from the profession of the faith of Christ but it confirmeth not his assertion that the faith of any doth euer faile that is truly faithfull in the profession of the faith of Christ And therefore it is but one of his iuglers tricks to make his Reader beleeue that the place confirmeth his assertion when in truth it doth directly contradict it If those reuolters had had true faith Saint Iohn would not haue said They were not of vs for he is of the faithfull whosoeuer is indued with true faith But saith he S. Iohns meaning is that such were not of the number of the elect and this is S. Austines exposition And we acknowledge S. Austines exposition to be true b August de bono perseuâ—â—â—a 8. Non erant ex eis quia noÌ„ erant secundum propositum vocant non erant in Chr sto electi ante constitutioneÌ„â—undi non erant in eo sort in consecuti non erant praedestinauit secundum proposituÌ„ eius qui vniuersa operatur They were not of them because they were not called according to purpose because they were not elect in Christ before the foundations of the world because they had not obtained any lot or portion in him because they were not praedestinate according to the purpose of him who worketh all things But because they were not such therefore they were neuer truly faithfull For if they were not called by purpose then did they neuer truly beleeue because c Jdem de praed sanct cap 16. Qua vocatione sit credens by that calling it is that a man doth beleeue Now d Jâ—â— p. 17. Quos praedestinauit ipsos vocauit illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum Non ergo alios sed quos praedestinauit ipsos vocauit nec alios sed quos ita vocauit ipsos iustificauit nec alios sed quos praedestinauit vocauit iustificauit ipsos giereficauit c. by this calling God calleth no other but whom he hath praedestinate therefore onely the predestinate do beleeue And no other doth God iustifie but whom he hath called with that calling therefore onely the elect are partakers of iustification and if only the elect be iustified then all that are iustified do certainly perseuer because the elect do neuer fall away Now if backsliding reprobates were neuer partakers of iustification then were they neuer of the body of the faithfull howsoeuer in outward appearance they seemed to be And this the same S. Austine very notably confirmeth when he saith of reprobates e Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 5 cap. 3. Jstorum neminem adducit ad poenitentiam salubrem spiritualem qua homo in Christo reconciliatur Deo siue illis ampliorem patientiam quà m electis siue non imparem praebeat None of these doth God bring to spirituall and healthfull repentance whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God whether he yeeld them patience for longer or shorter time And as he excludeth them from true repentance so doth he also from forgiuenesse of sinnes saying that f Cont. aduersar seg prophet lib. 2 ca. 11. Qui noÌ„ omnium sicut iste au sedeorum quos ante praesâ—â—on praedestinauit delicta dimittit God forgiueth the sinnes not of all but of them whom before he foreknew and predestinated Origen yet goeth further and saith that g Origen cont Cels lib. 7. Conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinati sunt vt cognito Dei dignè viuant the knowledge of God meaning the true and effectuall knowledge of God is graunted onely vnto them who are hereto predestinate that knowing God they may liue worthy of him Now if reprobates neuer haue any true knowledge of God if they be secluded from repentance faith iustification forgiuenesse of sinnes then these things are proper onely to the elect which do certainly perseuer and our assertion is true that where there is true repentance faith iustification knowledge of God there infallibly followeth perseuerance to the end Saint Iohn therefore when he saith They were not of vs as he meaneth that they were not of the elect so he meaneth that they neuer were of the number of true beleeuers neuer true members of Christ or of the spirituall body of the Church which if they had bene he concludeth for vs that they should haue so continued and not in that sort haue vtterly fallen away Therefore doth Saint Austine expound the words of them h August de corrept grat ca. 9. Filij Dei propter susâ—eptaÌ„ vel temporaliter gratiaÌ„ dicuntur a nobis nec sunt tamen Deo who for grace temporally receiued are of vs called the children of God but yet are not so to God affirming plainly that with God they are not children though we call them so because they seeme no
BEcause M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I will helpe him out both with the preparation and Iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Sess 6. c. 6. Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice when being stirred vp helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued towards God beleeuing those things to be true which God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus And when knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgements they turne themselues to consider the mercie of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God wil be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued with hatred and detestation of all sins Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a new life and to keepe all Christs commandements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter which briefly are these The finall cause of the Iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and mans owne Iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Iesus Passions the instrumental is the Sacrament of Baptisme the onely formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charity with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost powred into a mans soule at that instant of Iustification Of the Iustification by faith and the second Iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that Iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes when a man is iustified be pardoned him The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnesse for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnesse which is in our selues The Catholikes affirme that those vertues powred into our soules speaking of the formal cause of Iustification is our iustice that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before we hold that God of his meere mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freely bestowed that iustice on vs. Note that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience whereas obedience if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hands R. ABBOT The doctrine of the Councell of Trent concerning preparation to Iustification is the very heresie of the Pelagians as may appeare by that that before hath bene said thereof in the question of a Sect. 5. Free will Out of the free will of man only stirred vp and helped by grace b Coster Enchirid cap 5. Haec gratia impulsus tantum motio spiritus s adhuc foris degentis liberum arbitrium auxilio Dei necdum inhabitantis sed mâ—uâ—nus adiunantis se praeparat ad iustificationem not any intrinsecall or infused but only outwardly assisting grace which is no more but what Pelagius himselfe acknowledged they deriue faith hope loue repentance the feare of God the hatred of sinne and purpose of new life whereby he prepareth and disposeth himselfe to receiue in his Iustification another faith hope charity and other gifts of the holy Ghost then to be powred into his soule Whereby though they will not seeme so to do yet indeed they runne into the affirming of that which if Pelagius had not denied condemned he had bene condemned himselfe c August epist 206 gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari that the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs according to our merits In which sort Bellarmine saith that d Bellarm. de Iustificat lib. 1. cap. 1â— Fides â—ustificat per moduÌ„ dispositioâ—is merin meretur remissionem peccateruÌ„ suo quodam modo faith iustifieth by way of merit that faith in it manner doth merit forgiuenesse of sinnes applying thereto some speâ—ches of Austine which to that purpose were neuer meant In seâ—â—ing downe the causes of Iustification out of the Councell he committeth an absurd errour in saying that the finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is mans owne Iustification as if it selfe could be the final cause of â—â—eâ—fe whereas the Councel nameth in steed thereof eternall life Whereâ—â— he saith that they agree with vs in this point that Iustification 〈◊〉 of the free grace of God through his in◠〈…〉 our Sauiours Passion he doth but sop◠〈…〉 For if Iustification be of the free grace of God then it is not of works according to that of the Apostle e Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace But he afterwards professedly disputeth that his works of preparation are the very cause of Iustification It were odious to refuse the name of the free grace of God and therefore formally he nameth it but by the processe of this discourse it will appeare that he meaneth nothing lesse then to make it free That our Iustification and righteousnesse before God standeth not in any inward vertues and graces powred into our soules but in the imputation of Christes obedience and righteousnesse made ours by faith shall be proued vnto him God willing by better arguments then he shall be able to disprooue But that we are not to expect much of him for disproouing he himselfe here sheweth vs by a silly note in which he telleth vs that M. Perkins comes too short in his second rule when he attributeth the merits of Christes sufferings to obedience whereas obedience saith he if it had bene without charity would haue merited nothing at Gods hand Wherein what doth he but giue check to the Apostle in that he saith f Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous For to him he might likewise say that he comes too short in attributing to Christes obedience that many by it are made righteous whereas by his obedience if it had bene without charity many could not haue bene made righteous But the mans simple ignorance appeareth in this diuiding of obedience from charitie whereas charity is the very mother of obedience neither is there any true obedience but what issueth therefrom And therefore M. Perkins well noted though Maister Bishops narrow eyes beheld it not that Christ in his obedience shewed his exceeding loue both to his Father vs. But we must be content to beare with many such idle and bootelesse notes 2. W. BISHOP And whereas M. Perkins doth say that therein we raze the foundation that is
as he interpreteth it in his preface we make Christ a Pseudochrist we auerre that herein we do much more magnifie Christ then they doe for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they doe but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men worthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrariwise do so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestimable merits that we hold them well able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them do giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnesse wisedome and iustice in their Iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to Iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers whited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquity and disorder Then the wisedome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquity or his goodnesse abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it with the mantle of Christs righteousnesse Why can any thing be hid from his fight it is madnesse to think it And why doth he not for Christes sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his Sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first father Adam in state of innocencie Pag 77. And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse If then we had no other reason for vs but that our Iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and bringeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alledge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or ancient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and do much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisedome and goodnesse Now to their reasons R. ABBOT It is truly said by Maister Perkins that the Church of Rome in teaching Iustification by works doth raze the very foundation of Christian faith and maketh Christ but a counterfeit and false Christ because as saith the Apostle a Gal. 2.21 If righteousnesse be by the law then Christ died in vaine Therefore peremptorily he denounceth b Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ ye are fallen from grace whosoeuer are iustified by the law Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that they do therein much more magnifie Christ then we do But I answer him that they do truly magnifie Christ who yeeld him that honour to say or teach nothing of him but what he hath reuealed and taught of himselfe They do not magnifie Christ who measure and describe him by the foolish presumptions of their owne shallow and short wits As for vs we do not make the effect of Christs merits to serue onely that sinne is not imputed vnto vs as this sycophant cauilleth but affirme the same to be such as that for his sake and c Ephes 1.8 in him God blesseth vs with all manner of spirituall blessings in heauenly things and that d 1. Cor. 1.30 he is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption that is all in all that he that reioyceth may reioyce onely in the Lord. But of his magnifying Christs merits we may rightly say as Saint Austin vpon occasion said to the Donatists e August cont lit Petil lib. 2. ca. 84. Verba sunt hominum extollentium glorians homini sub nomine Christi vt gloria minuatuâ— ipsius Christi They are the words of men extolling the glorie of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glorie of Christ himselfe Christ forsooth hath purchased for them iustice and merits of such force and value as that they make them iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen These are gallants that thinke scorne to receiue the reward of heauen as a poore man doth an almes but will needs haue whereof to say I am iust I haue iustly and worthily deserued heauen Foolish hypocrite that affirmeth that of the merits of Christ which neither he nor any of his can shew to be performed in himselfe nay which his owne conscience controleth by experience of himselfe The word of God teacheth vs no such iustice or merit they themselues find it not in themselues their Iesuites and Priests to say nothing of the rest which are the teachers hereof are men in the eyes of the world notorious for trecherie for villanie for cosinage for vncleane and filthy life and so one by another discouered to be yea and of their followers a great number that prate of their merits are knowne for extortioners whoremongers drunkards swearers prophane and vile persons and yet must we needs beleeue that they are endued with such iustice and merits Nay we rather beleeue that the iust iudgement of God is vpon them to deliuer them vp to sinne who thus wilfully yeeld themselues to such palpable illusions of the man of sinne But by this meanes Christ with them after baptisme is no otherwise a Sauiour but because he giueth such iustice as whereby it is in their power by free will to saue themselues and by their merits to purchase and deserue heauen This is it Maister Bishop for which we iustly detest you as wicked peruerters of the Gospell of Christ and subuerters of true faith Thus in seeming to set vp Christes merits you pull them downe and set vp your selues in steede of Christ But the Gospell teacheth vs to acknowledge Christ immediatly and wholy our righteousnesse and saluation f 2. Cor. 5.21 in whom and not in our selues we are made the righteousnesse of God that is iust in the sight of God in that his obedience and righteousnesse performed and wrought in our name and for our behoofe is imputed vnto vs g Rom. 3.25 by faith in his bloud But so as that this saluation to which he entitleth vs by faith in him consisteth not onely in the remission of sinnes or
in the not imputing thereof but also in h Cap. 6.6 destroying the body of sinne and restoring in vs the image of God i Ephe. 4.24 in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth he hauing giuen himselfe k Tit. 2.14 to purge vs to be a peculiar people vnto himselfe and l Ephe. 5.27 to make vnto himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing And all this Christ will effect vnto vs but he will do it according to his owne will not according to Popish fancie All this is now in fieri non in facto esse it is begun and in doing but it is not yet finished and done it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead In the meane time he bringeth vs not to perfect righteousnesse in our selues nor giueth vnto vs a full immunitie from sinne that he may take away from vs all occasion of reioycing in our selues that as Saint Austine noteth m August de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 13. Vt dum non iustificatur in coÌ„spectu erâ—s viuens actionem gratiarum semper in dulgentiâ—e ipsius debeamus siâ— ab illa primâ— caâ—sa omniuÌ„ vâ—ticrum id est ae tumore superbâ—e sancta humilitate scruemur whilest no man liuing is found iust in the sight of God we may alwaies owe thankesgiuing vnto his mercie and by humilitie may be healed from swelling pride and n Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Vt scâ—amus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit that we may know as Saint Bernard saith at that day that not for the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Now therefore we doe no wrong to Gods goodnesse wisedome iustice in our iustification as Maister Bishop fondly chargeth vs because we teach iustification in the same sort as God himselfe hath taught it vs inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessarie effect but not conteining it as an essentiall part We hold sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in this sence that the one cannot be without the other and that no man is iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ but we denie sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in Maister Bishops meaning as to be any cause or matter of it As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him the true purpose of it onely is to shew the worke of Gods grace to be irreuocable in them vpon whom he hath set the marke of his election and hath iustified them by faith in Christ to whom as Saint Austine saith o August Soli. loq cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonuÌ„ etiam peccata ipsa euen their very sinnes doe worke for good and thereof is made as it were a triacle and preseruatiue against sinne so that as Bernard saith p Bernard de triplici cohaer clauor vincul glutin Of Certaintie of Saluation Sect. 9. though Dauid be branded with the blot of horrible sinnes and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Maister yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God who because he will preserue them therefore preserueth their faith and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification and though by occasion they fall yet they neuer so fall but that q 1. Iohn 3.9 his seede remaineth in them and r Psal 37.24 his hand is vnder to lift them vp againe Now because we affirme the inward sanctifying of the heart to be alwaies an infallible consequent of iustification there is no place for that obiection of his that we make the righteous man like to sepulchers whited without with an imputed Iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder The imputation of righteousnesse both outwardly and inwardly is our iustification before God and by sanctification the iustified man both outwardly and inwardly becommeth other in quality then he was before so that although sinne in part be still remaining to lust and rebell yet it is brought into subiection that it raigneth not and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit a man is not by it reputed full of iniquitie and disorder But of this sufficient hath bene said Å¿ Sect. 17. before by occasion of the same cauill in his epistle to the Ring Here as he giueth further occasion we tell him that that remainder of sinne in the regenerate is couered with the mantle of the righteousnesse of Christ and so S. Austine as we haue seene before calleth it t August de nupt concup lib. 2. ca. 34. peccatum tectum sinne couered or hidden But saith he it is madnesse to thinke that any thing can be hid from the sight of God We answer him that God seeth it well enough with the eye of his knowledge but by reason of that couerture u August in Ps â—1 Noluit aduertire Tecta quare vt non videâ—â—tur Quid erat Dei videre peccata aâ—si puâ—ire peccata will not see it with the eye of his iudgement he seeth it with a discerning but seeth it not with a reuenging eye euen as it is said x Numb 23.21 He seeth no iniquitie in Iacob nor beholdeth transgression in Israel But he demaundeth Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away and adorne the soule with grace c. He hath his answer before I will here quit him onely with Saint Austins words y Augus â—â—nat Câ—â—grat cap. 27. riot agit Deus vt â—aâ—ct onâ—â—a sed agit tuâ—licio suo nec ordinem sanaâ—di accipit ab aegreto God is in hand to heale all but he doth it at his owne discretion and receiueth not of the sicke man an order for his cure Againe he asketh Hath not Christ deserued it We tell him ye Christ hath deserued it and for his merits sake it shall be done but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it Christ hath deserued for vs to be wholly freed from mortalitie corruption and death as before was sayd but mortalitie corruption and death yet continue still When mortalitie corruption and death shall be abolished then shall sinne also wholly and for euer be taken away Last of all he demaundeth Is it because God cannot make such iustice in a pure man I answer him out of Tertullian z Tertul. aduers Praxeâ—in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac senteÌ„tia vtamuâ— quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volanduÌ„ instruxâ—sse non tamen quia potuit statim fecit c. Probare apertè debebis ex Scripturâ—s If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceiue opinion we may faine what we list of God as if he had
savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am guiltie of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification as I haue before shewed But M. Perkins addeth that vve must remember that vve shall come to iudgement vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed We knovv it vvell but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about Originall sinne vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had runne a good race c. and therefore there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him by that iust iudge and not onely to him but all them that loue Christs comming And concerning both Inherent iustice and the abilitie of it to fulfill the law and what law heare this one sentence of S. Augustine Serm. 18. de verb. Apost He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the law albeit the law be good but he shall fulfill the law not by iustice which he hath of himselfe but which is giuen of God for charitie is the fulfilling of the law and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts not certainly by our selues but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. R. ABBOT There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot none so readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe I pray thee gentle Reader whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner him that saith that the Apostle saying I am not thereby iustified doth meane as he saith I am not thereby iustified or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place b Greg. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulgeâ— operantis Oft times saith he our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing by and by added but I am not iustified thereby Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs sâ—to As if he should say Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me c. d Quia ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret nisi hanc seueâ—us iudex in subtilâ— lance examinâ— misericorditèr penset Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination Againe he saith of the same place e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus Ducta namque ad internam regulaÌ„ nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes which we thought we did with strength For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule if it find seuere iudgement by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward or perfect Righteousnesse Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones that is euen the strength of vertues and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination saith I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing yet am I not thereby iustified f Acsi diceret Recta egisse me recolo attamen demeritis non praesumo quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis ossa turbantur As if he should say I remember I haue done the things that be right but yet I presume not of any merit because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled Thus by the iudgement of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified because though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes much more in many secret sinnes could find sufficient to condemne him And this is the true meaning of those words that howsoeuer a man if it be so know nothing by himselfe yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd g Psal 143.2 that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe I know nothing by my selfe namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him which was the matter spoken of yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe h Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne i Vers 19. I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. k Vers 23. I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true which were meant onely respectiuely as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that
Dei not of Pauls owne iustice saith S. Bernard but of the iustice of God For it is iust with God to pay that he oweth and he oweth that which he hath promised And this is the iustice saith he vpon which the Apostle presumeth euen the promise of God Now verie much doth M. Bishop mistake to thinke that God rendereth by the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge that which as a iust iudge he rendereth by promise according to the law of faith In a word it toucheth the Apostle Paul which Saint Austine sayeth vnto God y August in Psal 129. Si nobiscum seuerus iudex agere volueris non miserecors pater quis stabit ante oculâ—s tuos If thou vvilt deale as a rigorous iudge and not as a mercifull father who shall stand in thy presence The place of Austin by him cited maketh nothing at all against vs nor helpeth him at all He would thereby proue Inherent iustice and we denie it not onely we say that in this life we are farre from the perfection of it In this life we are z August de verb. Apost ser 15. Vtatores non habitatores non possessores trauellers to it not dwellers in it not possessors of it as Saint Austin speaketh in the same Sermon misquoted by M. Bishop the eighteenth for the fifteenth a Ibid. ser 16. Puto hoc esse dicere Iustus sum quod est peccator non sum I thinke it is all one for a man to say I am iust saith he as to say I am no sinner and who is there liuing that can so say Therefore aduisedly he saith implebit legem he shall fulfill the law not he doth fulfill He now fulfilleth it in part but shall perfectly fulfill it when charitie shall be perfect which is b Rom 1.3.10 the fulfilling of the law which c August epist 29. Plenissima charitas quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine shall be in no man so long as he liueth here Therefore in another place he bringeth in the Apostle himselfe saying d Idem de verb. Apost ser 5. Non implet legem infirmitas mea sed laudat legem voluntas meae My weaknesse fulfilleth not the law but yet my will commendeth the law referring it to the commaundement Thou shalt not lust This is the state of our Righteousnesse here rather a desire to fulfill the law then any perfect attainment of our desire And thus M. Bishops answer to the first argument is indeed not worth a rush 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second argument He which knew no sinne 2. Cor. 5. was made sinne for vs that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God which is in him Hence M. Perkins reasoneth thus As Christ was made sinne for vs so we are made the Righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he being most holy Therefore a sinner is made righteous in that Christs Righteousnesse is imputed vnto him I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our Iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any likelihood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sinne in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers An host or Sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truly made his bodie being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see S. Augustine Tract 26. in Ioh. Jtem Epist 120. ad Honorat cap. 30. Item in Psa 30. Conc. 1. De spirit lit c. 9. One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the faith of Christ Iesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by which Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberalitie they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of workes but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs and that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to worke that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted R. ABBOT The words of the Apostle are plaine yet M. Bishop denieth that there is any signification of a similitude that Christ vvas so made sinne as vve are made iust M. Perkins to approue that there is a similitude alledged the exposition of Anselmus a Anselm in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Ille peccatum vt nos iustitia non nostra sed Dei non in nobis sed in illo sicut ille peccatum non suuÌ„ sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis He vvas made sinne that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods not in our selues but in him as he was made sinne not his owne but ours not in himselfe but in vs. M. Bishop answereth that Anselme shall be answered when the place is quoted He was loth of his labor to search for it being left vnquoted by M. Perkins because he saw that all his wit could not deuise what to say against it But when he will answer he must not answer Anselme only but Austin also from whom Anselme borrowed that exposition as he vsed to doe verie much b August Enchirid cap. 41. Ipse ergò peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine catâ—is peccati in qua crucifixus erat demonstrauit He then was made sinne saith Austin that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods nor in our selues but in him euen as he by the similitude of sinfull flesh vvherein he vvas crucified did shew foorth sinne not his owne sinne but ours not being in him but in vs. In which words we see it plainely affirmed which M. Bishop denieth that the Apostle in those words did intend a comparison betwixt Christs being made sinne and our being made Righteousnesse that as Christ not being a sinner yet was reputed as a sinner for our sakes and for the sinne that is in vs so we not being in our selues iust and righteous
forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Which being so albeit his exposition conteine nothing materiall against vs yet we hold the same not so properly applied to the thing which he there expoundeth For we doe not thinke that the iustice or righteousnesse of God is so called onely for that it is the gift of God but because thereby we are iustified thereby we are iust and righteous in the sight of God Which because we are not by inherent iustice as S. Austine euery where confesseth it followeth that the righteousnesse of God must be vnderstood of another kind of righteousnesse which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth vs whereby Å¿ Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works according to the words of Dauid t Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose vnrighteosnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Therefore the Greeke Scholiast expounding the righteousnesse of God to be that that is giuen of God further sheweth what that gift is u Oecumen in Rom cap. 3. Iustitia Dei est iustificatio absolutio seu liberatio à peccatis à quibus non potuâ—â— lex liâ—erare The iustice or righteousnesse of God is iustification and release or deliuerance from sinnes from which the law could not deliuer vs. And so Chrysostome though he say as M. Bishop citeth that iustification is of grace that is of Gods free gift yet withall saith that x Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. Deâ— est ista iustitia quando non ex operibus quando necessarium est etiam nullam maculam inuenâ—â— the righteousnesse of God is so called because it is not of works inasmuch as it is necessarie that there be no spot sound Where he presupposeth that there cannot be found any righteousnesse of works but such as is spotted and defiled and therefore importeth that the righteousnesse of God which must be without spot can by no meanes be vnderstood of the righteousnesse of works Neither doth it helpe M. Bishop any whit that inherent righteousnesse is pure of it selfe as it is the gift of God because though it be pure of it selfe and in the worke of God yet it is soiled in the puddles of our corruption and receiueth a blemish by our crooked and vntoward vsing of it and is neither giuen to that end nor is sufficient to yeeld vs iustification in the sight of God Hitherto therefore the argument standeth good As Christ was made sinne so we are made righteousnesse Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinne We are therefore made righteous by the imputation of his righteousnesse 6. W. BISHOP Rom. 5. M. Perkins third reason As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous mark here a comparison betweene the first and second Adam hence I reason thus As by the obedience of Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous but men are made sinners by imputation of Adams sinne vnto them and not onely by propagation of naturall corruption ergo by imputation of Christs iustice we are made righteous Answer The comparison I allow because it is the Apostles and denie that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault and say that euery one descended of Adam by naturall propagation hath his own personall iniquity sticking in them which is commonly called Originall sinne and an high point of Pelagianisme is it to denie it For albeit we did not tast of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue we the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many were made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Now to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquity in like manner we are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice which is powred into our soules when we are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penurie of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them R. ABBOT This argument Maister Bishop could no way auoid but by shewing himselfe either impudently wilfull or absurdly ignorant and surely if his knowledge be no better then be here expresseth he hath ill bestowed those thrice seuen yeeres that he hath before spoken of in the studie of Diuinitie and were best to set himselfe to schoole againe The case is very cleare that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne then are we also righteous by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Therefore he denieth that we are made sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne Yea but M. Bishop you should then haue told vs how it is true that the Apostle saith that a Rom. 5.19 by Adams disobedience we are made sinners For how should we be sinners by his disobedience but for that his disobedience is imputed vnto vs Bellarmine saith and he therein saith truly that b Bellarm. de Amiss grat statu peccati lib. 4. ca. 10. Peccatâ— Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur acsi omnes idem peccatuÌ„ patrauissâ—nt Adams sinne is imputed to all his posteritie as if all had committed the same He alledgeth to that purpose Saint Bernard saying that c Bernard Domin prima post Epiphan ser 1. Nostra est culpa nobis iusto Dei iudicio imputabatur licet occulto Adams sinne is our sinne and by the iust though secret iudgement of God is imputed vnto vs. He saith againe in another place that d Bellar. ibid. lib. 5. ca. 17. Communicatur per imputationem Omnibus enim imputatur qui ex Adamo nascuntur Adams sinne is communicated vnto vs by imputation that it is imputed to all that are borne of Adam and calleth it the imputation of Adams disobedience If Adam then by disobedience were holden a sinner and his disobedience is imputed vnto vs as if we our selues had disobeied it must needes follow that by the imputation of the same disobedience we also are sinners as well as he Therefore doth the Apostle say that e Rom. 5.12 in him that is in Adam all haue sinned If in Adam all haue sinned then in Adam all are sinners in Adam all are guiltie of sinne To which purpose Saint Bernard saith f Bernard de aduent Dom. ser 1. In Adam omnes peccauimus in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes In Adam we haue all sinned and in him we haue all receiued the sentence of damnation So Saint Austine also saith that g August de Trint lib. 13. ca. 12. Parentum
vnto thee put case he had said If a Papist shall say vnto thee How is all the world saued it being onely Christ that hath done righteously thou maiest answer him How was the whole world condemned when it was onely Adam that obeied not The matter of our condemnation then is in the one and the matter of our saluation in the other corruption of nature being consequently drawne by generation from the one as a part of our condemnation and sanctification to holinesse consequently deriued by faith and regeneration from the other as a part of our saluation And now he may well see that our arguments be not poore nor make against our selues as he pretendeth but his answers are such penurious and poore shifts as that now they are once discouered we expect from him no further maintaining of them 7. W. BISHOP His fourth reason The Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction but satisfaction is equall to iustice therefore they must make it as well their iustice as satisfaction For the Maior he citeth Bellarmin Lib. 2. de Iustif cap. 7. I haue read the Chapter and finde no such words further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and iustification for satisfaction cannot be done vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Maiestie and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherefore the infinite valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinnes leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it as shall be in his due place declared more at large Againe a man must needes haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kinde of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christ satisfaction There is nothing like in iustification for first to make a man iust in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocencie and of all the blessed Soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight Neither is it necessarie to be infinite for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen which be not infinite as they are enioyed of men or Angels either of whom haue all things there in number weight and measure Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of another but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on another and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquitie no more then a simple man will take a Black-moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell R. ABBOT In true and right vnderstanding satisfaction is fully equiualent to iustification and that that is our satisfaction is also our iustification before God For declaration whereof it is to be obserued that sinne consisteth partly in commission partly in omission partly in doing that that we ought not to do partly in not doing that that we ought to do Satisfaction then for sinne must serue to acquit both the one and the other it must take away what we haue done and supply what we haue not done or else it cannot be called a satisfaction Therefore as on the one side in the euill that we haue done we are reputed as if it neuer had bene done so on the other side in the good that we haue not done we are reputed as if all had bene done Accordingly S. Austine saith that a August Retract l. 1. cap 19. Omnia mandata facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed to be done when that is pardoned that is not done Our satisfaction therefore is our iustification with God because thereby we are reputed as if we had performed all the righteousnesse of God And so doth Bernard make them both one when saying b Bernard ep 190. Assignata est ei aliena iustitia qui caruit sua There is the righteousnesse of another assigned to him who wanted of his owne he addeth to expresse the same c Satisfactio vnius omnibus imputatur c. the satisfaction of one is imputed vnto all euen as he alone hath borne the sinnes of all But more clearely is it euicted by the words of the Apostle who where Dauid pronounceth the man d Psal 32.1 blessed to whom the Lord forgiueth his sinnes saith that he e Rom. 4.6 describeth there the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works giuing thereby to vnderstand that forgiuenesse of sinnes is the imputation of righteousnesse without works If therefore in satisfaction there be forgiuenesse of sinnes then is there also iustification that is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes Now then sith Bellarmine confesseth that the merit and obedience of Christ is our satisfaction f Bellarm. de Iustif lib. 2. ca. 7. Si solùm vellent nobis imputari Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patrè offerre pro peccatis nostris quoniam Christus suscepit super sâ— onus satisfaciendi pro peccatis nostris nosque Deo pâ—tri recoÌ„ciliaÌ„di recta esset eorum sententia he must acknowledge it also to be our iustification that is the thing whereby and for which we are reputed iust in the sight of God because thereby we are reputed as hauing perfectly fulfilled all the commandements of God I haue read the chapter in Bellarmine saith M. Bishop and finde no such words But he was drowsie belike when he read it let him reade it better when he is well awake and then he shall finde that Bellarmine saith that in true meaning it may be said that the merits of Christ are imputed vnto vs for that they are giuen vnto vs of God and we may offer the same to God the Father for our sinnes in respect that Christ hath taken vpon him the burden of satisfying for our sinnes Where what doth he but acknowledge that Christ according to the burden taken vpon him hath in his merits made satisfaction for our sinnes but in his folly like M. Bishop because he vnderstandeth not himselfe will not haue them imputed for our righteousnesse before God His differences betwixt saluation and iustification are impertinent because that iustification which he speaketh of is not our iustification before God as shall appeare Briefly therefore to touch what he saith the guilt saith he of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite maiestie But therefore the guilt of all sinne is infinite neither is there any sinne but what is mortall because all sinne is against an infinite maiestie Therefore to all sinne the infinite valour of Christes satisfaction is required which because it is infinite
vnderstanding or vsing of the name of grace as meaning thereby the grace of sanctification as the Scripture by grace meaneth the free mercy of God accepting vs freely in Christ by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and this M. Bishop citeth as if Caluin had affirmed that Austines opinioÌ„ had ben wholy against him as touching iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ In like sort he abuseth Chemnicius whose words in the former place are these b Chemn Exam. Coâ—cil Triden de iustific Patribus lâ—cet verbum iustificare accipiaÌ„t pro renouatione qua efficiuntur in nobis per spirituÌ„ opera iustitiae non mouemus litem vbi iuxta scripturam rectè commodè tradunt doctrinam quemodo et quare persona Deo reconcilietur c We contend not against the Fathers albeit they commonly take the word iustifying for that renewâ—â—g whereby the works of righteousnesse are wrought in vs whereas according to the Scripture they rightly and conueniently deliuer the doctrine how and for what a man is reconciled vnto God receiueth remission of sinnes and adoption and is accepted vnto euerlasting life In the other place he saith c Patres quidem verbuÌ„ iustificare in hac significatione saepe vsurpare non ignoro sed de proprietate linguarum quaestio est I am not ignorant that the Fathers do often vse the word iustifie in this signification namely to make inherently iust but the question is of the propriety of tongues He confesseth that the Fathers sometimes do somewhat differ from vs as touching the signification of the word but rightly truly affirmeth that as touching the matter point of doctrine they teach the same that we do Surely if betwixt the Papists and vs there were no greater difference then onely about the meaning of a word we would not loose our time nor spend our labour friuolously and idlely to contend against them But they abuse the Fathers mistaking of a word to the ouerthrowing of the doctrine approoued by the Fathers And yet the Fathers when they place iustification in the forgiuenesse of sinnes as many times they doe and teach that by the righteousnesse that is in vs being defectiue and vnperfect e August de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 14. Vtique iustuÌ„ est vt debitores quos tenebat liberi dimittaÌ„tur credentes in eum quem sine vllo debito occidit hoc est quòd iustificari dicimur in sanguine Christi d Psal 143.2 no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God as they alledge out of the Psalme they doe neither in matter of doctrine nor meaning of the word depart from that that is maintained by vs. S. Austine saith Iust it is that the debters or trespassers whom the diuell held should be let goe free beleeuing in him whom he slew without debt or trespasse This is it that we are said to be iustified in the bloud of Christ f Jbid. cap. 16. Iustificati planè in eo quòd à peccatis omnibus liberati liberati autem à peccatis omnibus quoniam pro nobis est Dei filius qui nullum habebat occisus We are iustified in his bloud in that we are freed from all sinnes and freed from all sinnes for that the Son of God who had no sinne was slaine for vs. So Theodoret giuing the meaning of the words of the Apostle we are iustified freely c. maketh it to be this g Theodoret. in Rom. cap. 3. Sola fidâ— allata remissionem peccatorum consequimur Bringing faith onely we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sins Origen maketh these words Thy sins are forgiuen thee h Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. the pronouncing of the iustification of the woman who with her teares washed the feet of Christ S. Bernard saith that i Bernard in Anâ—unciat ser 1. Crede quia per ipsâ—m tibi peccata doâ—antur Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus gâ—atis iustificari hâ—minem per fidem our being iustified freely by faith which the Apostle speaketh of consisteth in beleeuing that our sinnes are forgiuen vs. But most fitly to the purpose he saith in another place k Idem epist 190 Vbi re oÌ„â—iliatio ibi remâ—ssio pec catorum quid ipsa nisi iustificatio Where there is reconciliation there is forgiuenesse of sinnes and what is that but iustification Now according to this construction of iustification they are wont to deliuer that l August in Psa 33. Iste est modus humanae iustitiae vt vita mortalis quantumlibet proficiat quia sine delicto esse non potest in hoc non delinquat dum speratin cum in quo est remissio delictorum JdeÌ„ de ciu Dei lib. 19. cap. 27. vt supra Sect. 5. mans iustice or righteousnesse is to hope or put trust in himâ—â—â—â— whom is forgiuenesse of sinnes that our righteousnesse in this life is rather forgiuenesse of sinnes then perfection of vertues that m Idem cont 2. epist Pelag. lib 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum c. Spes vnâ— est quòd aduocatum habemus c. the onely hope of all the godly groning vnder this burden of corruptible flesh in the infirmitie of this life is this that we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes as S. Austine speaketh that n Hieron adu Pelag. lib. 1 Tunc iusti sumus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia then we are iust when we confesse our selues sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our merit but of the mercie of God as Hierome saith that o Ambros de Jacob. c. Non gloriabor quia iustus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui aut quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me aduocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est we are not to reioyce that we are iust but that we are redeemed not that we are without sinne but that our sinnes are forgiuen vs not in the good that we haue done or that any other man hath done for vs but that Christ is our aduocate with the Father that the bloud of Christ was shed for vs as Ambrose saith that p Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatorum Christ is our righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and that q Ibid. ser 23. Hominis iustitia indulgentiae Dei Gods forgiuenesse or pardon is mans righteousnesse as S. Bernard saith Now what do we teach otherwise then all these haue taught when we say that we are reputed iust by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and that this is our iustification in the sight of God For what are we but iust in the
sight of God when there is taken from vs the imputation of all sinne Surely r August de verb. Apost ser 16. Puto hoc esse dicere Iustus sum quod est Peccator non sum to be iust is the same as not to be a sinner and Å¿ Idem in Psal 118. conc 3. Jovia fidei pro non peccantibus habentur quibus peccata non imputantur in the way of faith they to whom their sinnes are not imputed are accounted not sinners Therefore it followeth that they are accounted iust Yea as was before alledged t Idem Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. vt supra sect 7. all the commandements of God are reputed to be done when that which is not done is pardoned But he who is reputed to haue done all the commandements of God is reputed iust He therefore to whom God pardoneth that which he hath not done is reputed iust u Idem in Psal 118. con 3. Siquid à deuiante coÌ„mittitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur In the way of faith if any thing be committed by stepping out of the way for the waies sake it is not imputed and a man is taken as if he had not done it Yea x Bernard in Cant. 23. Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare decreuerit sic est quasi non fuerit all that God hath determined not to impute is all one as if it had neuer bene Now he that is taken as if he had neuer done amisse is reputed iust Whosoeuer therefore is in the way of faith is reputed iust And thus much is included in the sayings of the Fathers â—heresoeuer they teach forgiuenesse of sinnes who thereby to expresse our iustification learned of the Apostle himselfe who saith that we are iustified y Rom. 3.24 through the redemption that is in Christ and expoundeth that redemption by z Ephe. 1.7 Col. 1.14 forgiuenesse of sinnes and in the not imputing of sinne vnderstandeth a Rom. 4.6.7.8 the imputing of righteousnesse without works as before was said Now forgiuenesse of sinnes is yeelded vnto vs by vertue of the merit righteousnesse which Christ hath wrought for vs who b Rom 8.32 was giuen for vs and c Tit. 2.14 gaue himselfe for vs who was d Gal. 4.5 made vnder the law to redeeme vs and therefore is e Bernard in Cant. ser 70. Iustus pro hominibus iust or righteous for vs who f Luk. 22.10 shed his bloud for vs g 1. Thess 5.10 died for vs h Act. 3.26 rose againe for vs and whatsoeuer he hath done hath done for vs. And if for vs the Sonne of God haue i Mat. 3.15 fulfilled all righteousnesse and obedience to his Father who had no neede to vndergoe any such seruice for himselfe should it not be strange that the same should not be reckoned and imputed vnto vs Very iustly it is accounted ours whatsoeuer he hath done for vs no lesse then if we our selues had performed the same for our selues And this is the imputation of Christes righteousnesse which we maintaine by which our sinnes are couered and hidden that is pardoned and forgiuen and we are consequently reputed iust euen by the iustice or righteousnesse of Christ because in the righteousnesse of Christ is the forgiuenesse of our sins But why do they reiect imputation of righteousnesse which as we haue seene before the spirit of God so expresly recommendeth vnto vs by the very phrase importeth that we are not righteous in our selues Surely it were k Origen in Rom ca. 4 Quid videbitur gratiae iusto reputari iustitiam ad iustitiam no matter of grace or fauour as Origen well noteth that to a iust or righteous man his righteousnesse should be reputed for righteousnesse But it is a matter of fauour and grace that God reputeth vs iust It must therefore of necessity be by other meanes then by the righteousnesse that is in vs which can be no other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ that it may be verified of him which is written l Ierem. 23.6 This is the name whereby they shall call him The Lord our righteousnesse Thus saith Ambrose m Ambros in Psa 118. ser 18. Ipse iustitia est nobis de suo dedit sui habere consortiâ—m Christ is righteousnesse and of that that is his he hath giuen vnto vs to haue fellowship with him n IdeÌ„ de Abrah lib. 2. cap 8. verè nos tegmine velleris sui vestiuit in demum introducit aeternae salutis he hath indeede clothed vs with the couer of his fleece and bringeth vs into the house of euerlasting saluation And hereof he intimateth a comparison which o Pigh controu De fide iustificatione Pighius himselfe could not but approoue that as Iacob receiued the blessing and inheritance in the garments and apparell of Esau his elder brother to whom the same did properly belong so we receiue the blessinâ— of God and are accepted to eternall life in the garment of the righteousnesse of Christ by faith in him whilest thereby we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sinnes p Ambros de Iacob c. li. 2. cap 2. Odoratus est odorem vestimentorum Fortasse illud est quia non operibus iustâ—ficantur sed fiâ—e quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est fidei autem claritas factorum â—b umbrat errorem quae meretuâ— veniam delictoâ—uÌ„ Isaac smelled the sauour of Iacobs garments namely which Rebecca his mother had put vpon him of his brother Esaus Haply saith he it importeth this that we are not iustified by works but by faith because the infirmitie of flesh is a hinderance to works but the brightnesse of faith ouershadoweth the errour of our works as which obtaineth the forgiuenesse of our sinnes This ouershadowing is our safety this hiding and couering of our errours and imperfections which disgrace and blemish all our righteousnesse and works and what haue we to couer and hide the same but onely the fleece of the merit of Iesus Christ And this point Saint Bernard as he was most abundant in spirituall meditation so hath most clearely and diuinely set forth vnto vs and saue that we know with whom we haue to deale we should hold it almost incredible that there should be that impudencie in any man as with so wretched and beggerly answers to goe about to shift off so plaine and manifest proofes q Bernard epist â—90 vt supra Sect. 9. There is the righteousnesse of another saith Saint Bernard assigned vnto him that wanted of his owne The righteousnesse then that is assigned vnto vs is anothers and not our owne Yea but let his owne reason saith Maister Bishop serue for exposition of his former words Be it so and what is that reason Forsooth this saith he For why may not iustice be from another as
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
Iesus Tit. 3. The like description of our Iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost whom he hath powred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace we may be heires in hope and not in certaintie of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same Iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the renewing of our soules by the infusion of his heauenly gifts which God of his mercie did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Christs sake Many other places I omit for breuitie sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before De peccat merit remis cap. 15. Epist 85. lib. 12. de Trinit cap. 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit First Saint Augustine saith That this iustice of ours vvhich they call Righteousnesse is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost and is a beautie of our inward man It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soule And twentie other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ Let him suffice for the Latine Fathers And Saint Cyril for the Greekes who of our Iustification writeth thus The Spirit is a heate who as soone as he hath powred charitie into vs and hath with the fire of it inflamed our minds we haue euen then obtained iustice R. ABBOT a Eccles 19.24 There is a subtiltie that is fine saith Ecclesiasticus but it is vnrighteous and there is that wresteth the open and manifest law M. Bishop is none of those that deale finely that will cogge by art and will lie and yet not seeme to lie what he doth he will do outright and will lie so as that euerie man may see him to be a liar that he may not be taken for other then indeed he is Tell vs M. Bishop where is it that M. Perkins saith that in heauen we shall haue no other but imputed iustice or Righteousnesse where doth he make any shew or semblance of saying so Fie M. Bishop fie for shame leaue this lying and belying of men a good cause needeth no such meanes for the vpholding of it they that in apparent vntruth see you thus wilfull and shamelesse cannot but take you for a cosiner in all the rest M. Perkins saith that imputed Righteousnesse continueth for euer but doth he say that in heauen there shall be no other who plainely saith that sanctification shall be perfect in the world to come We shall for euer enioy eternall life by vertue of that whereby we are first admitted vnto it because thereby we are admitted to it to enioy it thereby for euer But he who by his merit purchased for vs eternall life purchased for vs also to be made meete for the enioying of it and therefore shall then make vs vnto himselfe b Ephe 5.27 a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle or any such thing but c 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Whereas he maketh M. Perkins to say that perhaps inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect in the end of this life he againe abuseth him for he asketh the question onely as a supposition what if it be so but maketh no perhaps that it is so denying that if it were so we could be iustified thereby The rest of this Section as touching the maine drift of it is altogether impertinent tending to proue Inherent iustice which we denie not but onely the perfection thereof in this life But whereas he seeketh to make good that our iustification consisteth therein he commeth much too short and one of his proofes directly proueth the contrarie For when the Apostle saith d 1. Cor. 6.11 You are washed you are sanctified you are iustified vndoubtedly he meant not by iustification and sanctification to import one and the same thing But there is no question but that by sanctification is meant inherent iustice Therefore inherent iustice cannot be vnderstood in iustification And this is apparent by those very authors whom he himselfe citeth for exposition of the place as namely Chrysostome saying e Chrysan 1. Cor. cap. 6. hom 16. Abluit nosmunquid igitur hoc solùm Minimè sed sanctificauit neque hoc etiam sed iustificauit Atqui liberari à peccatu magnuÌ„ munus est nunc autem te etiam innumeris impleuit bonis He washed vs and what did he so onely Nay but he also sanctified vs and not this onely but also he iustified vs very plainely putting difference betwixt iustification and sanctification and expounding iustification in the next words to be this liberari à peccatis to be deliuered from sinnes So doth Theophylact also expresly referre iustification to forgiuenesse of sinnes f Theoph. in 1. Cor. ca. 6. Vos ille sanctificat Quo pacto Iustificando inquit Cum enim prius vos abluisset iustitia condonasset mox sanctimoniam contulit When he had first washed you and by iustification had pardoned you forthwith also he bestowed sanctification Oecumenius likewise seuereth theÌ„ as Chrysostome doth g Oecumen ibid. Nec id solum verum etiam sanctificauit neque hoc tantum sed iustificauiâ— He hath not onely washed you but also sanctified you and not that only but also iustified you He citeth Ambrose also but Ambrose saith not one word to import that Iustification should be construed of inherent iustice h Amâ—ros ibid. Illic omnibus peccatis aâ—â—uitur credens iustificatur Dei nomine per spiritum Dei nostri Deâ— filius adâ—ptatur In baptisme all sinnes being done away the beleeuer is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and by the spirit of our God is adopted to be a sonne of God Now we may see what credit is to be giuen to this gamester who shewing his cardes in packe telleth vs he hath wonne the game when he hath nothing at all to helpe for the winning of it As for the other place to Titus That being iustified by his grace c. There is no argument to proue the contrarie but that the Apostle may comprehend the whole worke of sauing vs which he before mentioneth vnder the name of Iustification as the maine point whereupon dependeth all the rest But more properly we may take it in the third place as in the former text to the Corinthians distinguished from the sanctification and renewing of the holy Ghost and expressing the other speciall effect of the washing of the new birth consisting in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes The places of Austin and Cyrill being spoken of inherent iustice begunne in this life not denied by vs say nothing against vs. How
fruit and benefit thereby in loue he gaue his g Mat. 20.28 26.28 soule or life a redemption for many he shed his bloud for many h Hiero. in Mat. 20. NoÌ„ dixit pro omnibus sed pro multis id est pro his qui credere voluerunt not for all saith Hierome but for many that is for them that should be willing to beleeue who are i Act. 13 48. so many as are ordained vnto eternall life If he had loued Iudas he would haue loued him to the end because k Ioh. 13.1 whom he loued he loued to the end If he had loued vniuersally all he would haue praied for all but now there is a world of men of whom he saith l Cap. 17.9 I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen me m Ver. 6. out of the world that we may know that there is n Cap. 3.16 a world which God loueth euen o August in 1. Ioan. tract 1. Propitiatio peccatorum totius mundi quem suo sanguine comparauit the world which Christ hath gained by his bloud which is p Act. 20 28. the Church of God the same Church being reckoned q Prosp. de voc Gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Populus Dei specialis quaedaÌ„â—ensetur vniuersitas vt de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videâ—ntur assumpti a speciall kind of vniuersality as it were a whole world redeemed or deliuered out of the whole world and that there is a world of which Christ saith r Ioh. 8.23 I am not of the world and Å¿ Cap 17.9 I pray not for the world which therefore he cannot be vnderstood to loue And according to this difference the Church of Smyrna writeth that t Euseb hist eccl lib. 4 cap. 15. Pro totius seruandoruÌ„ mundi salute passus est Christ suffered for the saluation of the whole world of them that are to be saued Properly therefore to speake of the intendment of Christes death he died not generally for all but onely for them that were to be saued thereby Therefore S. Austine hauing mentioned the words of the Apostle u Rom. 8 3. Who spared not his owne Sonne but gaue him for vs all asketh the question x Aug. in Ioan. trac 4â— Sed quibus nobi Praescitu praedestinatis iustificatis glorificatis de quibus sequitur Quis aâ—cusabit c. But which vs Euen vs saith he whom he hath foreknowne predestinated iustified glorified of whom it followeth Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect So S. Ambrose y Ambr. in Luc. ca. 7 Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est quia pro Ecclesia passus est Though Christ died for all yet specially he suffered for vs because he suffered for his Church For the elect then Christ hath died in peculiar and speciall wise to giue vnto them the benefit that should arise of his death for them onely he hath giuen himselfe in loue with purpose to make them partakers of his loue And in this meaning it is that the Apostle saith Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me which because it is the voice of faith it followeth that by faith we haue particular application of Christes loue towards our selues and do beleeue that hauing giuen himselfe for vs and being giuen vnto vs he is wholy ours the merit and righteousnesse that he hath performed in giuing himselfe to liue and to die for vs is ours to the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and euerlasting life Now then euery true beleeuing man hath by the Gospell this boldnesse ministred vnto him to make application to himselfe of the death of Christ and the benefit therof and yet it followeth not that Turkes Iewes heretikes lewd Catholikes may make bold with Christ in that behalfe because they haue not faith whereby to conceiue this boldnesse and we cannot but wonder that so drunken a conclusion should proceede from him that carieth the name and reputation of a learned man They must first saith he do those things which he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent heartily of their sinnes to beleeue and hope in him First saith he they must do these things but hauing so done may they then apply vnto themselues the merit and righteousnesse of Christ If so then he saith nothing against vs who teach no faith to saluation but according to the rule of Christ z Mar. 115. Repent and beleeue the Gospell no remission of sinnes but according to the like rule that a Luk. 24.47 repentance and remission of sinnes are preached in the name of Christ and againe b Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized euery one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes We say with Austine c August in Psal 41. Nemo currit ad remissionem peccatoruÌ„ nâ—si qui displicet sibi No man runneth to the forgiuenesse of sinnes but he that is displeasing to himselfe and againe d Jdem in Psal 123 Jn ecclâ—siae corpus nemo intrat â—isi priùs eccisus meritur quod fuit vt sit quod non fuit No man entreth into the body of the Church except he be first slaine he dieth as touching that he was that he may be that that he was not Now if hauing done these things he may not yet apply vnto himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ then M. Bishop doth but trifle and mocke his Reader in saying fiâ—st he must do these things And yet how doth he say that a man thus doing is made partaker of Christes inestimable merits if he may not apply the same vnto himselfe Marry saith he we are not assured that we shall performe all this therefore we may not so presumptuously apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse But what if we know that we haue done all this may we then apply vnto our selues Christes righteousnesse His meaning is that we may not because as we haue heard he denieth wholy the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ and therefore doth but spend his wit in assigning the cause why we may not apply the same to be because we are not assured of doing the things mentioned by him But if he be not assured of his repentance faith hope c. no maruell if he faile of all other assurance towards God yet let him not be like the dogge in the manger if he can make no vse of Christ himselfe let him not be snarling and biting at them that doe As for the places alledged by M. Perkins to shew that Paul is vnto vs an example of beleeuing the former of them is plaine e Phil. 3.17 Brethren be followers of me and looke on them that walke so as ye haue vs for an ensample If in the faith and doctrine of
iustificari hominem per fidem but go fâ—rther yet to beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is saith he the testimonie that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is iustified freely by faith Of imputed righteousnesse enough hath bene said before the point here is of particular faith whether a man beleeue his owne sinnes to be forgiuen him S. Bernard saith yea and saith it so plainly as that M. Bishop could not tell for his life what directly to answer to it But forsooth S. Bernard addeth conditions on our party saith he which M. Perkins craftily concealeth and here he bringeth words following a mile after where S. Bernard hath broken off the point formerly in hand which was to set forth the condition of a true iustifying and sauing faith And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth Forsooth truth of conuersion bewailing of our sinnes and confessing them and afterwards following holinesse and peace Where we see a glosing sycophant which will make the simple Reader beleeue that he giueth an answer when indeede he giueth none For when we teach the beliefe of the forgiuenesse of sinnes do we teach a man vnconuerted to beleeue the same The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sinnes to God and carefull as hauing felt the sting of sinne thenceforth to auoid the same is the proper and onely true subiect of this disputation of iustification by faith We denie that faith hath place in any other man and therefore denie that any other can haue the true beliefe of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes Of the conuerted man then of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sinne S. Bernard saith and we say that the faith whereby he is iustified is a faith whereby he particularly beleeueth the forgiuenesse of his owne sinnes What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister that thus in a mist of idle discourse seeketh to steale away where indeede he is so fast holden that he cannot vntie himselfe In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian who encouraging faithfull Christians against the terrour and feare of death saith f Cyprian de Mortal Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitateÌ„ pollicetur tu dubitas fluctuasi Hoc est DeuÌ„ omninò non nosse hoc est ChristuÌ„ credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fideÌ„ in domo fidei non habere God hath promised immortality vnto thee when thou departest out of this world and doest thou wauer and doubt thereof This is not to know God this is by the sinne of vnbeliefe to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers this is for a man being in the Church to be without faith in the house of faith The words are manifest He propoundeth the promise of God particularly requireth the same accordingly to be beleeued not to beleeue it so he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith God promiseth to thee and doest thou doubt this is not to haue faith Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ as is to be without all wauering or doubt Yea saith M. Bishop we are secure on Christes side that he will neuer faile of his word and promise but the cause of feare lies vpon our owne infirmities Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soone as she hath brought it forth He setteth vp confidence with one hand and throweth it downe with another nay he setteth it vp with one hand and throweth it downe with both What is it to vs that Christ is true of his word if we may not beleeue that his word doth appertaine to vs what confidence can it yeeld that Christ faileth not of his promise so long as we must feare least our infirmities disable vs of hauing any part therein And would Cyprian talke so idlely to bid men not wauer or doubt when they might answer they had cause to feare and doubt by reason of their owne infirmities Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world because of the promise of God when their owne infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them feare their departure out of this world But Cyprian knew well that we can haue nothing but feare from our selues and therefore teacheth vs to build our selues wholy vpon the promise of God that howsoeuer our owne infirmities doe offer vs occasion of distrust yet resting vpon the truth of God we beleeue with Abraham g Rom. 4.18 vnder hope against hope that God will performe what he hath spoken for his owne sake as he saith by the Prophet h Ezech. 36.22 Not for your sakes but for my holy names sake I will do it saith the Lord. Yea but we bid them not doubt saith Maister Bishop as if they were as likely to be condemned as saued But how so when they see and know in themselues that for which they may be condemned and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of saluation For you say Maister Bishop that a man cannot tell whether he haue repentance hope charity praier whether he be iustified and in the state of grace or not and therefore how should he but thinke himselfe more likely to be condemned then otherwise You say you animate them and put them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons But how can you put them in hope when you teach them to feare That one reason whereby you impose feare carieth more sway in the conscience then all those twenty kinds of reasons whereby you perswade hope And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he haue any hope or not what can there rest but horrour and despaire at leastwise anguish perplexity trembling and feare saue onely in consciences that are benummed and astonished and haue no feeling of themselues In a word in death there can be no hope but setting aside the respect of our selues to depend vpon the promise of God and to say with Hilary out of the Psalme i Hilar. in Psal 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secuâ—um in secuâ—â—m seculi Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer 18. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alledge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answer them I will out of their store take that one principall one of the testimonie of holy Scripture and by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to Iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs Righteousnesse to be ours
not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion It followeth not that because the act of faith is no further expressed here therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely but of the heart of the will and affections as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth f Rom. 10.9 If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue in God which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not and therefore we are sure that he cannot say But though he cannot say it yet let him not repine at vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries both religious and secular and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ for n Rom. 5.15 by the obedience of one saith the Apostle shall many be made righteous and what is the obedience of Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants frō hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath bene once before spoken at large in the question of Free will R. ABBOT We are so to affirme the effect of iustifying faith as may make good what the Scripture hath deliuered concerning it Which because the Church of Rome doth not in making faith precedent in time to iustification and grace M. Perkins iustly findeth fault therewith Our Sauiour saith a Ioh. 5.24 He that heareth my word and beleeueth in him that sent me hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed froÌ„ death to life Our passing from death to life is our iustification If euery one that beleeueth be passed from death to life then euery one that beleeueth is iustified or if there be any that beleeueth and yet is not iustified theÌ„ it is not true of euery one that beleeueth that he is passed from death to life To this place M. Perkins alluded though he quoted it not but M. Bishop thought it safest for him to say nothing of it To the other place his answer is a simple shift He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ I answer saith M. Bishop that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament But we answer him againe that if Christ speake of eating in the sacrament then it must follow that whosoeuer is not partaker of the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ is excluded from life because our Sauiour expresly saith b Ioh. 6.53 Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud yee haue no life in you But so to say is absurd and false as in the example of the crucified theefe and many other is apparant and plaine Againe the Sacrament was not instituted long after and will M. Bishop exclude any faithfull that after this time died before that institution from that eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which Christ here recommendeth for the hauing of eternall life S. Austin saith that c Bedâ— in 1. Cor. 10. ex August ser ad infantes in baptisme we are made partakers of the bodie and bloud of Christ so that though one die before he come to the Sacrament of the Bread and the Cup yet is he not depriued of the participation and benefit of that Sacrament seeing he hath found that alreadie which that Sacrament signifieth The Apostle testifieth that the fathers of the old Testament did d 1. Cor. 10.3.4 all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke not the same one with another as the e Rhem. Annot. 1. Cor. 10. Rhemistes for a shift expound it but f Aug. in Joan. tract 26. spiritualem eandem quem nos the same that we do For g Idem de vtilit penitent c. 1. Eundem non inuento quomodo intelligam nisi eundem quem manducamus nos I find not saith S. Austin how I should vnderstand The same but the same that we eate Therefore they also did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud But their eating and drinking was not the participation of the Sacrament Therefore Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud doth not import any thing tied to the participation of the Sacrament Yea the whole course of that text giueth vs plainely to vnderstand that Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud meaneth the same as by beleeuing in him Therefore doth S. Austin by the one expound the other h Aug. in Ioan. tract 25. Crede manducasti Ibid. tract 26. Hortans vt credamus in eum Credere enim in eum hoâ— est manducare pâ—nem viuum Qui credit manducat Beleeue and thou hast eaten he exhorteth vs to beleeue in him for to beleeue in him that is to eate the bread of life he that beleeueth eateth And so saith he of the fathers eating and drinking that this i Idem de vtilit poenit Fide capiebatur non corpore hauriebatur spirituall meate and drinke was receiued by faith and not by the bodie Now if beleefe in Christ be imported by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ then M. Perkins proofe was not vaine but M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe a vaine man to giue so vaine an answer without any proofe thereof at all Without doubt k Ioh. 6.54 whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his bloud hath eternall life But no man hath eternall life but he that is iustified and sanctified Whosoeuer therfore eateth and drinketh the flesh bloud of Christ is iustified sanctified But our beleeuing in Christ is our eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud So soone therfore as we beleeue in Christ we are iustified sanctified that it may be true which the Apostle saith that l Rom. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ is to all and vpon all that do beleeue which cannot be sayd if any beleeue vpon whom there yet is not the Righteousnesse of God to iustifie him before God The proofes that he alledgeth to the contrarie are verie simple and slender First he alledgeth the words of S. Paul m Rom. 10.13 Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shal be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued c. Where of iustification we heare not a word nor is any thing purposely meant thereof For the words which the Apostle citeth out of the Prophet Ioel touch not the order of iustification but import a promise to them that are iustified by faith in Christ and accordingly do call vpon the name of the Lord that in the calamities and confusion of the world God will preserue them to be partakers of euerlasting saluation Now we graunt that by order of nature there is a precedence of faith to iustification but we denie all prioritie in respect of time And whereas M. Bishop auoucheth that prayer goeth betwixt faith and iustification beside that it is not proued by the Apostles words it is verie vntrue and false For there can be no true prayer without n Zach. 12.10 Vulgat the spirit of grace and of prayer without o Rom. 8.15 Gal. 4.6 the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father The spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctified and because sanctification is consequent to iustification it must follow also that iustification goeth before prayer so that in praying for the forgiuenesse of sinnes it commeth to passe with vs which the Prophet saith p Esa 6â— 24 Before they call I will answer them Let M. Bishop order the matter how
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
f Aug. in Psa 83 Fides nidus est pullorum tuoruÌ„ in hoc nido operare opera tua the nest wherein we are to lay our workes that we may hatch them vnto God Faith is g Prosp de voc gen l. 1 c. 8. Fides bonae voluntatis iustae actionis est genitrix the mother of a good will and iust and righteous conuersation Our faith in Christ is h Aug. in Ps 120 Christus in corde vestro fides est Christ in vs and i Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 21. Mihi sol ille caelestis mea fide vel minuttur vel augetur that heauenly Sunne is either impaired or increased vnto me saith Ambrose according to my faith In a word S. Austin telleth vs that k Aug. in Joan. tract 49. Vnde mors in anima Quia fides noÌ„ est Ergo animae tuae anima fides est faith is the soule of our soule what is that to say but the life of all our life It is faith then and not charitie that giueth influence to all the rest euen to charitie it selfe as faith increaseth so other graces are increased as faith decreaseth so other graces decrease the life of faith is our life the strength of faith is our l Cyprian ad Quirinum lib. 3. cap. 43. Tantum possumus quantum credimus strength if our faith be weake there is nothing else wherby we can be strong Therfore M. Bishop goeth much awry yet no otherwise then he is wont to do in assigning to charitie to giue the spirit of life and influence to faith when as it is by faith that we m Galath 3.14 receiue the spirit which is the author of all spiritual life and grace on which all our state dependeth towards God 24. W. BISHOP The fourth reason if faith alone do iustifie then faith alone will saue but it wil not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an innocent babe die shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shal he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therfore this first shift was very friuolous Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith alone we shal also be saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text God at that time wil reÌ„der vnto euery man according to his works But of this more amply in the question of merits R. ABBOT Tertullian rightly saith a Tertul. de poenit Horum bonorum vnus est â—itulus salâ—s hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione praemissa the saluation of man is the one title of all the benefites of God forgiuenesse of sinnes being put in the first place If saluation be the whole and iustification but a part then more is required to saluation then to iustification because more is required to the whole then to a part Vnder saluation we comprehend both iustification and sanctification in this world life and blisse eternall in the world to come The first act of our saluation is our iustification but God hauing by iustification reconciled vs vnto him goeth forward by sanctification b Col. 1 12. to make vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light To iustification belongeth only faith to sanctification all other vertues and graces wherein consisteth that c Heb. 12.14 holinesse without which no man shall see the Lord. His exception as touching infants dying after baptisme is very idle They are not onely iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctified by the spirit of grace neither is there any man iustified to the title of eternall life but the same is together also sanctified to the possession thereof and therfore hath more to saluation then onely iustification But as touching the verie point his minor proposition is false We say that we are saued also by faith onely according to that that before I alledged out of Origen that d Origen in Ro. cap. 3 sup sect 21 for faith only Christ said to the woman Thy faith hath saued thee Hath saued thee saith he as a thing alreadie done according to the vsuall phrase of the Scripture in that behalfe For so it is said of Zacheus e Luk. 19.9 This day saluation is come to this house So saith the Apostle f 2. Tim. 1.9 He hath saued vs and called vs with a holy calling g Tit. 3.5 of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. The reason whereof is because in iustification as I haue sayd our saluation is begun and in that we are iustified we are saued Christ therein being giuen vs and in him the interest and title of eternall life thenceforth by that right onely to be continued and performed vnto vs. Being then iustified by faith alone we are saued by faith alone the gift of sanctification to holinesse and good works being necessarily coÌ„sequent not as by vertue wherof we are to be saued whom the Scripture pronounceth to be already saued but as the processe of Gods worke for accomplishment of that saluation whereto in iustification we are begotten and in way of inheritaÌ„ce intitled by faith alone We are saued by faith alone saith M. Perkins because faith alone is the instrument whereby we apprehend Christ who onely is our saluation Where obserue gentle Reader what M. Bishop maketh of that speech that for faith alone we are saued and that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement Os impudens Where doth M. Perkins say that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement What a Doctor of diuinitie to lye wilfully to lye What is this but meere varletrie to abuse his Reader not being carefull haply to looke into M. Perkins booke but taking it vpon his word But if thou haue M. Perkins booke I pray thee to looke to the obiections and answers set down in the end of this question of Iustification which M. Bishop hath vnhonestly left out and there in the answer to the sixt Obiection thou shalt find these words In equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life By which words thou mayest esteeme how little faith or credite is to be yeelded to this wretched man who doubteth not here with manifest falshood to affime that M. Perkins saith that good workes shall not be regarded at the day of our iudgement And by the same words the solution is
plaine to the words which he alledgeth for God shall render to the faithfull h Math. 16.27 according to their workes because good workes are the proper markes whereby God will take knowledge of them that are iustified and saued onely by faith in Christ For whom God hath iustified and saued vpon them he setteth the seale and marke of his Spirit working in them another nature and i Ephes 2.10 creating them in Christ Iesus vnto good works whereby he will thenceforth know them to belong to him and thereby at that day will put difference betwixt them and other men So that to speake of saluation in that sort as we commonly vnderstand it for the finall blisse and saluation that we expect in heauen faith alone in it selfe is not sufficient to saluation because though we be interested to it onely by faith yet somewhat else is required to prepare vs and fit vs to be partakers thereof And to speake of saluation in grosse faith alone excludeth not sanctification and good workes but includeth them as a part of that saluation whereof we are made partakers by faith alone so that rightly are we said to be saued by faith alone because nothing else doth giue vs anie title and it selfe alone doth giue vnto vs all other things that are necessarie to saluation 25. W. BISHOP 5. Reason There be many other vertues vnto which iustification and saluation are ascribed in Gods word therefore faith alone sufficeth not Ecclesiast 1. Rom. 8. Luk. 13. 1. Ioh. 3. The Antecedent is proued first of feare it is said He that is without feare cannot be iustified We are saued by hope Vnlesse you do penance you shall all in like sort perish We are translated from death to life that is iustified because we loue the brethren Againe of Baptisme Vnlesse you be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen Lastly we must haue a resolute purpose to amend our euill liues Rom. 6. For we are buried together with Christ by baptisme into death that as Christ is risen from the dead c. so we may also walke in newnesse of life To all these many such like places of holy Scripture it pleased M. Perkins to make answer in that one Rom. 8. You are saued by hope to wit that Paules meaning is onely that we haue not as yet saluation in possession but must wait patiently for it vntill the time of our full deliuerance this is all Now whether that patient expectation which is not hope but issueth out of hope of eternall saluation or hope it selfe be any cause of saluation he saith neither yea nor nay and leaues you to thinke as it seemeth best vnto your selfe S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of saluation it is best to beleeue him and so neither to exclude hope or charitie or any of the foresaid vertues from the worke of iustification hauing so good warrant as the word of God for the confirmation of it R. ABBOT Iustification before God is no where in all the Scripture ascribed to any other vertue saue onely faith the promise of saluation is sometimes adioyned to other vertues as fruits and marks of them whom God hath saued but neuer as causes thereof as in the question of merits shall appeare We may well thinke that M. Bishop was here shrewdly put to his shifts that in all the Scripture could find no plainer proofes to serue his turne M. Perkins propounded but one place for them he thought himselfe to lay on loade and yet cannot bring vs any thing whereby it is said that we are iustified but onely faith His first place is taken out of an Apocryphall Scripture and yet such as it is it saith nothing for him First his translation is false for the words as their owne Arias Montanus translateth them are these a Eccles 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non poterit â—racundus vir iustificari A man giuen to much anger cannot be iustified that is cannot be acquitted of doing amisse cannot be cleared of committing offence because as S. Iames saith b Iam. 1 20. the wrath of man doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God euen in like sort as the same Ecclesiasticus after saith c Eccles 23.11 he that sweareth vainely shall not be iustified and againe d Cap. 26.30 a victualler shall not be iustified of sinne For so is the Scripture wont continually to vse the word of iustifying for acquitting clearing discharging holding or pronouncing guiltlesse and innocent approuing allowing acknowledging for iust and such like as where it is said e Esa 5.23 which iustifie the wicked for reward f Mich. 6.11 shall I iustifie the false ballance g Luk. 10.29 he willing to iustifie himselfe c. Secondly therefore if the words be taken as he translateth them he that is without feare cannot be iustified he is as farre off from his purpose For the words import to the same effect that he that is without feare shall not be found innocent he shall not be found free from great sinne because the want of feare maketh a man bold to runne into all sinne but a verie senslesse man is he that would go about hereby to proue that a man is iustified by feare Againe he bringeth the words of Christ h Luk. 13.3 Vnlesse ye repent do penance saith he according to their foolerie ye shall all likewise perish And what of this Ergo forsooth a man must bee iustified by doing of penance Yea and is doing of penance a matter of iustification now But Ambrose sayeth that the Apostle calleth them l the blessed of whom God hath decreed i Ambros in Ro cap. 4. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus vt sine labore aliqua obseruatione sola fide iustificentur apud Deum Et paulò post Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantum vt credant that without labour or any obseruâ—tion they are iustified with God onely by faith there being required of them no labour of penance but onely to beleeue Why then doth Maister Bishop tell vs that we are iustified by doing of penance Our Sauiour spake nothing there in their behalfe and verie absurdly doe they applie that that was meant of inward conuersion and repentance to outward and ceremoniall obseruation of doing penance As for repentance it setteth foorth the subiect capable of iustification by faith but is it selfe onely an acknowledgement of sinne no healing of our wound The feeling of paine and sicknesse causeth a man to seeke for remedie but it is no remedie it selfe Hunger and thirst make a man to desire and seeke for foode but a man is not fed by being hungrie By repentance we know our selues we feele our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch foorth to receiue it is faith onely without which repentance is nothing but
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
excluded all other meanes that either Iew or Gentile required but not charitie Vaine man what had S. Bernard here to do either with Iewes or Gentiles He spake to Christian and faithfull brethren to whom he had no occasion to giue any caueat either against Iewes or Gentiles but instructeth them what to do being pricked and grieued with sinne euen to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse not meaning by righteousnesse inherent righteousnesse as M. Bishop doth but that righteousnesse which consisteth as he had before expounded it in the forgiuenesse of sinnes Therfore he teacheth to beleeue in Christ who is our righteousnesse l Justitia donaÌ„s delecta sub fineÌ„ a righteousnesse as he speaketh againe that forgiueth sinnes the forme of which righteousnesse he expresseth thus m Delicta iuueÌ„tutu meae ignorantias meas ne memineris â—â—stus sum Remember not the offences of my youth and my ignorances and I am righteous or iust Thus S. Bernard saith that a man is iustified by faith alone and shall we be so mad as to thinke that in saying a man is iustified by faith alone his meaning was as M. Bishop affirmeth that a man is iustified by faith and charitie that is to say not iustified by faith alone And did S. Bernard thinke that a man hath charitie before he haue charitie For seeing as M. Bishop telleth vs the gift of charitie is infused and powred into vs in iustification surely to say that by charitie a man is iustified is to say that by charitie the gift of charitie is powred into him Which if it be absurd then let him be content that S. Bernards meaning be as indeed it is that a man is iustified by faith alone let him take charitie for a gift of the iustified not for any fore-running cause of iustification Now that the righteousnes there spokeÌ„ of is not meant of inherent righteousnesse it is very plaine in that S. Bernard in the words following treateth seuerally therof vnder the name of sanctificatioÌ„ His counter-places are impertinent What S. Bernard therein saith we say n In Cant. ser 24 Non facit hominem rectum fides etiam rectae quae noÌ„â—peratur ex dilectione A mans beleeuing aright except it worke by loue doth not set him right or straight and againe o Nec fides fine operibus nec opera sine fide sufficiunt ad animi rectitudinem Neither faith without workes nor workes without faith do suffice to the rectitude or straightnesse of the mind True it is as I haue often said that to the full rectifying and perfecting of a man belongeth not onely iustification by the forgiuenesse of sinnes but also sanctification to charitie and good workes but what doth this hinder but that notwithstanding both the worke of iustification and the obtaining also of sanctification may be performed by faith alone Chrysostomes words are p Chrysost ad Gal. ca. 3. Illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est hic contra demonstrat qui sola fide nititur eum benedictum esse They sayd he who rested on faith alone is accursed but Paul saith that he is blessed that resteth vpon faith alone M. Bishops answer that faith alone there excludeth onely the ceromonies of Moses law is alreadie shewed to be vaine But here it further appeareth in that Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle maketh speciall choice of Abraham who was so long before the Law for an example of being iustified without workes and that q Ibid. AbrahaÌ„ producit in medium declarans hunc quoque sic fuisse iustificatioÌ„ Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide iustificatus est idque quum operibus bonis floreret multo magis vos Et in Ep. ad Rom. hom 8. supra sect 26. when as he abounded in good workes For if he in that case were not iustified by his workes but by his faith then it is manifest that not onely the ceremoniall workes of Moses law but all other workes are excepted from that iustification that is described to be by faith alone We are to be iustified as Abraham was Abraham though he abounded in good workes yet was not iustified thereby Therefore we also though we haue good workes yet are not iustified thereby but by faith alone The sentence of Basil he saith is pitifully mangled by M. Perkins when as by himselfe it is altogether marred His words saith he truly repeated are these Let no man acknowledge c. putting in a sentence of his owne making vnder the name of Basils wordes truly repeated What a shamelesse man is he thus to mocke his Reader thus grosly and palpably to forge a matter and yet to pretend truth Basil hauing mentioned the wordes of S. Paul that r 1. Cor. 1.30 Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption saith hereupon thus Å¿ Basil ser de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinè apud Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. c. 25 Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactat sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iustitiae indigum sola autem fide in Christum iustifâ—catum for that is perfect and full of reioycing in God when a man is not lifted vp because of his owne righteousnes but knoweth that he himselfe is destitute of true righteousnes and is iustified by faith onely which is in Christ Thus he spake to a Christian auditorie and instructed them to acknowledge themselues to be void wanting destitute of true righteousnes to be iustified only by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith that he excludes all merits of our owne but no necessary good disposition but he should remeÌ„ber I say that Basil spake to them that were past dispositions and preparations it being a Sermon not ad Catechumenos such as were yet to be baptized but ad fideles to the faithfull as they were tearmed after Baptisme and them doth he teach to acknowledge themselues to be iustified by faith alone But whosoeuer they had bene how crossely doth M. Bishops bad disposition carry him to Basils words Basil saith Let a man acknowledge himselfe destitute of true righteousnesse and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ M. Bishop saith a man is not destitute of true righteousnesse but hath vertuous good dispositions and preparations by which he is to be iustified and not by faith alone But no maruell that they crosse others who are so tangled with the truth as that they know not how to speake but to crosse themselues still blowing both hot and cold freely and yet for workes for nothing and yet for something no merit and yet in some sort merit of meere mercie and yet somewhat to moue God beside his mercie But to giue some colour to that that he saith he telleth vs that Basil in his Sermon de Fide proueth by many texts of Scripture that charitie is as
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
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
Abraham he noteth to be this i Fidem eius bonae opera consecuta esse demonstrat to shew that good works ensued or followed his faith The drift of his speech is against them who k Qui sic acceperunt dictum per fidem sine operibus vt putarent cùm semel in Christum credi dissent etiamsi malè operarentur flagitiosè ac facinorosè viuerent saluos se esse posse per fidem so tooke it to be said by faith without workes as that they thought that when once they had beleeued in Christ albeit they wrought euill and liued wickedly and leudly yet they might be saued by faith The error of these men he reformeth thus l Non ita intelligendum est vt accepta fide si vixerit dicamus eum iustum etiamsi walè vixerit It is not so to be vnderstood that a man is iustified by faith without workes as that hauing receiued the faith if he liue we should call him iust although he liue amisse By which phrase of receiuing the faith it appeareth that there is onely that faith here meant which consisteth in outward profession and receiuing of baptisme which is farre from that faith to which the holy Scripture attributeth iustification and saluation In all which speech S. Austin saith nothing against vs nothing which we auouch not as well as he but onely that vnder the name of iustification he containeth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes wherin iustification properly consisteth but that also which we distinctly call sanctification consisting in the inward renewing of vs to holines and righteousnesse which the Scripture plainly distinguisheth as we do In the other place alledged he notably oppugneth that which M. Bishop would faine maintaine He toucheth three things appertaining to our saluatioÌ„ which towards it we haue alreadie attained Predestination vocation iustification Of this last he saith m Aug. de ver Apost Ser 16. Quid est iustificari Audemus dicere â—am hoc tertium habere nos Et erit quisquaem nostrúm qui audeat dicere Iustus sum Puto enim hoc esse Justus sum quod est Peccator non sum si audes hoc dicere occurrit tibi Ioannes si dixerimus c. Quid ergo Nihil habemus de iustitia an habemus sed non totum habemus Hoc ergo quaramus c. What is meant by being iustified Dare we say that we haue this third thing alreadie And is there any man that dares say I am iust for I thinke it to be all one to say I am iust as to say I am no sinner If thou be bold so to say S. Iohn meeteth with thee saying If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. What then haue we nothing of righteousnesse or haue we But yet we haue not all Let vs then seeke after this for if we haue some part and some part we haue not let that increase which we haue and that shall be supplied which we haue not He plainely confesseth that by that iustification which he speaketh of we haue but somewhat of inherent righteousnes and that we haue still somewhat of sinne and therefore that we are not as yet so iust by that iustification as that thereby we may stand for iust in the sight of God because we cannot stand for iust in his sight before whom perforce we must confesse our selues to be sinners But M. Bishop teacheth farre otherwise as we haue seene before that a man by baptisme is made as void of sinne as Adam was in the state of innocencie and therefore hath no need greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Now of that righteousnesse that we haue S. Austin saith that it is to grow and increase that we n Ibid. Grati simus ex eo quod habemus vt addatur quod non habemus are to be thankefull for that we haue that that may be added which we haue not c. We teach in the like sort but yet withall we teach as he doth that it neuer so farre increaseth in this life but that it leaueth vs still to confesse our selues sinners and therefore that it neuer bringeth vs to that as that we can thereby be iustified in the sight of God This is the point Increase of inward and inherent righteousnesse we say there ought to be and is no man doubteth no man maketh question of it but we deny that we merit any iustification by our workes or grow by our owne righteousnesse to be reputed iust before the iudgement seate of God neither doth Saint Austine euer affirme the same 37 W. BISHOP Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion For they holding faith to be the onely instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O ye of litle faith Mat. 8. Luc. 19. And then a litle after I haue not found so great faith in Israel and O Lord increase our faith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersitie of faith but all one Againe Master Perkins deliuereth plainely Pag. 54. That men at the first are not so well assured of their saluation as they are afterward if then in the certaintie of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe And thus much of this question The obiections which Master Perkins makes for vs in this Article Pag. 201. do belong either to the question of merits or of the possibilitie of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remit them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of merits R. ABBOT That inherent righteousnesse may be increased we confesse but we deny that our iustification before God consisteth therein but onely in the merit and obedience of Christ which needeth no increase because it is fully absolute and perfect in euery respect in it selfe But Master Bishop according to his opinion muffled in the mists of ignorance telleth vs that there must needes be diuers degrees of iustification in our meaning because there are diuers degrees of faith and diuers degrees of assurance of saluation But we answer him that that necessarily followeth not because although the instrument whereby we receiue is in some stronger and in some weaker yet the thing receiued is one and the same to both The price of redemption in the shedding of the bloud of Christ is one and alike to all and euery faithfull man but yet it is not alike apprehended by euery one There is perfect righteousnes required of vs and the same is yeelded vnto vs in Christ There
they do not fulfil all and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth that they did fulfill all The Pelagians alledged amongst others Zacharie and Elizabeth as M. Bishop doth because it is said of theÌ„ h Luk. 1.6 Both were iust before God and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe S. Austin answereth them i Aug. contra Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantuÌ„ mihi videtur secundum quandaÌ„ inter homines conuersationem probabilem atque laudabilem quaÌ„ nullus hominum iustè posset in accusationis criminationis querelam vocare Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habuâ—sse referuntur quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant sed vt apparebant homi nibus ita noti erant oculis Dei It is spoken as seemeth to me as touching a commendable and prayse-worthy conuersation amongst men which no man could iustly caâ— into quarrell of accusation or crime Which therefore they are said to haue had before God because they therein did not deceiue men by any dissimulation but as they appeared to men so they were knowne to the eyes of God Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them no more but that which the Apostle saith of himselfe k Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousnesse of the law I was vnrebukable when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ l Aug. de pecca mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictuÌ„ est quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est c. What commendable thing is spoken of theÌ„ saith he which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himselfe when as yet he had not beleeued in Christ that according to the righteousnesse that is in the law he was without reproofe m Oros Apolog de arbit libert Sine crimine dici quenquam sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium sed conuersationis ezemplum In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproofe saith Orosius is not imported a testimonie of perfection but an example of conuersation It is manifest therefore that that which is written concerning them is not to be drawne to the auouching of that fulfilling of the lawe which M. Bishop here defendeth for iustification before God Yea and it is further to be noted that Zachary was a Priest and the Priests manner was n Heb. 7.27 first to offer sacrifice for his owne sinnes then for the peoples Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his owne sins But o 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law if Zachary then were a transgressor of the lawe it is false that Master Bishop saith that he fulfilled the whole lawe Still therefore it standeth good against all subuerters of truth as touching the morall lawe that in respect of iustificatioÌ„ it is a yoke which neither Iosue nor Dauid nor Iosias nor Zachary and Elizabeth nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth haue bene able to beare and therefore we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified in him 40. W. BISHOP Rom. 7. To will is in me but I find not how to performe If S. Paule could not performe that which he would how can others Answer He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them The like answer we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods his wife or seruants which as they say is vnpossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commandement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue ill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man Lib. 10. conf cap. 7. euen when he is asleepe and testifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments but he hath very ill hap in answering of them S. Paule would willingly haue auoyded all euill motions saith he but he could not Therefore say we he could not fulfill the lawe He could subdue those prouocations to sinne saith he and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandements For what is it whereof the Apostle saith as is alledged a Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me but I find not how to performe that that is good It is euen the commaundement whereof he hath said before b Ver. 12. The commandement is holy and iust and good for instance whereof and clearer euidence he setteth downe the commandement c Ver. 7. Thou shalt no lust which he still prosecuteth vnder the name of good Paul then confesseth that though he had a will to keepe and fulfill the law and namely the commandement Thou shalt not lust yet he could not find meanes to attain to that perfection and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him the keeping of all the commandements so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them d August de nupt concup lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult vt concupiscam quae dicit Non concupisces ego nolo coÌ„cupiscere Concupiscere nolebat tamen concupiscebat The law would haue him not to lust in that it saith Thou shalt not lust and he was willing not to lust but yet he did lust how then should we say that he did fulfill the law If the law forbid euil motions and prouocations and it is not possible for vs to auoid them or to free our selues from them it must follow that it is not possible for vs to fulfill the law But we forsooth do not vnderstand the commandement rightly which M. Bishop telleth vs doth not prohibit euill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but onely consent vnto them So then the law saith Thou shalt not lust but M. Bishop saith Yes thou maist lust without any sinne but thou maist not consent vnto thy lust But farre otherwise S. Austin saith that e Idem Epist 200. In iustitia nondum consummata perseueranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus vbi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda sed nulla sit Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo Non coÌ„cupisces the law in saying Thou shalt not lust doth set downe that there shall be no
M. Bishop to presume but for God himselfe to determine who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come The words of Dauid are as little helpfull vnto him i Psal 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements when thou hast set my heart at liberty So farre as we are at liberty so farre we runne and so fast we runne But we attaine not to that liberty yet but that being k Rom. 7.23 holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members we haue still cause to cry l 24. Who shall deliuer vs or set vs at liberty from this body of death m 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty We haue receiued as yet onely n Rom. 8.23 the first fruites of the spirit We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1 that presseth downe and sinne hanging fast on so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls and the p Mat. 26.41 willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh 43. W. BISHOP Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plainly for it saying That which was impossible to the law in that is weakened by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle And his commaundements be not heauie Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words My yoke is sweet Math. 11. and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailty they be very heauie yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost then loe do we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charity is the fulnesse of the law Rom. 13. And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the law Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charity we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it so that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimonie of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly Serm. in illud Attende tibi to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That we must beleeue firmely De nat gra cap. 69. that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant and no true lawmaker to commaâ—â—d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe for those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to bind them vp to most assured perdition Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican as an article of faith in these words 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued with the helpe and cooperation of Christ can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commaundements If thou wilt enter into life Math. 1â— keepe the commaundements This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see that he hath babled much and said as good as nothing and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part But now leauing his confutation he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before a Rom. 8.3 That that was vnpossible to the law inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Now of this place he saith that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh But he is still so full of formality that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh to which the Apostle saith it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth and because it is but his owne we make very small account or reckoning of it The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing then our fulfilling of the law That the Apostle noteth first in saying that Christ condemned sinne comparing it thereby to a prisoner a robber or murtherer brought to the barre and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for
vs by purchasing for vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes whereby b Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes because as S. Austine saith c Aug. Retraâ—t lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei mandaâ—a facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the commaundements of God are reputed to be done when that that is not done is pardoned Now when all the commaundements of God are reputed to be done the iustification of the law is fulfilled in vs. For what is the iustification of the law but the iustification which the law might seeme to intend and propound vnto it selfe that we might be acquitted of sinne and accepted vnto life Thus the auncient Fathers expound it for d Theophylact. in Rom. ca. 8. Iustificatio laegis id est exitus ipse destinatio the scope the end the thing destinated by the law which when the law could not attaine vnto Christ performed it vnto vs by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes e Theodoret. ibid. Nostrum debitum exoluit legis scopum perfecit He paid our debt saith Theodoret and performed that which was the scope of the law f Oecumen ibid. Quis est finis legu Vt non essemuâ— maledictioâ—â— obnoxij Per Christum quideÌ„ in effectuÌ„ deductus est in nobis legis scopus What was the end of the law saith Oecumius That we should not be subiect to the curse By Christ then that which was the scope of the law was brought to effect in vs. So Chrysostome g Chrysost ibid. hom 13. Quae legis erat â—ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium id tibi perfecit Christus That which was the iustification of the law not to be subiect to the curse Christ hath effected vnto vs. Last of all Ambrose saith h Ambros ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis iustificatio nisi cuÌ„ datur remissio omnium peccatorum How is the iustification of the law fulfilled in vs but when there is giuen vnto vs forgiuenesse of all our sinnes The Apostle therefore by the iustification of the law vnderstandeth not inherent righteousnesse but signifieth that that iustification which the law intended but through our default could not make good vnto vs by inherent righteousnesse Christ hath performed in purchasing for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes by which we are reputed iust and blamelesse in Gods sight and accepted to be inheritours of euerlasting life Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth i Ibid. Vt sublatis peccatis iustificatus appareat mente seruiens legi Deâ— That a man being iustified by the taking away of his sinnes may appeare in his minde seruing the law of God whereby he noteth that to iustification by forgiuenesse of sinnes is adioined regeneration to inherent righteousnesse which he calleth afterwards k Ibid. SignuÌ„ iustificationâ— hoc est in homine vt per id quod inhabitat in eo iustificatus appareat esse filius Dei a signe of iustification And this we denie not but do alwaies most religiously teach the same onely we denie that this is that wherein consisteth our iustification before God but it is a sequell and signe thereof and we neuer attaine to the perfection of it whilest we liue here And if we will either directly or vndirectly vnderstand it in these words we must take thereof that which S. Austine saith that l Aug. de sp lit ca. 36. Sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus vt tameÌ„ sit quod peteÌ„tibus largitèr adâ—ciat et quod coÌ„fitentibus clemeÌ„ter ignoscat God so worketh in his Saints labouring in the temptation of this life as that there is yet for him largely to adde vnto them asking or crauing of him and mercifully to pardon them when they confesse it vnto him yea so as the same S. Austine elsewhere saith m Idem de ciu Dei li. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum as that our righteousnesse in this life rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Now therefore though the place be vnderstood of inherent righteousnesse yet it maketh not for M. Bishops turne because it prooueth onely that Christ shall restore vs to the perfect righteousnes of the law which we affirme that he beginneth in this life and shall fully accomplish in the life to come but it prooueth not that which he desireth that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the law To the other places that he alledgeth that the commaundements of God are not heauie that the yoke of Christ is easie and his burden light he himselfe in effect setteth downe the answer To our corrupt frailty saith he they be very heauie True and therefore so long and so farre as this corrupt frailty continueth so long and so farre the commaundements of God are still heauie vnto vs which must needs be till that which n 1. Cor. 15.42 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakenesse shall be raised againe in incorruption and power When the vertue of charity saith he is powred into our soules then we do with delight fulfill them True so farre forth as charity is powred into our soules But so long as there is carnall concupiscence there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God because o Aug. cont Iuliâ—n lib 4. cap. 2. InquaÌ„â—m inest nocet aâ— minuendam spiritualeÌ„ deleâ—â—ationem sanctaruÌ„ mâ—ntium illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei c. carnall coÌ„cupiscence euen by very being in vs as S. Austine saith doth abridge or diminish that spirituall delight of holy minds of which the Apostle saith I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man p Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena iustitia quaÌ„do plena sanitas tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est Then shall be perfect righteousnesse saith he againe that is perfect keeping of the commaundements of God when there shall be perfect health then perfect health when perfect charity then perfect charity when we shall see him as he is In the meane time loue keepeth the commaundements of God but yet vnperfectly because it selfe is but vnperfect euen as a lame man goeth but yet halteth â—n his going To be short the same S. Austine well obserueth that q IdeÌ„ de nat grat cap. 69. CoÌ„sideret noÌ„ potuisse diuinitus dici grauia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui grauiae non sunt God could not haue said that his commaundements are not heauie but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heauie Therefore r
he shall require the innocencie of our life in comparison of him that is to be as free from slippes and fals in our state as he is in his And to shew that man being subiect to alterations and chaunges is not iust in Gods sight according to the righteousnes that concerneth him in his owne state he addeth l Ibid. Iustificari in conspectu Dei quis viuentium potest cui ira cui dolor cui cupiditas cui obliuio cui ignoratio cui casus cui necessitas vel per naturam corporis vel per motum semper fluctuantis animae admixta sunt Cui quotidiè grauissimus hostâ—â— immineat drabolui videlicet animae viri fidelis insidians eamque ad interitum per sequens Hanc enim esse causam docet qua nemo viuens iustistâ—arò in conspectu Dei possit And what man liuing can be iustified in Gods sight with whom anger and griefe and lust and ignorance and forgetfulnesse and casualtie and necessitie are blended and mingled either by the nature of the bodie or by the motion of the euer-wauering soule who also hath daily a grieuous enemie at hand euen the diuell lying in waite against the soule of the faithfull man and persecuting the same to destroy it For this doth the Prophet teach to be the cause why no man liuing can be found iust in the sight of God By which words being very cleare and manifest the reader may esteeme with what fidelity M. Bishop hath brought Hilarie to iustifie his exposition of that place With the like truth or rather vntruth he citeth Hierome who saith that m Hieron in Psal 142. Manifestissimè demonstrauit quia misericordiam Deâ— praestolatur c. Hic quasi aliquis iudicet inter Deum Prophetam sicut scriptum est vt iustificeris c. Et proptereà intrat in iudicium Deus vt iustè pumat the Prophet doth manifestly shew that he did waite for Gods mercie that he supposeth some one to be iudge betwixt God and him which so being God should be iustified in his sayings and ouercome when he is iudged who therefore entreth into iudgement that he may iustly punish Then reckoning Abraham and Isaac and Iacob amongst them of whom the Prophet speaketh he inferreth n Ergo nec ipsi Patriarchae iusti ficabuntur in coÌ„spectu Dei Stellae enim non sunt mundae in conspectu eius Therefore not the very Patriarks themselues shall be found iust in the sight of God for euen the starres are not cleane in his sight What can be more plainely spoken to shew that euen the most righteous and iust for want of puritie and iustice should iustly be punished if God should enter into iudgment with them and that if the very starres not by their owne sinne but by being in the o Rom. 8.20.21 bondage of our vanity and corruption be found vncleane before God much more are we vncleane for whose sake it is that that imputation doth lye vpon them But to make it yet further to appeare what Hierome conceiued of those words he saith in another place p Hieron in Esa lib. 6. cap. 14. Cùm dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissoluentur omnes manus quia nullum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur non iustificabitur c. When the day of iudgement or death shall come all hands shall be faint because no worke shall be found worthy of the iustice of God and no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight Where he plainly teacheth not onely as touching comparison to God but as touching that a iust man in himself ought to be that no man liuing no not so much as in any one worke shall be iustified in Gods sight but his hands that is all his workes shall faile if God enter into iudgement with him The next that he citeth is Arnobius who for one part of his exposition of these words saith that man is not to be found righteous if he be compared to God that q Arno. in Psal 142. Omnis pulchritudo te praeseÌ„te deformis est omnis fortitudo infirma omnes diuitiae mendicitas omnis humaena iustitia iniustitia all beauty in Gods presence is but deformity all strength but weakenesse all riches but beggerie all righteousnesse but vnrighteousnesse But hauing set downe this because this could not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the Prophet he addeth further r Jbid. Et vt vicinaÌ„ tuae iustinae iustitiam humanam exquirere desinas quaeso quoniaÌ„ persecutus est inimicus animaÌ„ meaÌ„ c. Tanta me obscuritate suae circuÌ„dediâ— fraudis vt â—â—ortuuÌ„ me apud DeuÌ„ credens putareÌ„ me nullum â—â—uperationis apud iustitiaÌ„ tuaÌ„ audituÌ„ inuenire idâ—o anxiatus est in me spiritus meus And I pray thee that thou wilt cease to search out the righteousnesse that concerneth man that should be neighbour to thy righteousnesse because the enemie hath persecuted my soule and compassed me about with such darknesse of his deceipt as that beleeuing my selfe to be dead with God I thought I should finde no hearing with thy righteousnesse for my recouerie therefore is my spirit troubled within me It is plaine then by the iudgement of Arnobius that not onely in comparison of God but euen by that righteousnesse that belongeth vnto man no man liuing shall be found iust before the iudgement seat of God Euthymius whom he alledgeth next is as plaine to the same purpose For although with Arnobius he on the one side denie iustification in comparison of God in comparison of whom saith he not onely man but neither the Angels themselues are iust because it is he onely that is not capable of sinne yet not contented herewiâ—h he on the other side expoundeth the praier of the Prophet in this sort Å¿ Euthym. in Psal 142. Id est non districtè mecuÌ„ agas in futuro ad te fugio non sum dignus vocari filius tuus nec ego tecum intrâ—re in iudicium volo nec constituo iustitiam meam quòd non iustificabâ—tur hic in carne vbi nemo hic viuenâ— pâ—enò mundus est Enter not into iudgement c. that is deale not strictly with me in the time to come I flie vnto thee and am not worthy to be called thy sonne neither will I enter into iudgement with thee neither do I set vp mine owne righteousnesse because it shall not be iustified here in the flesh where no man liuing is perfectly cleane He further addeth reasons of the vsing of this praier t Ibidem Quotidiè peccamus Pauca bona facimus in comparatione commâ—ssionis omissionis minima bona faciâ—â—â— in comparatione beneficiorum Dei because we daily sinne because we do few good deedes in comparison of that that we commit in euill and omit in good because we doe little good in comparison of the benefites of God Now then what is become of Maister
Bishops righteousnesse so perfect as that it faileth not in anie dutie which wee are bound to performe yea such as by which we merit euerlasting life Compare the one with the other gentle Reader and thou shalt see how well they agree S. Austine in the place alledged hath nothing at all concerning this text nothing at all concerning the righteousnesse of man Only he saith of the Angels that u August cont Priscill Origen ad Oros cap. 10. Cuius participatione iusti suÌ„t eius coÌ„paratione nec iusti sunt although by participation of God they be iust yet in comparison of God they be not iust Now if the Prophets words be to be taken as M. Bishop construeth them then this praier must be the praier of Angels as well as of men because by the testimonie of Austine which Euthymius also obserueth the very Angels themselues are not iust in comparison of God Now we do not any where finde that it belongeth to the Angels to pray in this sort and therefore it must be so vnderstood as is proper vnto men And that vnderstanding thereof the same S. Austine declareth to vs writing vpon that Psalme x Jdem in Psal 142. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videor producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam prauus inuenâ—or Howsoeuer I seeme to my selfe right and straight yet thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found faulty The words therefore import that not only by comparison but by rule of righteousnesse which God hath prescribed to man euery man liuing is found failing of righteousnesse in the sight of God euen as elsewhere he saith y IdeÌ„ de peccat mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QuaÌ„tuÌ„ ad integerrimam regulaÌ„ veritatis eius pertinet non iustificabitur c. According to the most entire rule of his truth no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight Which he declareth yet more plainly in his foresaid exposition vpon the Psalme when he teacheth that by the same defaults for which we pray daily vnto God forgiue vs our trespasses it commeth to passe that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight z IdeÌ„ In Psal 142. Dicant Apostoli dicant Dimitte nobis c. Et cùm eis dictum fuerit Quare hoc dicitu quae sunt debita vestra respondeant Quoniam noÌ„ iustificabitur c. Let the Apostles themselues say let them say forgiue vs our trespasses And when it shall be said vnto them why do ye say thus What are your trespasses let them answer Because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Gregories minde is sufficiently plaine by that that hath bene said before For what though he say that the righteousnesse of men Angels is nothing in comparison of God Doth that import that there is nothing else meant by the Prophet when he praieth vnto God not to enter into iudgement with him By this then we may see the lewd consciences of these men in citing the authorities of the auncient Fathers He hath brought vs here a great company of their names for him when there is not one of them but speaketh expresly against him and the most of them in the selfe same places whence he alledgeth them But he telleth vs further that his exposition is taken out of Iob from whom he alledgeth these words a Iob. 9.2 I know truly it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified In which sort it is true that we also read the words in some of our translations but it is true also that the word of comparison is not at all found in the Hebrew text Therefore Arias Montanus translateth it ad verbum thus b Quid iustificabit se homo cuÌ„ Deo Why will a man iustifie himselfe with God Pagnine thus c Quomodo instificabit se homo cum Deo How will a man iustifie himselfe with God S. Austine also readeth to the same effect d Aug. de pece mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QueÌ„ admodum iustus erit homo ante Deum How shall a man be iust before God Therefore these words of Iob haue nothing at all whereupon that exposition of his may haue any ground and though Iob had said that man in comparison of God is not iust or cannot be iustified yet it followeth not that that therefore should be all that Dauid meant in saying that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight And that appeareth by S. Austine in the place now alledged where bringing in the words of Iob e Iob. 20. If I shall call my selfe iust my mouth shall speake wickedly he expoundeth the same thus f August ibid. Si me iustum dixero contra iudicium eius vbi perfecta illa iustitiae regula me â—onmucit iniustum profectò impie loquetur 〈◊〉 meâ—â— If I shall call my selfe iust against his iudgement where the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth me to be vniust surely my mouth shall speake wickedly and in respect hereof saith that those words were vsed by Dauid Enter not into iudgement c. For this cause then are we taught so to pray because the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth vs to be vniust if God enter into iudgement with vs. By this place therefore we wholy ouerthrow the righteousnesse of man and do firmely prooue that no man liuing either generally in the course of his life or in any particular act or acts can be iustified before God if God call him to the trial of the precise perfect rule of righteousnesse and truth Yea if no man can be found iust in the sight of God then it must necessarily follow that no act of man can be found iust because the act must needes be according to the condition and quality of the man so that vnlesse a man be fully and perfectly iust no act fully and perfectly iust can proceede from him but must needes haue a staine of that sinne which bereaueth him of the title of a iust man 48. W. BISHOP One other ordinarie hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath Esay â—4 The which I haue alreadie rid to death in the beginning of the question of iustification where it was alledged The answer is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull such as the common sort of them were who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stayned cloath Now this disprooueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free from all spots of iniquitie it onely prooueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath R. ABBOT He hath so rid this hackney of ours as that he hath pitifully
Austin in Psal 102. hath these words o August in Psal 102. Ergo coronat te quia donae suae coronat non merita tua He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Which is the same in effect with that which M. Bishop putteth in place of it very often repeated by S. Austin either in the same or very neare the same words that God when he crowneth vs p IdeÌ„ epist 105. et in Ioan. trac 5. de grat et lib. arb cap. 6. 7. crowneth his owne gifts not our merits But he answereth hereto very vntruly and deceitfully It is true indeed that S. Austin there speaketh to him that thinketh he hath merits of his owne and of himself that God wil not crowne those because they are onely euill and he giueth not the crowne to euill workes but he crowneth onely his owne gifts because in vs there is no good worke to which onely the crowne is giuen but onely by Gods gift q De grat et lib. arb ca. 6. Prorsus talia cogitanti veriffimèdicitur dona tua coronat Deus non merita tua si tibi teipso non ab illo sunt merita tua Haec enim si talia sunt mala sunt quae autem mala sunt non coronat Deus Si autem bona sunt Dei dona sunt To him that so thinketh sayth he it is rightly said God crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits if thou haue thy merits of thy selfe and not of his gift for if they be such they be euill and God crowneth not those that be euill but if they be good they be the gifts of God Now to those words M. Bishop addeth in the same letter as if it were S. Austins whether by the Printers fault or by his owne lewd falshood he can best tell himself this animaduersion But if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then may we as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits But M. Bishop did S. Austine tell you so Will you so wilfully abuse him and peruert his words and meaning Surely in the beginning of the next Chapter which is but ten lines after the words cited S. Austine saith thus r Jbid. cap. 7. Siergo Dei donae sunt merita tua non Deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua If then thy good merits be Gods gifts God doth not crowne thy merits as thy merits but as his owne gifts In which words he plainely denieth that there is any respect of our merit or that God accounteth vs as hauing merited but that he giueth the crown and reward onely as to his owne gifts which he himselfe hath bestowed vpon vs. How bad a man then is M. Bishop to make S. Austin say that God crowneth our good workes proceeding from his grace as our merits when S. Austin expressely and flatly denieth the same But there is yet some further poison hidden in his words for when he nameth merits proceeding from grace working with vs he diuideth betwixt God and vs that which S. Austin maketh entirely the gift of God The worke is not meerely of the grace of God in vs but of grace working with vs because we also as well as grace are partakers of the worke So then S. Austin must not say that God crowneth his owne gifts not our merits but God crowneth partly his owne gifts and partly our merits because the good workes which he crowneth are partly of his grace and partly also of our owne freewill By this meanes Maister Bishop will hold it very absurd which the same Saint Austine saith in the other place Å¿ Epist 105. Câ—â—â— Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quà m namerae sua When God crowneth our merits he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts for if he crowne nothing else but his owne gifts if he crowne nothing at all of ours then what part of the câ—owne is it that we can say is merited and deserued by vs His answer to the last words of Austine is excluded by the very words themselues t Aug Psal 14â— Propter â—â—men tuum D â—â—ine viuificabis â—eâ—in tua iustitia non in mea noÌ„ quia ego merut sâ—â— quia tu miseritis Lord for thy names sake thou wilt quicken me in thy righteousnesse not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou art mercifull This place he saith appertaineth to the first iustification of a sinner but it seemeth he gaue the answer somewhat too early in the morning before his eyes were well opened for otherwise he might haue seene that these are the words of a man alreadie iustified vttered in the name of the Prophet of God not in the preterperfect tense as of a thing past but in the future tense as of a thing to come Thou shalt or wilt quicken me and therefore cannot be vnderstood of any first iustification The Prophet being alreadie in part reuiued to the life of God prayeth stil to be reuiued and quickened more and more and promiseth to himselfe by assurance of faith through the holy Ghost that God will so do not in my righteousnesse saith he as Austin expresseth it not because I haue deserued it but for his owne names sake for his owne mercies sake giuing to vnderstand that not onely the beginning of the worke of God but also the proceeding thereof is not for any merit of man but by the mercie of him by whom it was first begun And whereas he saith that they confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie he doth but blind his Reader with a concealed distinction of merit hauing himselfe u Of Iustification Sect. 21. before taught that his workes of preparation are the cause of the iustification of a sinner as he hath corruptly argued out of the words of Christ Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much So that the terme of meere mercie is vsed only colourably and for fashion sake neither doth he acknowledge the meere mercy of God in any sort but as the Pelagian heretickes did in the first offer of his grace 14. W. BISHOP Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alledged against Merits let vs see what can be said for them following as neare as I can M. Perkins order Obiections of Papists so he termeth our reasons First in sundry places of Sâ—ripture promise of reward is made vnto good works Gen. 4. Prou. 11. Eccl. 18. Mat. 5. If thou do well shalt thou not receiue To him that doth well there is a faithful reward Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the reward of God remaineth for euer and When you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen and a hundreth such like therfore
That those words haue a farre different sence To wit that Christ had then ended his course and fulfilled all prophecies and endured all such torments as it pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind of satisfaction temporall there is no mention neither can any thing be drawne thence against it No more can be out of this other Christ made sinne for vs 2. Cor. 5. that is the punishment of sinne as M. Perkins gloseth it but the learned say an hoast or sacrifice for sinne But we graunt that he suffered the punishment for our sinne and say consequently that all sinne is pardoned freely for his sake and the paine of hell also which is punishment of sinne but not other temporall paines such as it hath pleased the iustice and wisedome of God to reserue vnto euery sinner to beare in his owne person And after this sort and no other was God in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe And that Saint Paul vnderstood well that Christes sufferings did not take away ours may be gathered by these his words Colos 1. I reioyce in suffering for you and do accomplish those things that want of the Passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church But of this point more when we come vnto the Arguments for the Catholike part R. ABBOT What our Sauiour meant by saying in the very instant of his giuing vp the ghost a Iohn 19.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is finished we may coÌ„ceiue by the Apostle making as it seemeth application of that word when he saith b Heb. 10.14 With one oblation he hath * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consummated or made perfect for euer theÌ„ that are sanctified By that one oblation he performed whatsoeuer was necessary for our full and perfect satisfaction and reconcilement vnto God And therein he fulfilled all prophecies that were written of attonement peace to be made betwixt God man the effect wherof S. Peter expresseth saying c Act. 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnesse that through his name all that beleeue in him shall receiue remission of sinnes d Ephe. 1.7 In him we haue redemption saith S. Paul through his bloud euen the forgiueâ—eâ— of sins Now as the author to the Hebrewes inferreth e Heb. 10.18 where remission of these things is there is no more offering for sin so may we infer where remission of sinnes is there is no more satisfying for sin because sacrifice satisfaction haue one and the selfe same respect to sin Seeing then Christ hath done that that yeeldeth vs perfect forgiuenes of sins it must follow that there remaineth no further satisfaction to be performed for sin And thus much is coÌ„tained in M. Bishops words but that like Caiphas he saith wel vnderstandeth not what he saith Christ saith he endured all such torments as God would impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind And what is redemption but a paiment of full perfect satisfaction f Tho. Aquin p. 3. q. 48. art 4 in corp Quia passio Christi sufficient superabuÌ„dant suit satisfactio pro peccato reatu poenae humani generis eius passio fuit quasi quoddaÌ„ pretium quo liberati sumus ab viraque obligatione Naâ—â— ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit siue pro se siue pro alio pretium quoddam dicitur quo seipsum vel alium redimit à peccato poenae Christus autem satisfecit dando seipsum pro nobis ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio Because the passion of Christ saith Thomas was a sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of mankind guilt of punishment his passion was as it were a price or paiment by which we were set free froÌ„ obligatioÌ„ both those waies For the satisfactioÌ„ wherby a man satisfieth either for himself or for another is called a price by which a maÌ„ redeemeth or buieth out himselfe or another from sin and punishment Now Christ saith he hath made satisfactioÌ„ by giuing himself for vs therfore the passioÌ„ of Christ is said to be our redemption If then the passion of Christ be therefore our redemption because he hath paid a sufficient superabundant satisfaction to free vs from obligation of guilt and punishment how can it stand that after Christes redemption the obligation should stil remaine that there should be yet a further satisfaction to be made Either it must be said that Christ hath not made a full redemption or else it must be acknowledged that Christ hath taken away all temporal satisfaction But Christ in saying It is finished testifieth that in his death he fully finished our redeÌ„ption Therefore he testifieth that he hath left no place for any further satisfaction This cannot be shifted off A perfect redemption taketh away all obligation of further satisfaction or else it cannot be called absolutely perfect Christes redemption therfore being simply absolutely perfect must necessarily inferre a deniall of temporall satisfaction Albeit the very name of temporal satisfaction in this case is absurd because the guilt of sin being only infinite eternal and in no fort temporall cannot be brought within any coÌ„passe of temporall satisfaction as before was said In a word we do not beleeue that Christ plaid the Sophister vpon the crosse to say quantum ad auersioneÌ„ It is finished that is the satisfaction of sin is fully paid but quantum ad conuersionem all is not yet fully finished but there remaineth some further satisfaction to be made No more do we beleeue that the Apostle when he said g 2. Cor 3 21. Christ was made sin for vs did play fast or loose as meaning that if we vnderstand sin quantuÌ„ ad auersioneÌ„ then it is true that he was made sin for vs that is the punishment or sacrifice for sin but that quantum ad conuersionem we are made sin for our selues or one man for another Or that when it is said h 1. Pet. 3 13. He suffered for sinnes once the iust for the vniust that he might bring vs to God the meaning is that in part he suffered for our sins to bring vs to God but left vs in part to suffer for our owne sinnes to bring our selues to God We cannot be perswaded that that was the meaning of the Apostle when he said i 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe because he defineth that reconcilement to consist in the not imputing of our sinnes and how are our sinnes not imputed if we be still holden in any sort to make satisfaction for theÌ„ But these things though they be apparently blasphemous wicked and do expose the Gospel of Christ to mockery contempt yet M. Bishop laboureth to colour with a sentence of S. Paul which for more theÌ„ a thousand yeares after the time of Christ and his Apostles neuer any man
is shed for the remission of the sinnes of the brethren which Christ hath done for vs and in that hath yeelded vs not any thing to imitate and follow but what to reioyce of For if any man will compare himselfe to the power of Christ in thinking himselfe to heale the sin of another man it is too much for him he is not capable thereof He is the rich man saith he who being not subiect to any debt either hereditarie or of his owne is both iust himselfe and iustifieth others euen Iesus Christ. Do not aduaunce thy selfe against him being so poore as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a begger of the forgiuenesse of sinnes There is no forgiuenesse of sinnes then by the bloud of Martyrs there is no ablenesse in one man to heale the sinne of another or to pay anothers debt euery man is poore euery man a begger crauing from day to day the release and remission of owne debts This was S. Pauls case thus he praied daily as Christ had taught him and why then doth Maister Bishop make him so rich as that he should be able to make paiment of our debts that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sinnes that he should take vpon him y Tho. Aquint supplem q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedaÌ„ illatae iniuriae recoÌ„pensatio Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae art 1. in corp to make recompence for the wrongs that we haue done to God and to take away our offence towards God or Gods offence and displeasure towards vs as their name of Satisfaction doth import It was a farre other matter that the Apostle intended in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Churches sake It was to confirme vnto the Church the truth of the Gospell of Christ to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached in that he yeelded himselfe for the testifying thereof to hazard and bestow his temporall life to encourage comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ according to the example that they had seen in him to embolden other men to preach the word notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it And thus doth the Apostle expresse the ends and vses of his afflictions z Phil. 1.7 the confirmation of the Gospell a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ d 2. Cor. 1.6 If we be afflicted saith he it is for your coÌ„solation and saluation which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer Not then as to purchase any thing towards their saluation by his afflictions but as to hearten and comfort them to the patient bearing of afflictions in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their saluation to effect Thus Thomas Aquinas where his eies were open coÌ„ceiued both of this text of that to the Colossians which is here in question who writing vpon the words of the Apostle Was Paule crucified for you vseth these words e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect 2. Hoc proprium est Christo vt sua passioâ—e morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit c. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit nâ—bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiaÌ„ per modum meriti efficaciae inquaÌ„tuÌ„ eius sanguine redempti iustificati sumus c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per moduÌ„ exempli secundum 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur c. This is proper to Christ that he by his passion and death hath wrought our saluation But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith Col. 1. Now I reioyce in my sufferings for you c. But we are to say that the passion of Christ was the cause of our saluation not onely by way of example but also by way of merit and effectuall working in that by his bloud we are redeemed and iustified but the sufferings of others is furthering to our saluation only by way of example according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted it is for your comfort and saluation c. Againe in another place propounding by way of obiection that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art 5. arg 3. Non soluÌ„ cassio Christi sed etiam alioruÌ„ sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram vt Col. 1 Gaudeâ— in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctoruÌ„ proficiunt Ecclesiae non quideÌ„ per modum redemptionâ—â— sed per modum exempli exhortationis secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur c. not onely the passion of Christ but also of other Saints was helpfull to our saluation according to the saying of the Apostle Col. 1. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you c. and therefore that Christ onely cannot be called our Redeemer but also other Saints he answereth thus We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church not by way of redemption but by way of example comfort or encouragement according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted c. So where the Apostle saith g 2. Tâ—m 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus he asketh h In â— Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio Dicenduâ— quòd siâ— effectiâ—â— sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat Primo quia dabat exâ—mplum perfistendi in fide Seâ—undo quia confirmabatur fides ex hoc indâ—cebantur ad salutem what was not the passion of Christ sufficient Yes saith he as touching the working of saluation but the Apostles suffering was two waies expedient First because he gaue example thereby of continuing in the faith Secondly because thereby the faith was confirmed and by that meanes they were induced and drawne on to saluation Thus then we haue example confirmation comfort encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints but we cannot finde any satisfaction for our sinnes And that M. Bishop may know that we speake this from better authority then onely Thomas Aquinas let S. Ambrose tell in what sence the Apostles suffered for the Church i Ambrosâ—n Psal 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa toleraâ—â—it Multa etiaÌ„ Paulus raeterique Apâ—stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur vâ—rgis cùm lapidarentur cùm in carceres truderentur Illa enim tolerantia amurtaruÌ„ vsu periculorum Doâ—â—ni fundatus est populus ecclesia incrementum est consecâ—â— cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apostâ—lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiaÌ„ propter hanc breâ—em
sundry places saith he of Scripture we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued freely but this word freely importeth that we are saued without doing any thing our selues in that matter of saluation Answer Not so good Sir for euen in your owne doctrine it is necessarie that ye beleeue and bring foorth the fruites of repentance and that now and then ye make some short prayers and receiue the Communion and do many other odde things in that matter of saluation wherefore the word freely doth not exclude all our working and suffering in that matter R. ABBOT Those odde things as this odde companion termeth them which we require as necessary in the matter of our saluation are no other but either occasions and affections of seeking and desiring or meanes of our apprehending and receiuing that saluation which is freely and onely by Iesus Christ We do not pray to be saued for our prayers sake nor beleeue to be saued for our faiths sake nor receiue the Communion to be saued or to haue our sinnes forgiuen by vertue of our receiuing but we pray and beleeue to haue our sinnes forgiuen vs and to be saued freely for Christes sake and do receiue the Communion for the strengthening of our faith in this beleefe Christ by the Sacrament offering himselfe vnto vs with the whole benefit of his passion to be receiued and made ours by faith As for repentance consisting in the true feeling and acknowledging of our sinnes whereby we see our selues in our selues to be lost and cast away it is the motiue and occasion of seeking this saluation in Christ and freely for his sake and the fruites of repentance which we require are but the way as hath bene before shewed to the full attainement and possession of saluation which we receiue by him And further we acknowledge that our repentance our faith our prayer and whatsoeuer else is in vs towards God is wholly and altogether of the gift of God purposing saluation vnto vs of his owne free mercie and therefore of the same mercie bestowing vpon vs those things which he hath appointed as preparations thereunto but to our selues as of our selues we can challenge no part nor parcell of any of these things Therefore on our part nothing hindreth but that we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued freely that is a Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end for nothing as Master Bishops Masters of Rhemes do giue the signification of the word gratis But if Master Bishop himselfe had meant to deale here truly and honestly with his Reader he should not haue dodged in this sort by talking of vs without answering for himselfe but should haue made it appeare how that which he affirmeth can stand with that which the Scripture teacheth If we be not saued but by interposing our merits for the purchase thereof how is it said that we are saued freely that is for nothing how can our sins be freely forgiuen that is for nothing when they are not forgiuen but vpon condition of satisfaction Satisfaction is the payment of a price as we haue seen before out of Thomas Aquinas Now to do a thing freely and to do it for price and paiment cannot possibly stand together Therefore M. Perkins argueth rightly If we satisfie in our own persons then are we not saued freely and if we be saued freely then we make no satisfaction at all M. Bishops leisure serued him not to answer this point We know he wanted no good wil but in hast he was must needs be gone because indeed he knew well that he could say nothing but that euery child would see his doubling and shifting and descry him to be a very vaine and wilfull man 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third reason We pray daily Forgiue vs our sins now to plead pardon and to satisfie for our sins are cleane contrarie Answer If our sins be mortall we craue pardon both of the sin and the eternall punishment annexed and do willingly withall satisfie for the temporall paine as the man who is conuicted of high treason and hauing both his life honor lands and goods pardoned and restored vnto him doth very ioyfully indure-three moneths imprisonment and any reasonable fine set on his head If our sinnes be veniall then that prayer is a speciall meane both to obtaine pardon of the fault and release of all the paine In Enchir c. 71 as witnesseth S. Augustine saying That for the daily short and light offences without which this life is not led the daily prayer of the faithfull doth satisfie And that is not true which M. Perkins adds that we are taught in that prayer wholy and only to vse the plea of Pardon For in the same petition we are taught also to pardon others euen as we will looke to be pardoned Againe if there were only a plea of pardon it wold not serue M. Perkins purpose For who would say that within the compasse of the Pater noster all things necessary to saluation be contained besides prayer is one part of satisfaction as shall be proued hereafter and so by oft praying for pardon we may well satisfie for much temporall punishment R. ABBOT I pray thee gentle Reader that with M. Perkins argument here propounded and M. Bishops answer to it thou wilt compare that which M. Bishop himselfe before hath said a Of originall sinne Sect. 1. Doth not a Pardon saith he take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it Who can deny this vnlesse he know not or cure not what he say Hereby then vnderstand that M. Bishop here either knoweth not or careth not what he saith for that as a man hauing forgotten himselfe he wold make vs beleeue that the pardoning of a fault doth not take away all bond of punishment due vnto it That which he said before is sensible and cleare to euery mans sight but that which he saith here is senslesse and absurd euen in that very instance whereby he seeketh to make it good The man who for high treason is but adiudged to short imprisonment and fine is neuer said to be pardoned The prince dealeth graciously with him in not calling him further into question but to giue him a pardon should be to cut off both imprisonment and fine And who was there euer in the world before the time of these ranck witted Sophisters that made that construction that M. Bishop doth of our prayer which we make to God Forgiue vs our trespasses as that our meaning therein should be to say to him Forgiue vs the sinne and the eternall punishment but as touching the temporall punishment we are willing and readie to make thee satisfaction for it When we lye groning vnder the burden of temporall calamities and afflictions do we not say vnto God Forgiue vs our trespasses and begge of him remission of sinnes to the intent that by forgiuenesse of sinnes we may be
eased of the same burden The voice of Christ to the sicke of the palsie b Mat. 9.2 Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee doth it not giue him present release from the bond thereof Dauid saith c Psal 32.3 Whilest I held my tongue from acknowledging and confessing my sinnes my bones were consumed in my mourning all day for thy hand was heauie vpon me day and night and my moisture was turned into the drouth of Summer I acknowledged my sinne vnto thee and did not hide mine iniquitie I thought I will confesse against my selfe my wickednesse vnto the Lord and thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne By which wordes he giueth vs to vnderstand that the forgiuenesse of his sinnes vpon his repentance and confession thereof was the taking away of the grieuous malady wherwith he was so sore afflicted and vpon experience hereof vttereth those words in the beginning of the Psalme d Ver. 1. Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne as to note that one part of that blessing is to be released from the temporall punishments that are due to sinne Yea and to that purpose he addeth also after e Ver. 6. Aug. Pro hac Pro qua hac pro ipsa venia peccatoruÌ„ For this that is saith S. Austin for forgiuenesse of sinnes shall euery one that is godly make his prayer vnto thee in a time when thou maist be found surely in the ouerflowing of many waters they shall not come neere him Where by many waters he vnderstandeth the manifold crosses and afflictions of this life wherwith we are tossed to and fro by reason of our sinnes and signifieth that the godly man by obtaining forgiuenesse of sinnes obtaineth deliuerance and freedome from the punishment thereof Forgiuenesse of sinnes then is not vnderstood with reseruation of temporal satisfaction neither doth any thing remaine in the nature of punishment to him that by repentance and faith becometh partaker of that mercie As for his distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes applyed to the petition of forgiuenesse of sinnes we know no such neither is any such to be approued as f Of Iustification Sect. 41. before hath bene shewed By Gods hearkening to our prayer all sinnes become veniall if God heare not our prayer for forgiuenesse of sinnes all sinnes continue mortall Our Sauiour Christ knew no such difference as M. Bishop maketh that God when he heareth vs crying vnto him Forgiue vs our trespasses doth forgiue vs some sinnes wholy and othersome but in part or that our prayer should be a speciall meane in some sinnes to obtaine pardon of the fault and release of punishment and in othersome not so No neither did S. Austine euer dreame that God did forgiue sinnes with a reseruation of the punishment thereof he knew well that forgiuenesse altereth the case and nature of afflictions as hath bene before shewed Master Bishop citeth him saying that g Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. De quotidianis breuibus leuibusque peccatis sine quibus haec vita non ducitur quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit c. Delet omnino haec oratio minima quotidiana peccata Delet illa à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta sed poeniten â—â—in melius mutata discedit si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur Dimitte nobis c. ita veracitèr dicatur sicut nos c. id est si siat quod dicitur For the daily short and light offences without which this life is not led the daily prayer of the faithfull satisfieth But as he saith so of these daily and light offences so he saith of other also in the next words It blotteth out also those from which the life of the faithfull wickedly led but by repentance changed to better is departed if as it is truly said Forgiue vs our trespasses so it be truly said As we forgiue them that trespasse against vs that is if it be done which is said So then as it satisfieth for the one so it satisfieth for the other also as for the lesser so for the greater and for both obtaineth pardon at Gods hands But Master Bishop here doth meerely abuse his Reader by an equiuocation of the name of satisfaction For Satisfaction with Saint Austine as with all the auncient Ecclesiasticall Writers importeth the meanes whereby we are to intreate and obtaine of God pardon and forgiuenesse of our sinnes but with Master Bishop and his fellowes it importeth a punishment still remaining for sinnes past and already pardoned to be endured either in this life or after death in Purgatorie as he hath before expressed in the beginning of this Chapter Saint Austines meaning then is that the daily prayer of the faithfull sufficeth to obtaine pardon at Gods hands for our daily and common trespasses yea and for greater offences also when by repentance and amendement of life we forsake them but no meaning hath he either that the saying of the Lords prayer should be a recompence to God for our trespasse or that our trespasse being pardoned there should still remaine a satisfaction to be performed for it Now here Master Bishop further denyeth that in the Lords prayer we vse onely plea of pardon for saith he we are taught also to pardon others euen as we will looke to be pardoned And what then what because we are taught freely to pardon others shall we hereupon conceiue that God is hired by our pardoning others to giue pardon vnto vs Our Sauior Christ noteth therby the affection of them to whom it belongeth to vse the plea of pardon he saith not any thing to be construed to the impeachment and derogation of the freenesse of the pardon Meekenesse and readinesse to forgiue is h Gal. 5.22.23 a fruite of the spirit i Rom. 8.15 of adoption by which we cry Abba Father in the voyce of which spirit onely it is that God hearkeneth vnto vs. k Aug. Enchir. cap. 71. EoruÌ„ est dicere Pater noster c. qui iam tali patri regene rati sunt exaqua Spiritu sancto It is for them to say Our Father which art in heauen saith Saint Austine who now are regenerate and borne againe to such a Father of water and of the holy Ghost If we speake not by this spirit our voice is as the voice of strangers and God giueth no regard vnto it Therefore our forgiuenesse of others is not alledged as the cause for which God is moued to forgiue vs but we present it to him as the mark of his spirit which he hath set vpon vs as the token that we are his childreÌ„ to whoÌ„ he hath assigned it for a portioÌ„ to be made partakers of the forgiuenes of sins to whoÌ„ Christ hath ministred coÌ„fort boldnes so to pray His 2. exception is very vaine also for although the Lords prayer contain not all things necessary to saluatioÌ„
yet the Lords prayer is the direction of all prayers necessary to saluation Therefore Tertullian calleth it as he in his manner speaketh l Tertul. de fuga in persecut li. de Orat. legitimam orationem the prayer that serueth vs for a law of praying and Austin also saith m August Epi. 121. cap. 12. Si per omnia precationum sanctaruÌ„ verba discurras quanium existimo nihil inuenies quod non ista dominica contineat concludat oratio If thou go ouer all the words of holy prayers thou shalt find nothing as I thinke which this Lords prayer containeth not Yea Tertullian doubted not further to affirme that n Tertul. de Ora. Breuiarium totius Euangelij it is the briefe summe of the whole Gospell Now therefore if in the Lords prayer we aske forgiuenesse of sinnes onely by plea of pardon then it cannot be that we should be taught elsewhere to aske forgiuenesse vpon tender of satisfaction which wholly ouerthroweth the name and nature of forgiuenesse And surely M. Bishops vnderstanding might affoord him to conceiue that although the Lords prayer containe not all things necessarie to saluation yet that that is there contained receiueth no checke from any thing spoken otherwhere As for his last exception it is most absurd that the prayer by which we intreate God not to vrge vs to satisfaction should it selfe be accounted a satisfaction as if we said vnto God Forgiue vs our trespasse O Lord and yet we do not wish thee to forgiue vs altogether freely and for nothing for euen by our praying we make thee amends for our trespasse Satisfaction is defined with them to be o Thom. Aquin. Suppl q. 15. art 15. in corp Opus satisfactorium oportet quòd sit poenale a punishment and because prayer as M. Bishop telleth vs is one part of satisfaction we must vnderstand that with them it is a punishment to pray and M. Bishop hauing receiued the penitents confession and inioyning him a number of Pater nosters doth enioyne him so many punishments and maketh him in effect to say vnto God againe O Lord forgiue me my sinnes and that I may deserue that fauour at thy hands I here make thee satisfaction and recompence by enduring this punishment of praying to thee Nay it is scant so well I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the contriuing of this matter The penitent commeth to M. Bishop who vpon his confession giueth him absolution of all his sins enioyning him for satisfaction and penance thus and thus to pray So then he saith O Lord my sins be forgiuen me already but yet for a punishment and by way of satisfaction I say vnto thee Forgiue vs our trespasses These are the mysteries of the fornications of the whore of Babylon things reasonlesse witlesse senslesse meere witcheries and enchantments of mens minds and the vntimely fruites of a barren strumpet such as the very common instinct of Christianitie should teach all men to detest to discouer them is sufficient to confute them But of this M. Bishop telleth vs we shall heare more hereafter 7. W. BISHOP M. Perkins fourth Argument is taken out of certaine odde fragments of auncient writers Guiltinesse being taken away the punishment is also taken away Tertul. de Bapt. True he that is guilty of nothing cannot iustly be punished for guiltinesse is a binding vp to punishment as M. Perkins defineth Pag. 28. then if the band to punishment be cancelled the party is freed but all this is nothing to the purpose for guiltinesse of temporal punishment doth remaine after the sin and guilt of eternall be released Augustine saith Christ by taking vpon him the punishment De verb. Apost ser 37. and not the fault hath done away both fault and punishment Iust the eternall punishment which was due to that fault not the temporall as S. Augustine himselfe declareth In Enchir. cap. 70. God of compassion doth blot out our sinnes committed if conuenient satisfaction be not on our parts neglected To that other sentence out of him When we are gone out of this world there will remaine no compunction or satisfaction it is easie to answer without the help of any new edition for it will be too late then to repent and so there is no place left to compunction that is contrition of heart neither consequently to confession or satisfaction as if he had said before we go out of this world there is place for both compunction and satisfaction and so that place is rather for vs. Now to Chrysostome who saith Tom. 10. hom 5. Prem in Esa That God so blotteth out our sins that there remaines no print of them which thing befals not the bodie for when it is healed there remaineth a scarre but when God exempteth from punishment he giues thee iustice All this is most true and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of originall sin but nothing touching satisfaction for we hold that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be iustified is washed whiter then snow so that there is no staine or print left in it of the filth of sin It is also freed from all eternall punishment but not from some temporall Now gentle Reader prepare thy selfe to behold a proper peece of cosinage Ambrose saith I reade of Peters teares but I reade not of his satisfaction Luk. 22. The colour of the craft lieth in the ambiguitie of this word satisfaction which is not alwayes taken for the penance done to satisfie for the former fault but is sometime vsed for the defence and excuse of the fact So speaketh S. Paul Act. 24 10. Bono animo pro me satisfaciam with good courage I will answer in defence of my selfe 1. Pet. 3. or giue you satisfaction in like maner Ready alwayes to satisfie euery one that asketh you reason of that hope which is in you In this sence doth S. Ambrose vse the word as is most plainly to be scene to them that reade the place and confer it with the verie like of his Lib. 10 in Luc. I find not saith he what Peter said but I find that he wept I reade his teares but I reade not his satisfaction but that which cannot be defended may be washed away So that nothing is more manifest then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault which Peter vsed not but sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for it for this bewailing of our sinnes is one speciall kind of satisfaction as S. Ambrose testifieth saying Lib. 2. de poenit cap. 5. That he who doth penance must with teares wash away his sinnes The other place cited out of S. Ambrose De bono mortis let vs adore Christ that he may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes nor the waâ—â—es of worldly sufferings I haue remission of sinnes is rather for vs then against vs for if
to sinne albeit the sinnes that are already committed he in mercie blotteth out if conuenient satisfaction be not neglected Here is satisfaction first and thereupon the blotting out of sinne but M. Bishop telleth vs of the blotting out of sinne first and of a satisfaction required after Why doth he wilfully abuse his Reader to make shew of prouing that to which he alledgeth nothing The thing that he should proue is that God remitting the sinne and the eternall punishment doth reserue the making of a temporall satisfaction and he bringeth in Austine requiring conuenient satisfaction for the remitting of the sinne His argument then if we will frame it must be this We must vse conuenient satisfaction vnto God for the obtaining of the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Therefore after that our sinnes be forgiuen vs we are still to make a temporall satisfaction vnto God which if it be not a good one we may take him to be starke naught Of the name of satisfaction I shall speake further in the last section here it is enough briefly to obserue that the conuenient satisfaction spoken of by Saint Austine is no conuenient argument for Popish satisfaction The other place cited from him is a flat deniall of satisfaction after this life e Homil. 5. Cùm de hoc seculo transierimus nulla compuÌ„ctio vel satisfactio remanebit Some reade vel aliqua satisfactio which must be resolued thus Non vlla compunctio vel satisfactio aliqua remanebit or else the diuisioÌ„ leaueth place to compunctioÌ„ repeÌ„tance after this life which opinioÌ„ Austine there inueyeth against and M. Bishop himselfe here disclaimeth When we are gone out of this world there will not remaine any compunction or satisfaction M. Bishop saith that there remaineth satisfaction though there remaine no compunction but S. Austine saith there remaineth neither compunction nor satisfaction But although M. Bishops whole drift tend to that that I haue sayd yet I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue here how pretily he circumuenteth himselfe After this life saith he there is no place left to compunction that is contrition of heart neither consequently to confession or satisfaction If because there is no place for compunction in this life therfore there be no satisfaction after this life why doth he tell vs in the beginning that after this life there is satisfaction to be made in purgatory if we die before we haue fully satisfied here why do they make men beleeue that for the dead satisfaction may be made by them that are aliue There is satisfaction he saith after this life and he saith there is no satisfaction after this life and thus indeed knoweth not what to say But yet he telleth vs that S. Austin thereby acknowledgeth that before we go out of this world there is place both for compunction and satisfaction and so that place saith he is rather for vs. Wel but what he gaineth in the scabberd he loseth double in the dagger If Purgatory sink into hell they are in a wofull case It is Purgatory satisfaction specially that they haue their liuing by Now against Purgatory satisfaction he giueth vs this argument where there is no place for compunction there is no place for satisfaction But in Purgatory there is no place for compunctioÌ„ Therfore there is no place now left for Purgatory satisfaction As for satisfaction in this life in such sort as S. Austin speaketh of it we denie it not Satisfaction is nothing else with him but true repentance as shall be shewed hereafter and we preach repentance not according to the illusions of Popery but according to the truth of the word of God The next words are cited out of Chrysostome for which is noted Prooem in Esaiam Others citing the same work do set downe what they cite as ex Hypomnemate in Esaiam But the words are by my copy in his third homily de Poenitentia and they do indeed irrefragably ouerthrow M. Bishops satisfactions f Chrysost de poenit hom 3. Neque mihi dixeru permultum peccauâ— quomodo saluâ—ri possum Tu nequâ— sed Dominus tuus potest atque ita potest vt tua deleat peccata Sicenim delet peccata Deus vt neque eorum vestigium maneat In corporibus quâ—dem id non est ita sed quanquaÌ„ millies conetur medicus creatrix remanet Deus autem sic delet vt neque cicatrix neque cicatricis supersit indi iuÌ„ non vestegium quodquaÌ„ sed post poenae liberationeÌ„ iustitiam inserit peccanteÌ„ coaequalem facit non peccanti Extinguit enim peccatum atque id non esse facit nec fuisse Say not vnto me I haue sinned how shall I be freed from so many sinnes Thou canst not but thy God can yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall remaine no print of them Which thing befals not the body for when it is healed there remaines a scarre but God so blotteth out sinnes as that there remaineth no scarre nor token of scarre no print or signe at all but after deliuerance from punishment he giueth thee iustice and maketh the sinner equall to him that hath not sinned for he extinguisheth sinne and maketh it not to be yea as if it had neuer bene Which words are apparently spoken of actuall sinnes g Aug. de nupt concup lib. 1. cap 26. Eorum peccatorum quae manere non possunt quoniam cum fiunt praetereunt reatus tamen manet c. Reus est donec reatus ipsius indulgentia remittatur The act whereof is past as S. Austine saith with the time wherein they are done but the guilt remaineth till by pardon it be remitted Now God so remitteth it saith Chrysostom as that no print thereof remaineth If no print thereof remaine if it be as if it had neuer bene how doth M. Bishop then tell vs that after forgiuenesse there remaineth still a guilt of temporall punishment This is the point why did he not answer to it why doth he turne his speech from actual sinnes whereof the place is meant to originall sinne whereof it cannot be meant because though he tell vs that originall sinne remaineth not yet he cannot denie but that some scar or signe thereof remaineth in the concupiscence of the flesh But Chrysostome denieth the remaining of any scar or signe which can no otherwise be true but only in actuall sinnes wherof nothing but the guilt remaineth and which by remission is perfectly done away But that originall sinne though the guilt be remitted yet as touching the corruption continueth still hath bene sufficiently shewed before in the handling of that question As touching the place of Ambrose I will not gainsay that which M. Bishop answereth Ambrose saith as M. Perkins alledgeth h Ambr. in Luc. lib 10. cap. 22. Lachrymas eius lego satisfactionem non lego I reade of Peters teares but his satisfaction I reade not but satisfaction is not there taken in that
teacheth that those sacrifices did q Heb. 9.13 sanctifie as touching the purifying of the flesh that is outwardly to men but r Ver. 9.14 chap. 10.1.2 to sanctifie the conscience to acquit the conscience of sinnes it reserueth as a thing peculiar to the bloud of Christ But saith M. Bishop if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God True but what are we sinfull wretches that we should think that any thing that we can do should be a satisfaction to him for sinne But much more absurd are we to thinke that the offering of a bruite creature should be any part of the redemption thereof Our satisfacton therefore is not any thing that we do or can do but it is onely the pleading of a satisfaction payed for vs in the bloud of Christ Yet he still vrgeth that sacrifices were to satisfie God because it is said that vpon the sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen But I haue already answered him that it was forgiuen not for the sacrifice sake but for Christs sake whom the offerer was to vnderstand therein And we know that of Sacraments vsually those effects are spoken which properly belong to those things whereof they are sacraments It is rightly said by Tertullian that God in these sacrifices ſ Tertul contra Marc lib. 3. Non quae siebant exigens sed propter quod fiebant required not the things which were done but that for which they were done And therefore as Origen saith as touching the high Priests standing forth to appease the wrath of God when the Angell was gone foorth to be the executioner thereof t Origē in Num. hom 9. Neque enim indumenta Pōtificis purpura Lina bysso contexia erubuisset Angelus ille vastator sed ista quae futura erant indumēta magni Pontificis intellexit ijs cessic The destroying Angell would not haue bashed at the high Priests garments made of purple and wooll and silke but he vnderstood those garments that should be of the great high Priest Iesus Christ and to them he yeelded euen so we are to conceiue that the wrath of God was no whit nor in any sort pacified by those sacrifices for the things themselues that were done therein but hee respected in them the bloud and sacrifice of his onely begotten Sonne and thereto was content to yeeld himselfe satisfied and appeased towards them that offered with faith in him 9. W. BISHOP The reason for vs which indeed is the very groundwork of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtained of their sins haue had temporall punishment layed vpon them for the same sins and that by Gods owne order wherefore after the forgiuenesse of the sin and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the partie himselfe for the same sin which is most properly that which we call satisfaction They denie that any man hath bene punished temporally for any sin which was once pardoned we proue it first by the example of the Israelites whose murmuration against God was at Moses intercession pardoned Numb 14. yet all the elder sort of them who had seene the miracles wrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance were by the sentence of God depriued of the sight of the land of promise and punished with death in the wildernesse for the very same their murmuration The like iudgement was giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron Numb 20. Deut. 32. for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction both of them had their sin pardoned yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land To this M. Perkins answereth first that a man must be considered in a two fold estate as he is vnder the law and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions were curses of the Law in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into what you wil else sauing satisfaction Now to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleuing Israelites with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law laid vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition vnto all ages following to take heed of like offences as Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. All these things came vnto them for examples and were written for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastly after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shal not enter into the land Numb 14. Num. 20. ve 24. Deut. 32.51 because he hath bin disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their dayes were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so dealeth dayly with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance R. ABBOT M. Bishop here maketh a hot and a long haruest and all his corne will not yeeld him so much as one morsell of bread He telleth vs that the argument which he here handleth is the very groundworke of satisfaction now if the goundworke faile we may be well assured that the building cannot stand We deny indeed that any affliction or iudgement of God hath lien vpon any faithful man in the nature and condition of a punishment after the forgiuenesse of his sinne The things themselues which in their owne nature are punishments and at the first are inflicted in that nature yet the sinne being forgiuen lose that nature and become onely trials preuentions admonitions instructions neither do we therein conceiue Gods anger against vs but his fatherly goodnesse and prouidence care to keepe vs to himselfe that he may make vs partakers of eternall life Thus carnall concupiscence being of it selfe a punishment of sinne though according to the guilt it be taken away by remission of sins yet according to the thing it selfe remaineth in the faithfull not now for a punishment but for the humbling and exercising of vs to make vs to know our selues to draw vs to trust and confidence in God to sharpen our desire
bootelesse sorow a blinde horrour and anguish of minde wherein there is nothing but darknesse and feare but onely as it receiueth light and comfort in the bloud of Christ for the mitigating and asswaging of it If it selfe for it selfe can giue no comfort it is no satisfaction in it selfe and therefore in all our repentance our satisfaction is in him onely who as S. Austine saith i Aug. in Psal 31. Soluit quod non debebat vt nos à debito liberaret Paid that which was no debt of his to free vs from our debt These things are spoken by due and iust course and therefore M. Bishop must take here againe the triuants tricke in that he would with so bare a shift slip ouer a direct and formall answer 12 W. BISHOP Our fift reason Daniel giueth this counsaile to Nabuchodonosor Daniel 4. Redeeme thy sinnes with almes and thy offences with mercy on the poore If by such good deedes our sinnes may be redeemed as holy writ doth testifie then it followeth that such works yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended as well as satisfaction M. Perkins answereth The skilfull in the Caldey teach that the word importeth rather a breaking off then redeeming Reply To Authors in the aire without pressing of the proprietie of the word no answer can be giuen but let vs admit that it be broken off his sinne not being couetousnesse but pride and lacke of acknowledging all kingdomes to depend vpon God as the text it selfe doth specifie To breake off this sinne by almes and compassion of the poore is nothing else but by such works of charity in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice thereby to moue him to take compassion of him And that by almes-deedes we are cleansed from our sinnes Luk. 11. our Sauiour himselfe doth teach saying Giue almes and behold all things are cleane vnto you R. ABBOT This obiection serueth much for the clearing of that that hath bene said in the former section and to open a way to the true vnderstanding of many phrases which by the Papists are abused to the maintenance of their absurd position of humane satisfaction We are to consider what the person is to whom they are spoken and in what respect the Prophet spake them Nabuchodonosor was a heathen King voide of the grace and spirit of God hauing no knowledge nor yeelding any acknowledgement of God but what God by miracle wrested from him and yet thenceforth drowning that also in pride oppression cruelty tyrannie and all kinde of iniquitie iniustice Now therfore by the doctrine of the Romish Schooles he was not in case to do any worke of satisfaction For M. Bishop telleth vs as we haue seene before that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God and Thomas Aquinas saith that a Thom. Aquin. suppl q. 14. art 2. in corp Sine charitate opera facta non sunt satisfactoria works done without charity haue no power of satisfaction therefore where grace and charity are not no satisfaction can be done If then Nabuchodonosor were not capable in their meaning to do a worke of satisfaction how impudently do they deale to alledge that that was said to him to the maintenance of their doctrine of satisfactions How should he be aduised according to their meaning to redeeme his sinnes from whom by their owne rules nothing could proceed that might in their meaning be a redemption for his sins Againe here is nothing intended as touching the true forgiuenesse of sins wherein consisteth the spirituall reconcilement of man to God but onely as touching the auoiding of a threatned outward iudgement and the preseruation of temporall earthly state which God yeeldeth euen to ciuill and morall change of former euill courses as before was said Daniel had threatned vnto him from God the losse of his vnderstanding and the casting of him forth to the companie of bruite beasts He aduiseth him yet to alter his former doings by which he had drawne that sentence vpon himselfe to trie whether haply God would be moued thereby to reuoke the iudgement which he had pronounced b Theod. in Dan. 4Vn clementiae fructum percipere Hanc eandeÌ„ erga eos osteÌ„dito qui vnam tecuÌ„ sortiti sunt naturam ita enim iudici persuadere poteris vt minas extinguat neque sinat eas ad exitum perduci Wilt thou saith he as Theodoret resolueth the speech receiue the fruite of mercy shew the same then to them who haue obtained the like condition of nature with thy selfe for so thou maiest perswade the Iudge to put away his threatnings and not to suffer them to be brought to effect Where Hierome conceiueth that c Hieron in DaÌ„ 4. Fecit iuxta Danielu consiliuÌ„ miserecordias in pauperes idcirco vsque ad meÌ„sem duodecimuÌ„ in eum dilata est sententia Sed quia postea ambulans in aula Babylonis gloriatur c. bonum miserecordiae perdidit malo superbiae Nabuchodonosor according to Daniels counsell did shew mercy to the poore and therefore for twelue moneths the sentence was deferred vntill vpon glorying in his Babel by sinne of pride he lost the benefit of mercy So then we see the forbearing of the punishment graunted to a meere outward reformation yet the King being an infidell there was no remission of the sinne There could therefore be no satisfaction because satisfaction cannot be without remission whereof it followeth that sith Daniels words had their effect without any satisfaction therefore there can no satisfaction be concluded therof For further confirmation hereof we are to note what Origen saith as touching this matter who obseruing that d OrigeÌ„ in Mat. trac 35. Operis boni aliud est quod facimus propter homines vel secundum homines aliud auteÌ„ quod propter Deum vel secundum DeuÌ„ c. Vt puta benè quis facit homini naturali iustâ—tia motus no prepter DeuÌ„ quomâ—do faciebant interdum gentes multi faciunt homines Opus illud olâ—um est vulgare non magnio doris tamen acceptabile apud Deum sicut Daniel significat dicens ad Baltasar Deum non cognoscentem Audi c. Tale aliquid dicit Peirus apud Clementem quoniam opera bona quae siunt ab infidelibus in hoc seculo eis prosunt non in illo ad consequendâ—m vitaÌ„ aeternam Et conuenientèr quia nec illi propter Deum faciunt sed propter naturam humanam Qui autem propter Deum faciunt idest fideles non solum in hoc seculo proficit eis sed in illo magis autem in illo of good workes there is one sort which we do for men or according to men another which we do for God or according to God for example thereof saith A man doth good being moued by naturall iustice and not in respect of God euen as heathens
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
Perkins doth that in giuing almes as we ought we do but our dutie and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes is the same as to say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done For hereby they haue had the commaundement of mens purses their goods and lands and whilest they haue borne them in hand that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins they haue made them rob their wiues their children posteritie and friends to bestow vpon holy Church as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues By this pretence like f Exod. 10.15 the Grashoppers of Egypt they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses men vpon conscience of sinne sparing no cost in false hope to find some comfort thereby as g Answer to the Epist Ded. sect 31. before was said And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained because they that were loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer yet found helpe enough hereby for that h Thom. Aquin suppleÌ„ q. 15. art 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries to make men beleeue as before hath bene mentioned that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them i 2. Pet. 2.3 Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits quite passeth by religious houses as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified yet manet alta mente repostum it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen if he knew which way to worke his will As for Schooles Colledges Hospitals Chappels the building of them if it be in the true faith of Christ is a gracious and godly worke but when they are so done they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God not as satisfactions for our sins Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction yet presuming that he hath so done he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iteruÌ„ pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme Which words of Cyprian if we construe them in rigour as they sound do containe a most dangerous and vnchristian assertion and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues Whereof it must follow that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes in what case must they be who onely receiue almes and haue none to giue and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs not onely in baptisme but afterwards also to be l Ioh 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world S. Iohn being baptized speaketh of himselfe amongst others and saith it to them that are baptized m 1. Ioh. 2.2 If any man sinne we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes The true confessioÌ„ of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth in saying that n August cont 2. epis Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi veruÌ„ est vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepuÌ„t propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad DeuÌ„ clamat Ecclesia Dimitte nobis c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiuÌ„ pro peccatis the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God forgiue vs our trespasses and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth that after baptisme not the sacrifice of our almes but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him o Cont. Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriaÌ„ cuÌ„ eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quia literâ—s Cypriani non vt canonicaâ— haebeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis diuinaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ authoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non conguit cum pace eius respuo We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle or sermon
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
one that carieth any shew or semblance to that for which he citeth them Such is the notable imposturage and cosinage of these false harlots in laying together huge companies of the places of the Fathers to blind the eyes of simple men who are not able to discerne whether they be applied right or wrong I haue pointed at this matter before but it commeth here more fully to be declared M. Bishop in the beginning telleth vs thus We are not here to treate of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly but of such priuate penance which is either enioyned by the Confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sins past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatory c. Mark that which he saith gentle Reader that satisfaction is not here meant of publike penance for notorious offences but only of priuat penance and that for sinnes past and already pardoned That thou mayst the better vnderstaÌ„d this secret of theirs thou art to obserue that in sin they affirme two things a Bellar. de paen lib. 4. cap. 1. Cum homines in DeuÌ„ peccant amicitiaÌ„ simul iustitiaÌ„ violant Ac pro amicitia reformanda noÌ„ potest homo Deo satisfaceremam satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessariâ— indiâ—â—get acceptatio autem amicitiaÌ„ praesupponit Et praeterea vt satisfactio sit aliquo modo ad aequaeâ—â—tatem oportet vt sicut offensio habuit infinitatem quandaÌ„ ex parte obiecti sic habeat satisfactio infinitateÌ„ aliquam ex parte principij satisfacientis Proinde requiritur vt opera satisfactoriae fiant à spiritu Dei homineÌ„ inhabitante siue ab ipso homine vt membro Christi ac filio Det iam per gratiam charitateÌ„ effecto c. the violation of amitie betwixt God and vs and the violation of iustice For the renewing of amitie they say that a man cannot satisfie because satisfaction must haue acceptance with God and acceptance presupposeth amitie and friendship Againe satisfaction must haue some kind of equalitie in respect of the offence for which the satisfaction is made That there may be such an equalitie it is necessary that as the offence hath a kind of infinitie in respect of the obiect which is God so the satisfaction haue a kind of infinitie in respect of the originall whence it hath beginning It must therefore proceed from the spirit of God dwelling in man or from man made by grace and charitie the member of Christ and child of God When therefore a man by mortall sinne hath expulsed from himselfe grace and charitie he must first vpon his contrition and confession be reconciled and haue his sinne forgiuen and afterwards must make satisfaction for the same sinne For they will haue vs thinke that though God be content to be friends with vs and in that respect to forgiue the sinne yet he will haue satisfaction made to his iustice for the wrong and trespasse that we haue done him Thou mayst not wonder that they be very earnest in the assertion of this matter because vpon this ground Purgatory standeth and consequently the whole reuenue of the Popes pardons and of all their obsequies and deuotions for the dead Now this being the point of their defence that God hauing forgiuen and pardoned the sinne there remaineth a satisfaction to be made by temporall punishment which of all the Fathers by him alledged speaketh any thing to that effect He hath taken them all out of Bellarmine but therin see the honesty and fidelity both of Bellarmine and him peruse them and consider of them again again and what doest thou find sounding to the proofe of their assertion The Fathers speake of a satisfaction for the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sins but of a satisfaction to be made when the sin is forgiuen they say neuer a word yea they neuer imagined any such thing The church of Rome denieth that to be properly a satisfactioÌ„ which the Fathers call by the name of satisfaction and knew no other but that yet that satisfaction they alledge for the proofe of their new deuised satisfaction Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that b Bellar. de poen lib 4. ca. 1. Si veteres Patres interduÌ„ actionibus humanis tribuere id videntur vt DeuÌ„ ex inimico amicum reddant atque adeò pro expianda culpa satisfaciant interpretandi sunt dâ— satisfactione ex congruo non ex condigno where the Fathers do seeme to attribute to the actions of men to restore amitie with God and to satisfie for the remission of the sinne they must be expounded of satisfaction ex congruo not ex condigno So had he said before that with the Fathers in that case the words of c Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. Vbi poenitentia dicitur meritum pretium satiâ—factio redemptio pro peccato de merito c. ex congruo accipienda sunt merit price satisfaction redemption must be taken in that sort And yet whereas all these Fathers alledged speake of price satisfaction redemption for the remission of the sin he himselfe bringeth them to proue d Lib 4. cap. 9. satisfaction de condigno after the remission of the sinne To speake of them briefly in order as he reporteth them the first testimonie out of Tertullian concerneth publike penance the whole book being written thereof as e Beat. Rhen. in argum lib. Tert. de poenit Beatus Rhenanus sheweth in the argument of the same booke and as by the author himselfe appeareth in that he speaketh of such a repentance as is f Tertul de poen Quicquid mediocritas nostra ad poenitentiaÌ„ semel capessendam perpetuò continendaÌ„ suggerere conata est omnes deditos Domino spectat but once to be had after baptisme which was so ordered by the Church in publike penitencie but in priuate neuer neither wold M. Bishop pleade so hard for it if it were so Now publike penitency was a satisfaction to obtaine forgiuenes and so here Tertullian plainly expresseth calling it g Ibidem Quà m stultuÌ„ poenitentiam non adimplere veniam delictorum sustinere hoc est pretiuÌ„ non exhibere ad merceÌ„ manuÌ„ emittere Hoc enim pretio Dominus veniam addicere instituit c. a folly not to fulfill penance and yet to expect pardoÌ„ affirming the one to be the price for the other and that God hath set the pardon at this price This then being a price for the pardon cometh not within the compasse of our question which is of a satisfaction when the sin is pardoned Origens purpose in the same place alledged is by the example of the deliuerance of the Israelites when they called vpon the Lord to shew that the Lord deliuereth a man to aduersary powers h Origen in lib. Iudic. hom 3. Vt
humiliet cum qui nimis fuerat exaltatus vt affligat vt conterat do nec resipiscat quaerat dominum c. Abijciatur superbiae odor iste teterrimus c. â—e fortè irascatur Dominus tradat nos c. humilitatem quam in scientia Christi docere debuimus in correptionis nostrae tribulatione discamus sed vide benignum Dominum misericordiam cum seueritate misâ—entem ipsius poenae modum iusta clementi libratione pensantem to humble him that was exalted to afflict him to breake him vntill he repent and seeke the Lord exhorting to put away pride least the Lord be angrie and giue vs vp into the hands of the enemie that by the trouble of correction we learne that humilitie which we should haue taught in the knowledge of Christ Hereupon he inferreth that aduertisement of Gods tempering mercie with seueritie waighing the measure of his punishment by a iust and mercifull consideration namely in that sort as he hath before deliuered i Tradidit humiliaÌ„dos vt salubri medicinae ratione contraria contrarijs curarentur that in manner of a wholsome medicine one contrarie may be cured with another Therefore he saith that k Non in perpetuum tradit delinquentes sed quanto tempore errasse te nosti c. tanto nihilominus tempore humilia teipsum Deo et satisfacito â—t in confessione poenitentiae c. quia si te ipse emendaueris si te ipse correxeris pius et misericors est Deus qui vindictam temperet ab eo qui illam poenitendo praeuenit God doth not giue ouer a sinner for euer as to note that all that he doth is but to bring a man to repentance which being done he is satisfied Whereupon he giueth aduice to a man that according to the time that he knoweth himselfe to haue erred or offended so he humble himselfe and satisfie God in the confession of repentance because saith he if thou reforme and amend thy self God is gracious mercifull to withhold punishment from him who preuenteth it by repentance Now what is all this but that which the Apostle saith l 1. Cor. 11.31 If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord He exhorteth to preuent Gods iudgement to humble our selues to repent to cast away our pride to seeke God to satisfie him by confession and acknowledgement of our sinnes that God being gracious and mercifull may forbeare to punish vs but we finde nothing of that that we seeke for that hauing humbled our sinnes and being reconciled to God and hauing obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes we shall remaine bound to punishment and satisfaction for our sinnes The words cited out of Cyprians epistles concerne them who in the time of persecution had fallen and denied Christ whom he would not haue to be restored to the communion of the Church vntill they had publikely lamented their grieuous fall and giuen good tokens of their true and faithfull repentance Therefore he blameth them that too lightly and easily receiued them againe hereby causing m Cyprian lib. 1. epi. 3. Proponitur sacrilegis atque dicitur ne ira cogitetur Dei non timeatur iudiciuÌ„ Domini ne pulsetur ad EcclesiaÌ„ Christi sed sublata poenitentiae nec vlla exomologesi criminis facta pax à non veris presbyteris verbis fallacibus praedicetur c. that they conceiued not the wrath of God that they feared not the iudgment of the Lord that they knocked not at the Church of Christ but without repentance and open confession of their sinne had false peace preached vnto them with deceitfull words Here is therefore no speech of satisfaction after peace and reconcilement to God but only for the obtaining of this peace And this is euident by the very words cited by M. Bishop wherin Cyprian blameth them that withheld men from n Ibid. Elabâ—rant ne indignanti Deo satisfiat satisfying God being angry and he applieth them against vs for denying satisfaction when God is pleased In the other place Cyprian saith that o Lib. 3. epist 14. Possunt agentes poenitentiam veram Deo Patri ad misericordià precibus operibus suis satisfacere shewing true repentance they might by their prayers and works satisfie God to the procuring of mercy and M. Bishop alledgeth it to proue a satisfaction when men haue already procured mercie Cyprian speaketh of a satisfaction for want whereof men p Jbid seducuntur vt magis pereant qui se erigere possunt plus cadant perish and as M. Bishop translateth are seduced to their further damnation and M. Bishop applieth it to a satisfaction for want whereof men perish not nor are damned but must make it vp in Purgatory fire The words of Basil are as impertinent as the rest He sayth nothing but what we say that the greater wound should cause the greater paine the greater sinne the greater sorow that we may so much the more earnestly seeke reconcilement to God by how much the further we haue departed froÌ„ him but no shadow is there of satisfactioÌ„ to be made after that we are reconciled vnto him The last of his words containe the summe of all the rest q Basil orat in illud Attende tibi Adaequetur peccato poenitentia Let the repentance be equall or proportionable to the sin To the like sentence of Ambrose he referreth vs in the margent r Ambr. ad virg lapsam Grandi plagae alta prolixa opus est medicina grande scelus grandem habet necessariaÌ„ satisfactionem A great wound had need of a very effectuall and long cure a great sinne had need of great satisfaction The words immediatly going before are these Å¿ Peccator si sibi non pepercerit à Deo illi parcitur etsi futuras poenas gehennae perpetuas in hoc paruo vitae spacio compensauerit seipsuÌ„ ab aeterno iudicio liberat If the sinner spare not himselfe then the Lord will spare him and if in the short space of this life he shal recompence the euerlasting paines of hel that are to come he freeth himself from eternall iudgement It is apparent therfore that he speaketh of a satisfaction whereby to obtaine forgiuenesse of sinnes for the auoiding of the eternall paines of hell not of a satisfaction after forgiuenesse for the auoiding of the temporal paines of Purgatory He writeth it to a virgin that had yeelded her self to be defiled and corrupted and calleth her to publike and perpetuall penance denying her any remission or pardon in this world t Ibid. Inhaere poenitentiae vsque ad finem vitae nec tibi praesismas ab humano die posse veniam dari quia decipit te qui hoc tibi polliceri voluerit Quae enim propriè in Dominii peccasti ab illo solo te coÌ„uenit in die iudicij expectare remedium Continue in thy penance or repentance euen
p See hereof Tertul. de poenitentia and the collections of Beatus Rhenanus in the argument of that booke publike coÌ„fession of their sinnes They had their place appointed them in the Church where they stood lamenting and mourning with weeping and teares cast themselues to the ground praying to God for themselues and commending themselues to the prayers of the assembly It was prescribed them by watching by fasting by course and vncouth apparell to afflict and humble themselues that euery way their griefe and sorrow might be seene Which being duly performed the Church was satisfied and taking compassion on them restored them againe to brotherly societie and to the communion of the Church and hereof first was the name of satisfaction taken vp It was not therefore a satisfaction whereby they meant to make God a iust recompence for their sinnes or as by paying a price of woorth and value to merit and purchase their owne pardon but onely a satisfaction whereby the Church would be certified of their true repentance towards God as not enduring that any man shold be accounted a member amongst them who by sinne had made himselfe a stranger to God vntill they saw reason to be perswaded that God would be pleased to be reconciled to him againe They could not looke into the heart to see any mans repentance and sorrow but by mens deuout submitting themselues to the ordinances of publike censure and discipline they would be induced to the perswasion thereof and being thereof perswaded they receiued him againe whom before they had reiected Hereof Saint Austin saith very plainely to shew the the end of it q Aug. Enchir. cap. 65. Cor concritum humiliatum Deus noÌ„ spernit Verum quia plerunque dolor alterius cordis occulius est alteri neque in aliorum notitiaÌ„ per verba vel quaecunque alia signa procedit cùm sit eoram illo cui dicitur Gemitus metâ— Ã te non est absconditus râ—ctè constituuntur ab ijs qui Ecclesiae praesunt temporae poenitentiae vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remittuntur ipsa peccata extra cam quippe non remittuntur A contrite and humbled heart God despiseth not but yet because commonly the griefe of one mans heart is secret to another and cometh not by any words or signes to the certaine knowledge of others being in the sight of him to whom it is said My groning is not hid from thee therefore rightly are there appointed certaine times of penance that the Church also may be satisfied wherein sinnes are forgiuen because out of it there are none forgiuen Here is the true vse of those publike satisfactions It is true that God yeeldeth to the contrite and broken heart remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes but in scandalous trespasses he will haue the knowledge thereof to be taken in the forgiuenesse of the Church A man in that case sinneth not against God onely but also against the Church in prouoking Gods anger as before was said not onely against himselfe but also against them in corrupting others so much as in him lyeth by his euill example in causing aduersaries by that occasion to speake euill of the Church God therefore would that as the Church is interested in the wrong so it should also be interested in the forgiuenesse thereof so as that in this case no man is to presume of forgiuenesse with God who is not so much as in him lieth reconciled to the Church of God This our Sauiour Christ hath confirmed in the Gospell r Mat. 18.18 Whatsoeuer ye bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Å¿ Iohn 20.23 Whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained So then the forgiuenesse of the Church is to be accounted as it were an admission to forgiuenesse with God and a man taketh the one to be to him a confirmation of the other Now the Church is to forgiue according to the same rule as God forgiueth onely him that is penitent and grieued for his sinne and therefore in such sort as hath bene said requireth satisfaction for certificate and assurance of such repentance And this is specially that satisfaction which is so much spoken of in the writings and records of the auncient Church But yet will M. Bishop say the matter is not sufficiently cleared because howsoeuer the name of satisfaction might haue originall from hence yet we find them to haue applied the same to God also and to haue taught men by such and such works to satisfie and appease the wrath of God And we deny not indeed but that so they haue done but yet we say that they neuer spake of satisfaction in any such meaning as the name of it now importeth in the Church of Rome Farre were they from hauing any thought that any thing they did could be a satisfaction that is a iust and sufficient and worthy recompence for their sinnes but yet they called repentance by the name of satisfaction as to note that it is the thing wherewith God is satisfied that is contented and appeased not for the thing it selfe but for that he hath promised to accept those passions and teares and workes which are the issues and streames of a broken and contrite hart carefully seeking his mercy and humbly crauing remission and pardon in the name of Iesus Christ In this sence they translated the name of satisfaction from the Church to God and from publike to priuate repentance neuer imagining that any man would be so mad as to conceiue merit there where they taught the sinner to aske mercy where they taught that the whole effect of that that is done consisteth in Gods mercy through the merit of Iesus Christ t Hesych in Leuit 7 lib. 2. Christus nobis propitiatio factus est ergo in ipso omne poenitentiae sacrificium ministratur agituâ— omne quod ex poenitentia quis consequitur ad eum refertur Christ is made our attonement saith Hesychius therfore all the sacrifice of repentance or penance is administred and done in him and all that a man obtaineth by repentance is referred to him It is not then for our repentance sake but for Christs sake that in repentance we obtaine that mercy that we do obtaine And to that purpose very notably serueth that which Chrysostome mouing question in the name and behalfe of a sinner and making answer thereto very learnedly and religiously speaketh in this sort u Chrysost de poenit hom 3. Siue in Hypouâ—uemate in EsaiaeÌ„ Cùm omnem vitam in peccatis detriuerim si me poenituerit fiamne saluus Prorsus fies Vnde hoc liquet Ab ipsa Domini tui benignitate non ex tua poenitentia mihi sumo fiduciam Poenitentia enim tua non praeualet tantam abstergere malorum eluutem Poenitentia si sola fuerit meritò tibi metuendum est sed
the written law therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition Further he alledgeth that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day before which they might not be circumcised but there is none found written therefore it was deliuered by tradition O the excellent wit of this man he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants as that not one of them can tel what to say But for our learning M. Bishop we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne and children dying before eight dayes old Where haue ye found or how can ye prooue that there was any such Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions are able I trow to informe vs what it was if any such thing were Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations whereof he hath no ground nor can giue vs any testimony at all either from the Iewes themselues or from other ancient writers but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part for tell vs M. Bishop did circumcision take away originall sin If it did so what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new You are wont to tell vs that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace but not giue grace that they did signifie the taking away of sinne but not take it away that they did signifie iustification but did not iustifie Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified then iustification should haue bene proper to men because men onely are circumcised so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision For expounding the Apostles words b Rom 3.29 Is God the God of the Iewes onely as if he had said c Bellar. de effec sacram cap. 14. Quasi dicat Deus est omnium Deus quomodo igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatū solis Iudaeis Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari An masculorū Deus tantū nonne et foeminarum Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit God the God of all how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely he addeth We may hence also argue Is God the God of men onely is he not also the God of women Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy against sinne that should be auaileable for men onely His resolution then is that circumcision was no remedie against sin because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne as he conceiueth which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes to women as well as men Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten and if he haue not a tradition for both then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision sometimes with that signe of circumcision proper in execution to men onely but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and women d Ephes 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God sometimes with a signe common both to men and women as in our baptisme we see thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will not tying himselfe to outward signes but sauing onely by his grace either with signes where they are or without where either there is no institution as in the beginning or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament and doth befall in baptisme of the new Now as touching M. Bishops third reason it is as reasonlesse as the former so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason Iob and many such like Gentiles saith he were saued Very true But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue But that is not true for seeing there is but e Eph. 4.5 one faith f 2. Corin. 4.13 the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end by that faith that is written in the law of Moses we know what they had to beleeue and according to that faith how they ought to liue Yea and where it is written what they did beleeue and how they did liue there it is written what they had to beleue and how they were to liue But in the booke of Iob it is written of himself and of his friends what they did beleeue and what the ordering of their life was all according to the law of Moses and the faith therein contained It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue But yet giuing the man his way let vs see what his conclusion is Therefore saith he many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition We may see his head was troubled and he had forgotten what he was to conclude for this his conclusion should haue bene Therefore Moses committed not all to writing But this would not follow for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue yet we cannot hereof inferre that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written What hindereth I say but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued though he do not expresly say that Iob was to beleeue thus But it may be that M. Bishop meant that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former and so would reason thus Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition therefore Moses committed not all to writing Yet neither can this
the Epistles in generall if any thing in Paules Epistles sound to him as contrary to the doctrine of the Catholike Church it is vnknowne what Church they meane he faileth of the right sense Thus howsoeuer clearely the scripture soundeth yet it meaneth not that which it saith if it be contrarie to that which they affirme To this impudent deuise they are driuen because they see that the scripture condemneth them vnlesse they themselues haue the managing of the scripture that if the scripture be admitted for iudge it peremptorily pronounceth sentence against them so that they haue no meanes to colour their abhominations but by challenging to themselues to be iudges of the scripture As for vs we hang the doctrine of faith not vpon our expositions but vpon the very words of God himselfe we make the holy scripture the iudge not in ambiguous and doubtfull speeches but in cleare and euident sentences where the very words declare what the meaning is It is a question betwixt vs and them whether Saints images be to be worshipped or not they say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge speake x Exod. 20.4 Deut. 5.8 Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse of any thing in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth thou shalt not now down to them nor worship them It is a question whether there be now any sacrifice to be offered for the forgiuenesse of sins They say there is so in their Masse we say there is none Let the Iudge speake y Mat. 26.28 This is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you for many for remission of sins z Heb. 10.18 Now where remission of sins is there is no more offering for sin It is a question betwixt vs whether the Saints be our Mediators vnto God or not They say they are we say they are not Let the Iudge determine it a 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God saith he and one Mediatour betwixt God and man euen the man Iesus Christ It is a question whether a man be iustified before God by workes or not They say it must be so we say it cannot be Let the Iudge answer it b Rom. 3.20 By the workes of the lawe shall no flesh be iustified in his sight c Gal. 3.11.12 That no man is iustified by the law in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith and the law is not of faith but the man that shall do those things shall liue in them They alledge that the Iudge saith that d Iam. 2.24 a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely we say that that is onely in the sight of men or with men they say that it is in the sight of God Let the iudge end it e Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he had to reioyce but not with God It is a question whether the crosses and sufferings of the Saints do yeeld vs any helpe with God or any part of satisfaction for our sinnes They say they do we say they do not let the iudge tell vs whether they do or not f 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you g Gal 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ It is a question whether the people ought to be partakers of the Lords cup they say no we say yea Let the iudge decide it h Mat. 26.27 Drinke ye all of this Thus in all matters betwixt them and vs the iudge speaketh clearely on our side his words are so plaine as nothing can be more plaine Yet notwithstanding they tell vs that all these things haue another meaning which we must take vpon the Popes word The commādement forsooth is meant of the idols of the Gentiles not of the images of Saints As if a whore-monger should say that the lawe forbiddeth whoredome of Christians with heathens not one with another The Scripture they say intendeth there is no other Mediator of redemption but one but Mediators of intercession there are many As if an adulterous woman should say that she may haue but one husband of this or that sort but of another sort she may haue many And yet they make them mediators of redemption also because they make them mediators of satisfaction and redemption is nothing else but the paiment of a price of satisfaction Thus they dally in the rest and shew themselues impudent and shameles men let them for their meanings reade to vs as plaine words of the iudge as those are that we reade to them and we will admit of them If not they must giue vs leaue to stand to the sentence of the iudge of heauen and earth and to account the Pope as he is a corrupt and wicked iudge although were he what he should be yet void of all title of being iudge to vs. 22. W. BISHOP Giue me leaue gentle Reader to stay somewhat longer in this matter because there is nothing of more importance and it is not handled any where else in all this Booke Consider then with your selfe that our coelestiall Law-maker gaue his law not written in Inke and Paper but in the hearts of his most faithfull subiects * Ierem. 31. 2. Cor. 3. endowing them with the blessed spirit of truth * Iohn 16. and with a most diligent care of instrusting others that all their posteritie might learne of them all the points of Christian doctrine and giue credit to them aswell for the written as vnwritten word and more for the true meaning of the word then for the word it selfe These and their true successors be liuely Oracles of the true and liuing God them must we consult in all doubtfull questions of Religion and submit our selues wholy to their decree S. Paule that vessell of election may serue vs for a singular modell and patterne of the whole who hauing receiued the true knowledge of the Gospell from God yet went vp to Hierusalem with Barnaby to conferre with the chiefe Apostles the Gospell which he preached lest perhaps he might runne in vaine and had runne as in expresse words he witnesseth himselfe * Gal. 2. Vpon which fact and words of S. Paule the auncient Fathers do gather that the faithful would not haue giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. Peter and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approued * Tertul lib. 4. in Marc. Hier. Ep. 89 quae est 11. inter Ep. Augustini August lib. 28. contra Faustū cap. 4. Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of abrogating Moses lawe was it left to euery Christian to decide by the written word or would many of the faithfull beleeue S. Paule that worthy Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Hierusalem to heare what the pillars of the Church would say where by the decree of the Apostles