The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

1. W. BISHOP.

CHristian Reader, I suppose it shall please thee better, if I doe entertaine thy studious minde with some serious discourse, than if I went a∣bout to court it, with the ordinary complements of a curious preamble. Wherefore I purpose (by thy gentle patience) to handle here a mat∣ter of maruellous great importance, which M. PERK. towards the latter end of his booke, laieth out against vs in maner of a most grieuous complaint: it is, that we Catholikes, among ma∣ny other capitall crimes by vs (as he fableth) defended, doe bol∣ster and vphold the most haynous sinne of Atheisme. The man is not a little troubled to deuise wherein we doe maintaine any such point of impietie: For, compelled by the cleere euidence of trueth, he confessed that we doe rightly acknowledge the vnitie of the God-head in the Trinitie of persons: yet that hee may seeme to say something therein against vs, he flieth vnto the threed-bare ragges of their common slanders of mans merits and satisfactions, and such old stuffe: and stretching them on

the tenter-hooks, yet one nayle further then his fellows, striueth to draw out of them a certaine strange kinde of Atheisme, in this maner: The Roman religion makes the merit of the works of men, * 1.1 to concurre with the grace of God, there∣fore it ouerthrowes the grace of God. Item, they ac∣knowledge the infinite iustice and mercy of God, but by consequence both are denied: for how can that be infinite iustice, which may any way bee appeased by humane sa∣tisfaction? And how shall Gods mercy be infinite, when we by our owne satisfactions must adde a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? There needs apretie wit (I weene) to vnderstand how these points appertaine to Atheisme. For sup∣pose that we defended, that the merit of the works of man con∣curred with Gods grace, as two distinct agents, which wee doe not; for we hold that no works of man haue any merit, vnlesse they spring and proceed from the very grace of God: but let that be granted, what kinde of Atheisme or denying of God were this? or how followeth it thereof, that the grace of God (which is the principall agent, and farre more potent than the other) must thereby needs be cast to the ground and foyled? this is so silly & simple, that I know not what to tearme it: for he doth vntruely slander our doctrine, and that to no end and pur∣pose. To this second cauill I answer in a word, that we teach (as he knoweth right well) the infinite iustice of God to be ap∣peased no other way, than by the infinite satisfaction of Christs passion: And that our satisfactions are onely to pay for the tem∣porall pains remaining yet due after the infinite are paid for by Christ. Now whether any such temporall pa••ne remaine or no, after the sinne is remitted, is a question betweene vs: but to say (as M. PER. doth) that we be Atheists, and do denie God to be God, for that we hold some temporall punishment of man to be due, after pardon granted of his greater paine, is most ap∣parantly a very sencelesse assertion. As wide from all reason is his third instance: That Gods mercy cannot be infinite, when by our owne satisfactions wee adde a supply to the satisfaction of Christ. For if Christs most perfect and full

satisfaction, can well stand with Gods infinite mercy: farre more easely may mans satisfactions agree with it, which are in∣finitely lesse than Christs. But the infinite riches of Gods mercy appeareth especially, in that it pleased him freely to giue vnto vs (so meane creatures and wretched sinners) his owne onely deare Son, to be our Redeemer and Sauiour; and both Christs satisfaction and ours are rather to bee referred vnto Gods iustice, than to his mercy: wherefore very vnskilfully doth M. PERK. compare them with Gods mercy. Neither is it possible to distill any quintessence of Atheisme out of it, more than out of the former: nay, they both vprightly weighed, are so farre off from Atheisme, or derogating any thing from Gods glory; that they doe much magnifie and aduance the same. For al∣beit we hold our good works to be both meritorious and satis∣factory: yet doe we teach the vertue, value, and estimation of them, to proceed wholly from the grace of God in vs, whereby we be enabled and holpen to doe them; and not any part of the dignitie and worthinesse of the workes, to issue from the natu∣rall facultie or industrie of the man that doth them. So that when we maintaine the merit or satisfaction of good works, we extoll not the nature of man, but doe onely defend and vphold the dignitie and vertue of Gods grace: which Protestants doe greatly debase, extenuate, and vilifie, not allowing it to bee sufficient to helpe the best minded man in the world, to doe any worke that doth not offend God mortally. Thus much concer∣ning our supposed Atheisme against God: now of those that be (as he imagineth) against Christ the Sonne of God.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. 11.6.