soule for how can God haue all the soule so long as concupiscence hath any part therfore in the remainder of any matter of concupiscence there is sinne because c Ibid. Rat. 15. it is sinne when either there is not loue at all or it is lesse then it should be and it is lesse then it should be when it is not with all the soule Therefore doth S. Austin define sinne to be d Ad Simplâ—â— quaest 2. Est piccatuâ—a hominis mordinatio atque peruâ—rsita â—â—d est à prae â—amiore conditore auersio ad cond iâ—â—ife â—â—ra conuersio hominis inordinatio atque peruersitas a disordered and peruerted condition of man Of man he saith not only of the will of man and therefore if in man there be any disordered or mis-conditioned affection the same is sinne But concupiscence which is a rebellion of the law that is in the members against the law of the mind is a disorder in man and therefore necessarily must be holden to be truly sinne A second errour he committeth in that making concupiscence onely the materiall part of sinne he appropriateth it to the inferiour sensuall and brutish parts and faculties of the nature of man and to the resistance thereof against the superiour and more excellent powers of the will and reason and vnderstanding whereas concupiscence truly vnderstood importeth the vniuersall habite of auersion from God and a corruption spred ouer the whole man and defiling him in all parts and powers both of body and soule And therefore doth the Apostle expound the conuersation in or according to the lusts or concupiscences of the flesh to be e Ephes 2.3 the fulfilling of the will of the flesh and of the minde which he could not do but that concupiscence signifieth also the prauitie and corruption of the mind euen as the Apostle S. Peter also maketh it the fountaine of all f 2. Pet. 1.4 the corruption that reigneth in the world And thus amongst the workes of the flesh which are the fruits and effects and as it were the streame of that fountaine of corruption are reckoned those things which haue their proper seate and being in the highest parts of the soule as are g Gal 5 20.21 idolatrie heresie witchcraft enuie hatred pride which being acts of concupiscence and sinfull lust yet are so farre h August de cui Dei lib. 14. cap. 2 3. from being tied to the inferior parts of the soule which haue their occupation properly in the flesh as that some of them and that specially pride and enuie are noted to be the sinnes of the diuell who hath no communion or societie with the flesh and therefore in the name and nature of concupiscences are meerely the vices and corruptions of the mind Yea S. Austin acknowledgeth that i Idem Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Ipsae cupiditas nihil aliud est quam voluntas sed vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne and that the temptation of concupiscence is nothing else but k De bono perseuer ca. 6. Qui in tentationem suae mala voluntatis non insertur in nullam prorsus infertur Vnusquisque enim tentatur à concupiscentia sua c. the temptation of a mans owne euill will So saith S. Bernard l Bernard in Canâ— ser 81. Voluntate persisto agere contra legem Nam mea voluntas ipsa est lex in membris meis legi diuinae recalâ—itrans Mihi ipsi mea ipsius voluntas contraria inuenitur It is in my will that I continue to do against the law of God for mine owne will is the law in my members rebelling against the law of God mine owne will is found contrarie to my selfe Whereby it appeareth that concupiscence which is that rebelling law of sinne is a deprauation of the will also and not to be restrained to the brutish and sensuall affections of the inferiour part Nay Hierome noteth that it signifieth m Hieron ad Alagas quaest 8. Nos per concupiscentiam omnes perturbationes animae significatas putamus quibus maeremus gaudemus timemus concupiscimus all the passions or perturbations of the soule whereby we ioy or sorow feare or desire which are holden to be n August de ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 3. Origines omnium peccatorum atque vitiorum the originals and beginnings of all sinnes and vices which although Poets and Philosophers haue taken to arise of the flesh yet o Ibid. Non omnia vitae iniquae vitia tribuenda sunt carni ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum qui noâ— habet carnem Christian faith saith Austin teacheth otherwise that we are not to attribute these vices of euill life altogether to the flesh that is to the sensuall part least that of all the sinnes thereof we acquit the diuell because he is without flesh Another errour of his is that he maketh the priuation of Originall iustice and auersion of the will to be the principall matter of Originall sinne For the principall matter in Originall sinne is the p 1. Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Peccatum eos dicimus ex Adam originalitèr trahere id est eius reatu implicatos ob hoc poenae obnoxios deteneri guilt of Adams sinne q Bernard in aduent dom ser 1. Jn Adam omnes peccauimus in illo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes in whom we all haue sinned and in him haue all receiued the sentence of damnation For that must be accounted the principall which is the cause of all the rest and it is the guilt of the first sinne that is the cause of whatsoeuer further sinne originally cleaueth to vs which together with death it selfe is the punishment of that first sinne His fourth error is as touching the cure of Originall sinne which he maketh to be such as if Originall iustice were wholy restored and all auersion of the will from God wholy taken away Which is so palpably false as that we may wonder that he had so little feeling of conscience as that for shame he would write it to the world For if there be that cure that he speaketh of in the Baptized how is it that there is so little effect or token thereof How is it that after Baptisme there remaineth so great crookednesse peruersenesse of nature which we find commonly to be no lesse then from the beginning men haue complained of How is it that it is r Cyprian de Cardinal Christi operib in Prologo Ommno rarum est difficile fieri bonum facile pronum est esse malum haec sine magi stro sine exemplo doctrina statim à pubescentâ—bus annu imbuimur docemur so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodnes so easie and ready a matter to become naught that to the one we attaine with much difficulty albeit
quod est etiam poena peccati Nam quando tale est vt idem sit poena peccati quantum est quod valet voluntas sub dominante cupiditate nisi fortè si piae est vt oret auxilium c. which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne For in that sinne which is also the punishment of sinne how little is it that the will can do against concupiscence or lust hauing dominion ouer it and therfore by reason hereof a man cannot do that that he should do neither can he but do that that he should not do which yet ceaseth not to be a sinne and subiect to punishment because he hath purchased this condition to himselfe by the merit of a former sinne For Adam had it in his power not to sinne and yet did sinne by doing that which he ought not to do and was in his power and libertie not to do and for this cause was giuen ouer as a prisoner to sinne that thenceforth he could not do what he ought to do nor could chuse but do what he should not do Therefore the same Austin asking if that rule that he hath set downe be true how f Ibid. Cur paruuli tenentur rei Respondetur quia ex eius origine tenentur qui non fecit quod facere potuit diuinum scilicet seruare mandatum infants become guiltie and are so holden answereth that it is by being borne of him who did not that that was in his power to do In a word man is not worthie of punishment for not doing that which he cannot do except he haue disabled himselfe for the doing of it but if he haue disabled himselfe as indeed he hath by the first sinne then is he iustly punished both for not doing that which he once could but now cannot do and for doing that which he once could but now cannot chuse but do Which being a case very euident and sundrie times deliuered by S. Austin in retracting the like places against the Manichees may we not wonder at the absurd folly of this man who for conclusion braueth in his termes as if he had caried the matter very cleere when indeed like an ignorant cauiller he himselfe vnderstandeth not what he saith We respect not what natural sence doth teach to shepheards but we cannot but thinke him an ill shepheard ouer the flocke of Christ who taking vpon him to be a doctor of Diuinitie is so ignorant in a principle of religion which by the word of God euery shepheard should know God make him wise to see his owne folly and then he will submit himselfe in obedience to that truth which now in his ignorance seemeth vnto him a strange light of a new Gospell CHAPTER 2. OF ORIGINALL SINNE 1. W. BISHOP M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION Pag 28. THey say naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre forth it is abolished In Originall sinne are three things First the punishment which is the first and second death second guiltinesse which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment third the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltinesse in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenesse to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For first we say that after Baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away Rom. 8.1 For there is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that are in Christ Iesus For the second that is guiltinesse we further condescend and say that it is also taken away in them that are borne anew For considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltinesse is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person But of this more hereafter Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things First that the verie power and strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate Secondly that this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euerie actuall sinne past So far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is Indeed it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed to the person And in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Hitherto M. Perkins Annotations vpon our Consents First vve say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadilio but there lurketh a serpent in that caueat that the guiltinesse of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltinesse of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be pardoned the guiltinesse of it is also remoued frō it selfe Againe what Philosophie or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendor being pardoned for his offence the offence in it selfe remaineth guiltie as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senslesse imaginations be these Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Can there be two contraries in one part of the subiect at once Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time Is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a bodie subiect to sinne All which must be granted contrarie to both Scripture and naturall sence if we admit the fault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other odde corner Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the heart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrarie vnto
deliuered from the body of death For i De nat et grat ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat sed contracta exillo vitia cohaeâ—ent quibus iusta poena debetur the death of the body separateth the wicked from the body when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do sticke fast to which iust punishment remaineth due Therfore when he praieth to be deliuered from this body of death k Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit he meaneth it of the vitious affections of the body l De Temp. ser 45. Per concupiscentiam dictuÌ„ est hoc nostrum mortis corpus By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called So Oecumenius saith that the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from m Oecumen in Ro. ca. 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt the concupiscences which are in the body and which are death vnto vs and do cause a spirituall death n Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatuÌ„ quod mortis est causa It is a body of death saith Origen wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death Ambrose saith that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death o Ambros apud Aug. cont IuliaÌ„ lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est c. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat c. because we all are borne vnder sinne and our very beginning is in trespasse acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin that what it was in the beginning the same in part it continueth still Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith that the Apostle here meaneth p Method apud Epiphan haer 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit c. sinne dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations thoughts whereof he wished to be deliuered accounting the same death and destruction it selfe Bernard saith that it was q Bernard in Cant. ser 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia c. Hoc sanè vnointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino Vnde optabas clamans Quis me liberabit c. the law of sinne euen concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him that made him crie out who shall deliuer me from the body of this death In concupiscence then standeth this body of death and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himselfe miserable it is concupiscence that maketh him miserable which therfore S. Austin calleth r August de Tempore ser 45. miseram legem the miserable law of sin not as being it self capable of misery but per metonymiam because it maketh vs miserable or because we are miserable by it Thus therfore the Apostle acknowledgeth himselfe miserable in himself not as holding himselfe to be in disgrace with God but as finding in himself that for which he deserueth so to be and should be but that God in Christ is mercifull vnto him not to impute the same And what is it but a miserie to haue as it were a filthy carion tied fast to him still breathing out noysome stinke to be continually troubled with an importunat enemy giuing him no rest wearying his soule from day to day nay to cary about with him Å¿ Idem cont Iulian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum queÌ„dam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat euen an army of diuerse and sundry lusts drawing one this way and another that way fighting against him on the right hand and on the left bereauing him of his ioy whilest in most earnest meditations they cary him away whether he will or not from that wherin his delight is If outward crosses do make a man miserable much more this inward destraction affliction which galleth the strings of the hart vexeth the very spirit and soule more then the bitternesse of death it selfe If M. Bishop knew this affliction he would thinke there were cause enough therein to make him crie out Miserable man that I am c. But his benummed heart feeleth it not and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schooles without any conscience or sence of that he saith and to a formall argument as he calleth it giueth these mis-shapen and deformed answers 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second Infants Baptized die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them any other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom 5. Rom. 5. death entred into the world by sinne Ans The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happie exchange of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it sayd most truly of S. Paul Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entred into the world by sinne But the other place The wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wages whereof if they had not repented them had bene hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Original sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of actuall sinne is either to shew great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it R. ABBOT The example of infants dying after Baptisme before they come to yeares of discretion is rightly alledged to proue that sinne remaineth after Baptisme because where there is no sin there can be no death To this M. Bishop sendeth vs a most pitifull and miserable answer that the cause of the death of infants is not sin but either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence Thus he would maintain a priuiledge to infants against the words of S. Iohn a 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues that they may say we say we haue
no sinne and we do not therein deceiue our selues and though we die yet it is not by reason of sin that we die but either by the disteÌ„perature of our bodies or externall violence But if M. Perkins had sayd as he might haue sayd Infants after Baptisme are subiect to distemperature of body and externall violence and death following all which are the proper effects of sinne therefore they are not without sinne in what a wofull case had M. Bishop bene and how had he bene put to his shifts to deuise an answer Surely S. Austin saith that b Auâ—ust in Psal 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quaÌ„ mâ—ruimus primo peccato we suffer not any thing in this life but by reason of that death which we deserued by the first sinne And so saith Origen verie rightly that c Origen in Leuit hom 3. Nobis hominiâ—us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est death and all other frailtie in the flesh was brought vpon vs by the condition or state of sin Therfore distemperature and weaknesse and sicknes and suffering of externall violence are no lesse arguments of sinne then death it selfe and how then doth he make these the causes of death without sinne when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sinne But he addeth further that God who freely bestowed their liues on them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them But yet if there be no sin and if it be as the Trent Councell saith that there is nothing in them that God hateth nothing that hindereth them from entring into heauen why then doth God without cause take away their life and not rather without death receiue them vnto himselfe why doth he not immediatly d 2. Cor. 5 4. cloth them vpon that mortality may be swallowed vp of life This is a mysterie to M. Bishop he cannot tel what to say therof But the dying of baptized infants sheweth that there is still in theÌ„ a corruption of flesh and bloud by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them e 1. Cor. 15.50 flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God neither shall corruption inherite incorruption The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruptioÌ„ the dissolution full mortification of the body of sin that this slough being cast off and mortalitie changed into immortalitie corruption into incorruption they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdome of God Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist that f Epiphan haer 64. ex Methodiâ— In auxiliaris medicamenti moduÌ„ ab auxiliatore nostro verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè inuenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles innoxij inueniamur c. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine c. God as the true Physition hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the vtter rooting out and putting away of sinne that we may be made faultlesse and innocent and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemely in all parts if it be broken and defaced by any meanes must be new cast and framed againe for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it euen so man the image of God being maimed and disgraced by sinne for the putting away of those disgraces and the repairing of his ruines and decayes must by death be dissolued into the earth thence to be raised vp againe perfect and without default Now if M. Bishop will not learne it of vs yet let him learne it of these ancient Fathers that sin is the cause of death euen in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiuen pardoned for Christs sake But he goeth further True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but both haue bene long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the kingdome of heauen But since they haue sinned what Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul Death entred into the world by sinne Well then if it entred by sin into the world doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entred Nay as it entred by sinne so sinne is the onely cause of the continuing of it and without sinne there is no death in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect Now to shew that death is the proper effect of sin M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death But M. Bishop saith that this place is foully abused by him And why so Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternall damnation And what then Doth he therfore not meane bodily death also Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God sayd to our father Adam in the beginning g Gen. 2.17 In the day that thou shalt eate of that forbidden tree thou shalt die the death thereby threatning vnto him both the first and second death And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before that by sinne came death c. Therefore M. Bishops great maister Thomas Aquinas telleth him that when the Apostle immediatly before saith the end of those things is death he meaneth by death h Tho Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata â—e se nata sunt inâ—iucere mâ—â—tem teÌ„poralem eternaâ—â— Et â—o â—arg finis peccati mori tam temporalis quà m aeterna both temporall and eternall death Another exception is that sinne is here taken onely for Actuall sinne which is a fiction meerly absurd and vaine For it is a proposition vniuersall concerning all sinne and so vsed vniuersally by all writers and if it be true of Actuall sinne that the wages of sinne is death much more is it true of Originall sinne which is the filthie and corrupt fountaine whence all actuall sins do spring And that we may know that M. Bishop himselfe is of no other mind he himselfe hath vsed it in the section next saue one before this concerning Originall sinne arguing that if Originall sinne were properly sinne in the regenerate then it should cause death vnto them because the wages of sinne is death Whereby it appeareth that he speaketh but at all aduenture and to serue the present turne without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh whether it be true or false He hath bene brought vp in Bellarmines schoole and of him hath learned to care no further but onely to say somewhat though it be starke naught Now for conclusion of this
cap. 9. Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè viuimus doth a man denie Free will saith he because he attributeth it wholy to God that we liue well q Retract lib. 1â— cap 9. Tale est vt sine illo rectè viuere nequeamus without freedome of will we cannot liue well for how should a man do well without his will but yet this Free wil to liue wel is r Cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas a will not free meerly of it selfe but made free by the grace of God For then is Å¿ De ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest the will of man free indeed when it is free from sinne and such a free will God gaue to man in the beginning but he lost it by his owne default and being lost it cannot be restored but by him that was able first to giue it In Christ therefore it is restored vnto vs who by his t Esai 51.12 free spirit giueth u Esa â—1 1. libertie to the captiues and openeth the prison to them that are bound and x Col. 1.13 deliuereth vs from the power of darknesse and maketh vs y 1 Cor. 7.22 free-men vnto him But yet so as that hauing receiued but a Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit by whom this freedome is wrought according to the words of the Apostle b 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie the same is yet but begun in vs so that c August in Ioan. tract 41. Ex parte libertas ex parte seruitus nondum tota nondum pura nondum plena liberias there is partly freedome and partly bondage not yet whole and pure and perfect freedome For no further is the will freed then it is renewed and it is renewed as yet but in part continuing still d De peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renouatus in quantuÌ„ nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est in part in the old estate Therefore it is so made free as that in some part we haue cause still to complaine with the Apostle e Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne and to pray with the Prophet Dauid f Psal 142.7 Bring my soule out of prison that I may giue thankes vnto thy name Hence is that heauinesse and dulnesse that waywardnesse and vntowardnesse that retention and holding backe that still we find in vs in the applying of our selues to spirituall and heauenly things And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free it is not sufficient to vphold vs and keepe vs in the right way but we haue still neede of the grace of God to be assistant and helpefull vnto vs. g Hieron ad Ctesiphont Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donauit nisi semper donauerit Peto vt accipiam eum accepero rursus peto It is not enough that God hath once giuen sayth Hierome except he still giue I pray to receiue and when I haue receiued I pray againe Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confesse that h August epist 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei adâ—utorium etiam ad singulos actus dari the grace of God is giuen vs to euerie act that we do i Enchirid cap. 32. Nolenâ—em praeuenit vt velit volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit He preuenteth vs to make vs willing followeth vs when we are willing that we do not wil in vaine And if his hand do not hold vs and vphold vs it commeth to passe by the burden of corruptible flesh that we are still relapsing to our selues and still readie with the k Exod. 14.11.12 Israelits to yeeld our selues to become bond againe l Bernard in Cant. ser 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quà m spirites valiens non rediensâ—â— ita fuerit derelicta Our soule saith Bernard is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not againe if it be left vnto it selfe Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church and leaue to calumniate our doctrine who affirme Free will as farre as they affirmed it and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretikes But you will hardly leaue your wont because you see well enough that if you take our doctrine as we deliuer it you can deuise nothing plausibly or colourably to speake against it 2. W. BISHOP M. Per. 2. Conclusion The matters whereabout Free will is occupied are principally the actions of men which be of three sorts Naturall Humane Spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men and beasts as to eate sleepe c. In all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam M. Per. 3. Conclusion Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake to practise any kind of art to performe any kind of ciuill dutie to preach to administer Sacraments c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice Temperance Gentlenesse and Liberalitie and in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution S. Paul saith The Gentiles that haue not the law Rom. 2.14 do the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength And he saith of himselfe Phil 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19 that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable And for the externall obedience naturall men receiue reward in temporall things And yet here some caueats must be remembred First that in humane actions he should say morall mans will is weake and his vnderstanding dimme thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines Summe 12 â— 109. art 4. 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine you might haue quoted the place I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead 2. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it Who knowes not this R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop giueth vs some more of his learned notes and telleth vs that M. Perkins for humane should haue said morall wheras the name of morall actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he
another whereas to that purpose it was vsed and to that purpose most fitly is applyed and therein nothing contained but what is agreable to the truth For whereas he taketh vpon him to correct that terme of necessitie and will haue it to be called infallibilitie and certaintie he malapertly taketh vpon him to teach them that are more learned then himselfe It is a word which S. Austin often vseth vpon the like occasion both against the Pelagians and Manichees b August de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Quia peccauit voluntas secula est peccantem peccatuÌ„ habendi dura necessitas Man sinned by his will saith he and thereupon followed a cruell necessitie of hauing sinne c Retract lib. 1. cap. 1 Naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exortae est A cruell necessitie of sinne grew vpon our nature by the desert of the first sinne d De nat gra cap. 66 Ex vitijs naturae non ex coÌ„ditione naturae est quaedam peccandi necessitas Not by creation but by corruption of nature there is a certaine necessitie of committing sinne e Cont Fortunat. disput â— Post quaÌ„ libera ipse voluntate peccauit nos in necessitatem praecâ—pitati sumus After that Adam sinned by free will we were throwne headlong into a necessitie of sinne all that haue descended of his race And that this necessitie doth well stand with libertie S. Bernard sheweth in calling it f Bernard in Cantic Ser. 81. Ipsa sua voluÌ„tas necessitateÌ„ facit vt nec necessitas cùm voluntaria sit excludere valeat voluntatem nec voluntas cùm sit illecta excludere necessitatem Et postâ— Anima sub voluntaria quadam malè libera voluntate tenetur Et iterum post Voluntas inexcusabilem incorrigibileÌ„ necessitas facis a voluntarie and mis-free necessitie wherein neither can necessitie excuse the will because it is voluntarie nor the will exclude necessitie because it is entangled with delight therein wherein will taketh froÌ„ him all matter of defence and necessitie bereaueth him of possibilitie of amendment and in a word the will it selfe in strange wise causeth this necessitie to it selfe Now then because the state of sinne is such as that there is one way necessitie by the habit of corruption and another way libertie by the free motion of the will very rightly did M. Perkins to expresse the same vse the example of a prison that puts necessitie in one thing and libertie in another And thus in righteousnesse also necessitie and libertie agree and do not one exclude the other For the Angels being by the grace and power of God confirmed in goodnesse are thereby necessarily good g Jdem de grat lib. arist sup so and in such sort good as that they cannot become euill and yet they are freely and voluntarily good because it is the will it selfe that is established in goodnesse The same shall be the state of eternall life to the elect and faithfull h August de perfect iustitia Bene viuendi nunquam peccandi voluntaria foelixque necessitas A voluntarie and happy necessitie of liuing wel and neuer sinning any more Let M. Bishop take knowledge now of this manner of speech and learne not to find fault when he hath no cause But he noteth that we must not vnderstand that a man is at any time compelled to sinne where I may answer him with his owne words before Who knowes not this And againe that this is none of M. Bishops caueat but taken out of M. Perkins M. Perkins had told him so much before hand and therfore what needed this note For this necessitie groweth not of any outward force but from inward nature not by condition of the substance but by accidentall corruption which being supposed there is a necessitie of sinne as in the palsey a necessitie of shaking in the hot feauer a necessitie of burning in the broken legge a necessitie of halting so continuing till the maladie and distemper be cured and done away And whereas M. Bishop referreth this necessitie of sinne to the weaknesse of man and to the craft of the diuell he speaketh too short in the one and impertinently in the other For we are not to conceiue weaknesse onely which may be onely a priuation but a positiue euill habite and contagion of sinne whereby a man sinneth euen without any furtherance of the diuels temptations by the onely euill disposition of himselfe Which euill disposition because it is also in the will it selfe therefore in the midst of that necessitie a man sinneth no otherwise but as M. Bishop requireth to haue it said with free consent of his owne will W. BISHOP M. P. 5. Conclusion The second kind of spirituall actions be good as Repentance Faith Obedience c. In which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans Free will concurreth with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort for in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and Mans will for Mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule when any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willingly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he willeth his conuersion To this end saith S. Augustine He which made thee without thee Seâ— 15 de verb. Apost will not saue thee without thee Againe that it is certaine that our will is required in this that we may do any thing well it is not onely then required in our first conuersion if it be required to all good things which we do but we haue it not from our owne power but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giues a will to desire and will the same as for example when God worke faith at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling wil a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man go together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free-will neither may we proceed farther with them Hitherto M. Perkins Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall
I that do this but sinne that dwelleth in me that is Originall sinne The Papists answer That it is called there sinne improperly because it cometh of sinne and is an occasion of sinne I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Augustine who saith expresly Lib. 1 contr duas Epist Pelag. c. 10 Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet it is not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne as writing is called the hand because it is made by the hand Lib. 1. de nuptijs Concup c. 23. And in another place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sin as cold is called slouthful because it makes a man slouthfull so that the most profound Doctor S. Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins and shall be as well coursed for it by the plaine circumstances of the place For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hated How proues this that sinne there must he taken properly it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him do the euill which he hated then could it not be sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby was so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill As witnesseth Saint Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence Lib. 2. de Goâ—â— cont Maniâ—â— cap. 14. which being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned The first circumstance then alledged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him then for him R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledging the words of S. Paul a Rom. 7.17 It is no more I that do it but sinne that dwelleth in me thereby to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate still retaineth the nature of sinne saith that the Papistes answer that it is called sinne there improperly because it cometh of sinne and is an occasion of sinne M Bishop saith that he approueth this interpretation as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Austin and addeth that the most profound Doctor S. Austin is by M. Perkins stiled a formall Papist But he speaketh this out of a weake head and shallow wit that cannot vnderstand so profound a Doctor as S. Austin is What S. Austins opinion was as touching this point we shall examine hereafter in the ninth section where occasion is more fully offred to speake thereof in the meane time that S. Austin was no Papist is plainly shewed in the b Aphrican CoÌ„cil cap. 101. 105. Affricane Councell where were assembled two hundred and seuenteene Bishops of those parts and Austin one of them to whom Boniface the first then Bishop of Rome sent his Legates desirous to haue an oare in their boate and chalenging to himselfe a supremacie ouer their Churches But they all with one consent let him remember that Austin was one of them resisted this proud attempt and whereas the Bishop of Rome alledged shewed the Nicene Canons yeelding him that supremacie they smelling his fraud and perceiuing that he had falsified and corrupted the Canons sent as to others so namely to the Patriarches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople for the certain vndoubted copies therof VpoÌ„ the sight whereof this peece of knauery being discouered they wrote backe first to Boniface and after to Celestinus that they would not admit any such iurisdiction that they would end their causes within theÌ„selues that they wold allow of no appeales to the bishop of Rome and wished him that he would thencefoorth forbeare to trouble them any more with his Legates Wherein they crossed a speciall point of Poperie which is the maine prop of all the rest and this act of theirs was held to be so preiudiciall to the Sea of Rome and authoritie of the Pope as that c Bonifac. 2. Epi. ad Eulal Concil tom 2. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Celestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Boniface the second affirmed that in pride they did that which they did against the Church of Rome by the instigation of the diuell It appeareth then hereby that S. Austin was no Papist neither was he so as shall appeare in that point which we haue here in hand In the meane time against the answer of the Papists that sinne is improperly taken by the Apostle when he calleth concupiscence by the name of sinne M. Perkins alledgeth the circumstance of the place as first that S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him do the euill which he hated Where to proceed orderly and to giue light to his whole disputation it is first to be resolued what concupiscence is and what sinne is for verie vncertainly shall we argue that concupiscence is sinne vnlesse by definition of both we make it appeare how they accord in one By concupiscence therefore we vnderstand the remainder of the originall corruption of nature after baptisme in the state of regeneration and new birth For man by nature is wholy vncleane and sinfull there is nothing in him but that that is euill nothing but d Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God Whence it is that Chrysostome saith that e Chrysost op imperfect in Mat. hom 3â— Omnis homo naturaliter non solùm peccator est sed etiam totum peccatum Idem habet ex varijs in Mat. locis homil 23. man naturally is not onely a sinner but also wholly sinne and f Jbid. op imperf homil 24. Homo omnia mala haebet in se hath in him all manner of euil Now this corruption which naturally ouerfloweth and drowneth the whole man by the spirit of regeneration is abated and the strength thereof broken but so as that still there remaineth a grieuous infection of it which continually crosseth and resisteth the worke of the holy Ghost and g 1. Pet. 2.11 fighteth against the soule by soliciting enticing it vnto sinne In this remnant of corruption which we call by the name of concupiscence or lust we are to consider both the habite which is the confirmed euill qualitie and also the immediate actions and affections and motions thereof For h August contr Julian Pelag. lib 6. cap. 8. Praeter istum motum inest â—omiâ—i malum vnde surgit hic motus beside the euill motion as S. Austin saith there is within an euill from whence this motion doth arise And this euill continueth when there is no act or motion thereof as when a man is asleepe and the mind thought no
reputed with men who account no sinne at all but either in the performance of the act or in the resolution and purpose of the will We fall not into sinne that is into any morall or actuall sinne into any outward sinne euen in the like sort as S. Iames saith that o Iam. 1.15 concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth foorth sin when yet he did not meane but that concupiscence also it selfe is sinne as shall afterwards appeare 3. W. BISHOP Now to the second O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne how this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can find to proue S. Paule to take sinne there properly Now I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that do it all sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paul ergo Secondly out of those words I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if they walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sin is death that is eternall damnation R. ABBOT Now to the second saith he and when he hath done saith nothing of it but putteth it ouer to the handling of the argument and therfore there will we also examine his examination But though he shift off the one circumstance with ignorance and the other with saying nothing yet as if he had very effectually done what he pretendeth he inferreth that not one poore circumstance of the text could be found to proue that S. Paule tooke sinne there properly marry he will bring vs diuers to proue that he taketh sin improperly Wel then let vs see what these diuers proofes be we doubt they are like his answers the one very bad and the other starke naught First he will proue it by the former part of the sentence It is not I that do it All sinne saith he is committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paule ergo But we deny his minor proposition and it is altogether absurd and senslesse How should concupiscence do any thing in S. Paule which is not done by S. Paule Can the accident of the person be an efficient cause of any thing by it self without the person The accident is but the instrument of the person and what the accident doth the person doth it by the accident And therefore accordingly S. Paule saith a Rom. 7.14.23 I am carnall sold vnder sinne I do that I would not the law of my members leadeth me captiue to the law of sinne I in my flesh serue the law of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my self in my mind serue the law of God and in my flesh the law of sinne This S. Austine well obserued b August de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Adhuc concupisco vtique etiam in ipsa parte ego sum Non enim ego alius in mente alius in carne Sed quid igitur ipse ego Quia ego in mente ego in carne ex v troque vnus homo Igitur ipse ego ego ipse mēte seruio c. Euen in that part that lusteth it is I also for here is not one I in the mind and another in the flesh Why doth he say I my selfe but because it is I in the mind and I in the flesh euen one man of both these Therefore I my selfe euen I my selfe in mind serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne But yet though being but one and the same person he diuideth himselfe as it were into two parts being in part renewed and in part yet continuing old And hereupon he saith It is not I that do it that is not I according to that that is renewed in me and yet I according to that whereby I am still carnall and sold vnder sin not I according to the inner man wherein I delight in the law of God and yet I according to the flesh whereby I am still captiue to the law of sinne of which flesh I say not I because I account my selfe that that I ioy to be and which I shall euer be not that which though it be my selfe yet is that I would not be and which I labour not to be and therefore striue to destroy and put off as being without it to liue for euer c Ibid Mens regit caro regitur magis sum ego in eo quo rego quà m in eò in quoregor I may rather say I in that wherein I rule then in that wherein I am ouerruled therefore I say it is not I that do it and yet it is I in both M. Bishop therefore by his first circumstance proueth iust nothing and euen as little proueth he by the second Which he taketh out of those words d Ver. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing and after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Hereof he argueth thus Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was not sinne properly Which is the same as if a man would argue thus that the true Pope hath his consistorie chaire in Rome but the Pope that now is hath his consistorie in the Laterane Church therefore he that now is is not the true Pope For what is flesh as the Apostle speaketh thereof but a part of the soule the soule it selfe so farre as yet in part it is not regenerate What is M. Bishop so absurd as to thinke concupiscence to be seated in the flesh as the flesh is diuided against the soule Nay the soule it selfe hauing cast off the yoke of obedience to God and betrayed it selfe to the temptations of the diuell for the gratifying and pleasing of the flesh is become a seruant to that that should haue bene a seruant vnto it and being abiected to sensuall and carnall and earthly desires is wholy called by the name of flesh to whose seruice it doth addict it selfe Thus saith Origen that e Origen de princip lib. 3. cap. 4. Anima cùm crassioris sensus fuerit
not foorth except it conceiue So then saith M. Bishop it is not sinne of it selfe But we deny his argument for a mother bringeth foorth a woman and yet she her selfe is a woman also A woman bringeth not foorth a woman except she first conceiue and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne except by consent it first conceiue and yet it is sinne before conception There is nothing in Saint Austins words but standeth well with that that before hath bene said that concupiscence being the habite of sinne doth by gaining the consent of the will bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue but that concupiscence is sinne M. Bishop might very well haue seene if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth where speaking of the same being in vs he saith z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset verùm granitèr obesset nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset It should not onely be in vs but also greatly hurt vs but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes We would haue M. Bishop tell vs how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him but onely sinne especially the hurt being such as S. Austine anone after speaketh of a Tantum quis inest pertraheret ad vltimanâ— mortem to draw vs onely by being in vs to euerlasting death The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust b Cyrilâ—â— Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet ante peccandi actum before the actuall sinne but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue that lust also is not sinne nay in the words immediatly following he proueth that it is sinne affirming that c Vt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpeÌ„ ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus by circumcision we should learne that we shal not be cleane vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane it must needes be sinne because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point Such as the fruit is such is the tree was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree neither is it any thing but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne concupiscence which is the tree must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne But M. Bishop answereth that not concupiscence but the will of man is the tree Which is all one as if he should haue said that not the will of man but the will of man is the tree For it hath bene before shewed that concupiscence is nothing else but the corrupted will of man which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad vntil God do create it anew and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good In a word the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence d 1. Pet. 2.11 the lusts of the flesh so it calleth also the effects deeds of those lusts the workes of the flesh thereby shewing that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9 flesh and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes and all wickednesse do spring 7. W. BISHOP Lib. 5. contr Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I answer that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renew a man perfectly so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgment but may be called euil because it prouoketh vs to euill To this place of S. Augustine Tract 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason where he saith that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answerserueth that sin there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmitie or weaknesse R. ABBOT That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne which before hath bene declared a August contr Julian lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione coÌ„sentientis vel contagione nascentis As blindnesse of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not and the punishment of sinne wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit desireth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind and the punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it or by infecting of him that is borne of it Concupiscence then is sinne as blindnesse of heart is sinne But
blindnesse of heart is properly sinne therfore concupiscence is so also Rebellion against the law of the mind wherby is meant the law of God is properly sinne as before is shewed But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne saith it is therefore called sinne because it is the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne but otherwise also sinne and therefore properly and truly sinne But M. Bishop telleth vs that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne as anone shall appeare He saith further that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne we say is the proper taking of it and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne But the motions and enticements to sinne being the same with concupiscence we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne as sinne is taken largely so as to comprehend concupiscence A learned note But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught he should haue giuen vs here a better reason why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood when concupiscence is called sinne He telleth vs that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill and indeed it is true that very often he so calleth it but yet such an euill as maketh a man euill so that by reason thereof a Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis quamuis Propheta quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though a man be a Prophet a Patriarch an Apostle yet saith Hierome it is said vnto them by our Sauiour If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill but that which is properly sinne Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin But of this shall be spoken more at large anone Onely here it is to be obserued how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill because it prouoketh vs to euill So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill then it is called sinne It is sinne because it prouoketh to sinne and so euill because it prouoketh to euill and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill as shall appeare To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason and giueth to it a very vnproper answer b August in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris tuâ—s So long as thou liuest saith Austin of necessitie sinne must be in thy members sinne is there also taken vnproperly saith M. Bishop And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn c 1. Iob. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs alledging the one and concluding the other by occasioÌ„ of the words of our Sauior Christ d Ioh. 8.34 He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne and the seruant abideth not in the house for euer For hereupon he asketh the question What hope then haue we who are not without sinne and answereth at large that sinne though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne make our selues seruants vnto it because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation is the seruant of sinne that is to say of inward corruption Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith that if sinne be properly taken it may be truly said of some men that they are without sinne because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken that so long as a man liueth it must needs be in him as S. Austin speaketh Now he will proue that sinne is there vnproperly taken because S. Austin placeth it in the members For according to S. Austin and all the learned the subiect of sinne properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance Why M. Bishop is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie but onely by the soule Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse but that he knew that e Aug. contra Julian lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit the flesh is said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh which S. Austine confirmeth and saith that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem rursuâ— motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum ideò dicitur â—are concupiscere aduersus spiritum c. it is the soule it selfe which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to to the flesh and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to the spirit and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit and the spirit contrarie to the flesh Who knoweth not this saith he to Iulian which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs And what doth not M. Bishop know it that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome Let me tell him once againe that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence which the bodie is not of it selfe but onely by the soule and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie but that S. Austin by sinne in the members doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne to say nothing of that I haue before declared that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe thrall and subiect vnto sin For conclusion of this point he
such as hindereth iustice so that by reason thereof no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God M. Perkins therefore rightly alledged this place to proue that concupiscence is sinne and M. Bishop in answering it sheweth himselfe a man of wretched and euil conscience who being so shut in with the truth as that he knew not which way to resist yet wold rather by falshood and collusion shift it off then renounce the errors to the maintenance whereof he hath wickedly sold himselfe 9. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose in steede of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne but expounds him to meane that it is not sinne in that person but in it selfe which is alreadie confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person But if the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarch Iohn Caluin saith of it Lib. 3. Instit cap. 3. num 10. where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the old Writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turn who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certaintie of the iudgement of antiquitie Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sinne but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmitie then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the act of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hold that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carieth the credit of all antiquity Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is flatly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we do consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnesse of such Masters who hauing so highly commended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe presuming that some would be so shallow-witted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them S. Chrisostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues Homil 11 in epist ad Rom. but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that I may for example sake touch one of them Concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlawfull riot of it S. Bernard whom M. Perkins often citeth against vs Serm. de seâ— tribul and therefore may sometimes be alledged for vs hath these words Sin is at the dore but if thou do not open it it will not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou willingly yeeld vnto it it shall do thee no hurt withhold thy consent and it preuaileth not S. Aug. and S. Cirill haue bene cited already S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter who with the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquity is wholy for vs. And if any desire to know the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius where he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectary 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 is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position R. ABBOT If M. Perkins had no better fortified his positions then M. Bishop doth his answers he should with vs haue bin holden for too weake a man to meddle in controuersies of diuinity But as Tertullian said that a Tertul. de praescript Nusquam facilius proficatur quâ—â—â— in castris reâ—ellium vbi ipsum esse illic proâ—â—reri est it is no where more easie thriuing then in the camp of rebels where to be only is to be in pay so may we say that it is no where more easie writing then amongst hereticks and rebels against the truth where to write onely is sufficient to commend a man it is no matter how or what he write Such a writer is M. Bishop a bad one God knowes but we can looke for no better of him then the matter will affoord him He saith that M. Perkins had but one sentence of S. Austine for the maintenance of his position and that nothing for his purpose but M. Perkins hath alledged more then he hath answered and it seemeth that that one sentence was to the purpose which he could no otherwise shift of but by lowd dissembling and concealing of that wherein S. Austine with maine streame doth runne against him Againe he telleth vs that M. Perkins confesseth ingenuously that S. Austine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sinne and we confesse as much and expound S. Austines meaning as he doth that it is not sinne to the person not that in it selfe it is not sinne But this he saith is already confuted and we say that his imagined confutation is already reconfuted But he giueth vs a reason why it cannot be so For sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person the sin of the same person And we answere him by S. Austine that it is sinne in the person and the sinne of the person by inherent quality and disposition but it is not the sinne of the person by account of guilt and imputation For the approouing whereof M. Perkins alledged two places out of Austine which M. Bishop honestly passeth ouer as if he had not seene them but they will meete with him againe anone In the meane time he bringeth vs in our Patriark as he calleth him Iohn Caluin referring his Readers to S. Austine to know by him the iudgement of antiquity concerning this matter of concupiscence Where I answere him that we honour Caluin indeede as a singular instrument of God for the restoring of the light of his truth and ouerthrowing of the throne of the purple whoore of Rome but we make him no Patriarch we follow him
when they are done they are past yet the guilt still abideth and except it be pardoned shall abide for euer so the guilt of concupiscence when it is pardoned is taken away though it selfe abide For not to haue sinne is all one as to say not to be guilty of sinne He that hath committed adultery though he doe it no more is still guilty till it be pardoned Therefore he hath his sinne still though that which he hath committed now is not in being being past with the time wherein it was done Such sinnes therefore remaine except they be forgiuen But how do they remaine being now past but because they are past as touching their actuall being but remaine still as touching the guilt Euen so saith he it may well be that concupiscence of the flesh remaineth still as touching the actuall being but yet as touching the guilt is past and gone He calleth this concupiscence h Ibid. cap. 23. Propter damnabile vitium quo vitiata est natura humana daÌ„natur a damnable pollution and vncleannes wherewith the nature of man is defiled and for which it is condemned And he saith thereof that i Contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 2. Est in homine aliquid mali quod non ipsum sed reatus qui ex illo contractus fuerat auferiuâ— in Baptismo not the euill it selfe but the guilt that is gathered thereof is taken away in baptisme that this sinne is k Jbid. Mortuâ— est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs that l Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 13. Reatus eius generatione tractus regeneratione dimissus est ideo iam non est peccatum the guilt thereof which we haue drawen by generation is pardoned by regeneration and therefore now it is not sinne Thus when Iulian obiected to him that if concupiscence were euill then the baptised should be without it he answereth that m Contr. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 5. Baptizatus caret omni peccato noÌ„ omni malo quod plantùs ita dicitur caret reatu omnium maloruÌ„ non omnibus malis the baptised is voided of all sinne not of all euill Which saith he is more plainly spoken thus He is voide of the guilt of all euill not of all that is euill affirming the guilt onely to be taken away but that the euill that before made him guilty remaineth still Therefore he saith that n Ibid. lib. 2. NoÌ„ eodem modo appellatur paccatuÌ„ quo facit reum priùs Cuius manentis reatus in sacro fonte remissus est concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guiltie because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration The places are infinite wherein he speaketh to the same effect that o De peccat mer. remissa ib. 1. cap. 39. Ipsa lex peccati soluâ—o reatus vinculo manet c. the law of sinne the bond of the guilt thereof being loosed continueth still that p Jbid. lib. 2. cap. 28. Manente ipsa lege concupiscentiae reatus eius soluitur the law of concupiscence is still abiding but the guilt thereof is released that q Cont. Iulian. lib 2. Sauet vitiatum à reatu statim ab infirmitate paulatim God healeth the corruption of man from the guilt foorthwith but from the infirmity by litle and litle that r Ibid Remittitur in baptismate lex peccati non finitur the law of sin is remitted and pardoned in baptisme but not ended that Å¿ Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 5. Vitia ista curantur priùs vt reatu non teneant deinde vt conflictu non vincant postremò vt omni ex parte saenata nulla omnino remaneant the vices of concupiscence are cured by the grace of Christ that they hold vs not in guilt but that they remaine for vs to fight with and conquer and last of all to be perfectly healed not to be at all still beating vpon this that there is still remaining the same thing that was before the law of sinne before the law of sin still euill before euill still a vice or corruption before a vice and corruption still onely the guilt taken away and therby onely denied to be sin Now in this we contend not with Austin nor Austin with vs we shall easily accord with him that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne as sinne importeth and implieth guilt because the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned But setting aside the respect of guilt and considering sinne as it is oposite to righteousnes doth he in that respect acquit concupiscence from the condition of sinne No verily for he acknowledgeth that t Contr. Julian lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum sed quod sit reatu primi hominis faction quod rebellando nos trahere uttitur ad reatum though it be not called sinne in that sort as that it maketh guilty yet it is called sinne for that by rebelling it laboureth to draw vs into guilt And when Iulian the Pelagian tooke hold of that that he said that concupiscence and rebellion of the flesh was iustly laid as a punishment vpon the disobedience of man and hereupon argued that then it was no euill but rather a thing to be commended as Gods seruant for reuenge vpon him that had deserued it to refute his collection answereth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne or the cause of sinne but also very sinne it selfe u Contr. Iulian. lib. 5. cap. 3. supr sect 7. because there is in it a rebellion against the law of the mind and therfore that vainely he inferred that concupiscence because it was a punishment was to be commended Where to say that S. Austin taketh sin vnproperly as M. Bishop doth is to make him to speak very absurdly if we consider the occasion wherupon he speaketh But to shew that concupiscence though in respect of guilt it be not sin yet otherwise it is truly so he calleth it in the regenerate x De pecca mer. remis lib. 2. cap. 28. PeccatuÌ„ remissum superatuÌ„ pereÌ„ptum a pardoned sin a sin conquered destroyed y De nupt coÌ„cup lib. 1 ca. 33. Peccatum illud quod remissum tectum est non imputatur Et lib. 2. cap. 34. a sin forgiuen couered not imputed and out of S. Ambrose z Conâ—r Iulian. lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat donec sepulturae perfectione sanctur rebellat mortâ—um a dead sin because saith he it is dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs and being dead yet rebelleth vntill by accomplishment of buriall it be healed So then as touching guilt it is conquered destroyed dead and it is not sinne but by rebellion it still liueth therin it is truly sin And therefore doth he
2. ex Hilar. in Psal 118. Gimel Nos in hoc terreni morti câ—â— corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse that we cannot be cleane in the tabernacle of this earthly and carion body x Jbid. ex homil quadam de lib. sancti Iob. Memores conscuÌ„ illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omniuÌ„ esse materiem pro quae polluti sordidi ni il in nebis munâ—uÌ„ nihil innotens obâ—inemus that our bodies are the matter of all vices by reason whereof being polluted and defiled we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane not as to condemne the substance of the bodie die but y Ibid. pugnandi necistias contra malum non sub stantiam sed sub stantie vitium vitium substantiae the vitious quality of the substance and to signifie that therewith we still continue in part stained and defiled so long as we continue vpoÌ„ the earth Now there is nothing wherby we are vncleane polluted defiled but onely sinne Seeing therfore by the remainder of Original sinne that is by concupiscence we continue after baptisme vncleane polluted defiled it followeth necessarily that co câ—piscence after baptisme is properly and truly sinne And if concupiscence be not sinne without consent then by S. Austines iudgement the Apostles must be said to liue without sinne For he affirmeth of them that they were z Contr. duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap 11. Apostolos dicimus à prauorum libidinum consensione liberos c. free from any consent to euil lusts meaning it after they had receiued that great measure of the holy Ghost And so much he affirmeth particularly of the Apostle a Ju Joan. tract 41. Faciebat vt concupiscentia non consentiret Vide Bernard in Cantic Ser. 56. Paul But to affirme that the Apostles were free from sinne is b De nat grat cap 36. Omnes sancti si interrogari potuissent vna voce clamassent si dixerimus quia peccatum non habeâ—â—â—â— c. contrary to the doctrine of S. Austine Concupiscence therfore by S. Austines iudgement must necessarily be sinne And hereto agree also the iudgements of the rest of the Fathers Cyprian calleth it in the regenerate c Cypri de rat circumcis Huius contagio corruptelae Babyloniae fornax domesticum malum de quo â—ruhescent quicunque mundè corde regere in decore suo videre desiderant insaniens bestia corrupti anhelitus catenis ferreis in vltimis animae recessibus alliganda a corruption the fornace of Babylon a domesticall euill of which they will be ashamed who desire with pure heart to see the king in his beautie a raging beast of stinking breath to be tied vp with iron chaines in the furthest passages of the soule He saith againe of the d Idem de teiun et tentat Christi Nec originali nec personali nec personalicaeruere delicto holy Prophets and Priests that they wanted neither Originall nor personall sinne and thereby confesseth that in holy men Originall sinne continueth still Ambrose calleth concupiscence euen in the regenerate e Ambros de Apol. Dauid ca. 11. Deplorauit in se Dauid inquinamenta naturae Et ibid. cap. 13. Iniquitas operatrix cuâ—pae delicti radix seminarium peccatorum mala radix affectus erroris a defilement of nature iniquitie the worker of default and trespasse the seed-plot of sinnes an euill roote an affection of errour Bernard in the like sort calleth it f Bern. de sex tribulat Quod in homine pimum ab hac macula immune ab hoc contagio poterit inueniri Tribulatio dum resistirur contaminationi concupisceÌ„tiae repugnatur De corde exit pestiferum virus Huic multisariae pesti resistere Fomes totius nequitiae Fornax ambitionis c omnium denique vittorum affectibus vehementer acceâ—sa a contamination a blot a contagion a pestilent poyson a manifold pestilence the cherishment of all naughtinesse a fornace strongly burning with the affections of ambition auarice enuie wilfulnesse lewdnesse and all vices He againe maketh it euen by it selfe g Bernar in Cant. ser 56. Pauli animae ab aspecta complexu dilecti vnus tantummodo paries obsistebat videlices lex peccati Ipsa est carnis concupescentia c. paries primus concupiscentia secundus consâ—nsus c. a wall which so long as it is in vs excludeth and shutteth vs out from God as of Paul for example he saith that this one wall hindered his soule from the sight and embracing of his beloued Sauiour By all which the Reader may esteeme what consciences they had in the Councell of Trent that set it downe to the world as an article to be beleeued that concupiscence is h Concil Triden Sess 5. In renatis nihil quod odit Deus nihil ab ingressu coeli remoratur not a thing that God hateth that it is not a thing that hindereth from entring into heauen These speeches cannot be thus applied to any thing but sinne We haue no cause to be ashamed of any thing before God but onely sinne God cannot but hate all spirituall corruption all filthinesse all iniquitie all contagion and vncleannesse of the soule and seeing concupiscence is a wall that shutteth vs out from God it must needs be sinne because nothing can diuide vs from God but onely sinne Now therefore as touching the two places which M. Bishop citeth in the second section wherein S. Austin denieth concupiscence to be sinne the answer is plaine by Austin himselfe i De nupt Concupis lib. 2. cap. 34. Quia remissa est in remissione peccatorum non iam regeneratis in peccatum reputatur because it is forgiuen to the regenerate by remission of sinnes it is not now reputed to them for sinne It is sinne in it owne nature but because the guilt thereof is pardoned therefore and in that respect onely it is not accounted sinne And hereby the answer is plaine to that other cauill which they borrow also from S. Austin that k Epist 200. Si nocti eorum adhiberemus assensum non esset vnde diceremus patri nostro qui in coelis est Dimitte nobis c. for concupiscence or the desires and motions thereof we do not say forgiue vs our trespasses so long as we giue no consent vnto them For the reason that S. Austin giueth of that assertion is l Cont. 2. epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsam cuius iam reatus lauaecro regenerationis absumptus est dicunt in oratione Baptizati Dimitte nobis c. Et cont lit Petil. lib. 2. ca. 103. Neque de his peccatis hoc petimus quae nobis in Baptismo taem dimissa sunt because the guilt thereof is alreadie taken away in Baptisme because the same are alreadie forgiuen and pardoned in Baptisme thereby insinuating that concupiscence and the motions thereof in themselues are such as for which we should say forgiue
haue profited by the words of Christ and haue taken occasion thereby to come to Christ for the obtaining of eternall life the true meanes whereof he directeth when he saith n Iohn 17.3 This is life eternall to know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Which knowledge of Christ seeing this man had not without which M. Bishop himselfe I hope will say there is no eternall life surely euen by his owne grounds it must be absurd to say that Christ by these words did simply intend to direct him a way for the obtaining of eternall life And if he will say that he was indeed first to beleeue and then by faith to keepe the commandements thereby to enter into life the Apostle taketh exception against that when citing the words of the Prophet The iust shall liue by faith he inferreth o Gal. 3.11 Now the law is not of faith but saith He that doth these things shall liue in them For if the law saying He that doth these things shall liue in them do not accord with the faith of Christ then it is not for them that professe the faith of Christ in the doing of these things that is in the keeping of the commandements to expect the obtaining of eternall life Yea p Tertull. de praescript Euaetuatur gratiae Euangelica si ad legem Christum redigit the grace of the Gospell is made void if it bring Christ to the law saith Tertullian which he learned of the Apostle saying q Gal. 5 4. Ye are voided of Christ ye are fallen from grace that will be iustified by the law Therefore he saith r Rom. 4.14 If they which be of the law be heires then faith is made void and the promise is made of none effect ſ Gal. 3.18 If the inheritance be by the law it is no longer by promise But God hath giuen it by promise and therefore faith beleeueth t 1. Ioh 5.10.11 that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is not in our keeping the commandements but in his sonne and in him only we are to expect it that from the beginning to the end we may still confesse that u Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. The commandements of God therefore are now laid before vs not as the condition for obtaining of eternall life but as the way to walke in vnto eternall life assured vnto vs by the free promise and gift of God And of this promise and gift of God the keeping of Gods commandements is a part who hath said x Ierem. 31.33 I will put my law in their hearts and in their minds will I write them y Ezech. 36.27 I will put my spirit into them and will cause them to walke in my statutes and to keepe my iudgements and do them Whereto agree the words of the Apostle z Ephe. 2.10 We are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Which workmanship when by the grace of God it is begun in vs albeit by reason of many imperfections it be not such as that by the vertue thereof we may expect eternall life yet our faith receiueth further confirmation and assurance thereby that he that hath wrought this beginning of life will go forward therewith to the end and hauing made vs partakers of one part of his promise will make vs also partakers of the other taking these first fruites of sanctification as an earnest and pledge from him of the performance of the whole Therefore albeit we well know that we do not keep the cōmandements of God as we ought to do yet we do not for that cause stand in doubt of eternall life but finding our hearts truly affected towards God a Mat. 5.6 hungring and thirsting after righteousnesse vnfainedly hating sinne and groning vnder the burden of it b Heb. 12.1 hanging so fast on we comfort our selues that God hath made the light of his Saluation to shine vnto vs resoluing according to his promise that this Sunne-rising though it be not yet fully cleare and may haply sometimes be ouercast with clouds yet shall neuer haue any night but that accepting our godly indeauours pardoning our defects and wants forgiuing vs all our sinnes he will c Phil. 1.6 perfect the good worke which he hath so graciously begun in vs so that the true faithfull soule may alwaies boldly say d Psal 23.6 Thy louing kindnesse and mercy shall follow me all the daies of my life and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for euer Now because M. Bishop laieth no other but a rotten foundation no maruell if he build no other but a tottering and shaking house because he looketh to haue life grow out of his keeping of the commandements which is as a reed continually shaken with the wind no maruell if he deny to himselfe any stedfast assurance and trust of attaining thereunto But yet it is a falshood of his to charge the Protestants with affirming that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can keepe Gods commandements The Protestants onely say that God giueth vs not that fulnesse of grace whilest here we liue as that we can fully and perfectly keepe the commandements of God so as to be iustified thereby but they deny not but that all the faithfull according to the degrees and measure of grace receiued do in a measure keepe Gods commandements and as grace is increased so they increase in the keeping of the commandements and that this grace shal yet further renew and sanctifie them in such sort as that in the end corruption sin being wholly abolished for euer they shall be fully conformed to that image of righteousnesse that God hath described in the law But of this hereafter In the meane time we see by that that M. Bishop hath told vs of faith that the Church of Rome indeed teacheth no other faith but the same that deuils haue Which being obiected by M. Perkins he laboureth to cleare but saith nothing to serue the turne but by ouerthrowing that which he buildeth otherwhere He saith that the deuils know all to be true which we beleeue but yet do want a necessary condition of faith which is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith and so haue no faith to speake properly But if godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith be a necessary condition of faith as he telleth vs here so as that that which is called faith without this is not properly so called how then standeth it which elsewhere he determineth that faith truly and properly so called may be without charity and good works For what godlinesse what deuotion what submission or obedience can there be where charity is not Godlinesse deuotion submission obedience what are they but good works If then
was impossible that God should lie we might haue strong consolation which can be but very weake yea none at all so long as we hang it vpon any other thing It is therefore a wicked presumption to hope for Saluation by vertue of our owne doings but the presumption that groweth of faith is a commendable presumption h Ambros de Sacrament lib. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione suâ— sed de Christi gratia c. Bona praesumptio It is a good presumption saith Ambrose to presume not vpon thine owne worke but vpon the grace of Christ Such a presumption S. Austin teacheth i August in Psal 85. Quicquid est circae te vel inte vnde possit praesumâ—re abijce à te tota praesumptio tua Deus sit Whatsoeuer there is about thee or in thee to presume of cast it from thee and let God be thy whole presumption or presume wholy vpon God Namely in that sort as S. Ambrose teacheth by occasion of Dauids words k Psal 119.116 Receiue me according to thy word l Ambros in Psa 118. Ser. 15. IntoleraÌ„dae praesumptionis videretur Deo dicere suscipe me nisi promissum eius adiungeret hoc est vt auderemus ipse feeiâ—â—i tuo te chirographo conuenimus It were a matter of intollerable presumption saith he to say to God Receiue me but that he addeth the promise of God as if he should say Thou hast caused vs to presume we challenge thee vpon thine owne bond This is the presumption of true faith whereby we withdraw our eyes from our selues and cast them wholy vpon God assuredly beleeuing that we shall receiue because we beleeue in him that promiseth Therefore Gregorie saith m Greg. Magn. in Ezech. hom 22. Per praesumptionem gratiae vitae caniant iusti iudicium quod ti iusti omnes pertimescunt By presuming of grace and life the righteous sing of that iudgement which all the vnrighteous are afraid of Let M. Bishop then learne that there is a godly presumption of Saluation and eternall life which because it cannot arise of any sufficiencie of our workes must necessarily be grounded vpon faith alone Wherein notwithstanding faith receiueth comfort and strength by the good fruits and effects of grace in the feare and loue of God in faithfull care and conscience of duty towards God and men because albeit of themselues they cannot be presumed of yet being fruits of faith euen in their beginnings imperfections are n Bernard de grat lib. arbit Occuliae praedestinationis indicia future foepâ—citatis praesagia tokens of Gods secret election foretokens of future happinesse so that a man o Idem epist 107. Vocatus quisque per timorem iustificatus per amorem praesumit se quâ—que esse de numerâ— beatorum called to God by feare and framed to righteousnes by loue presumeth that he is of the number of them that shal be blessed M. Bishop is not acquainted with true faith and professeth that he knoweth not whether he haue any feare or loue of God and therfore no maruell that he is a stranger to this presumption do take that to be an vnlawfull presumption which indeed is nothing but true faith 6. W. BISHOP To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them To his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answer to the third first which is The Catholikes say Pag 56. we are indeed to beleeue our Saluation on Gods part who is desirous of all mens Saluation very rich in mercie and able to saue vs but our feare riseth in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sins depend vpon our true repentance Vnlesse you do penance ye shall all perish Luke 13. And the promises of Saluation is made vpon condition of keeping Gods commaundements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements Againe No man shall be crowned Math. 19.2 Tim. 2. except he combat lawfully Now we not knowing whether we shall well performe these things required by God at our hands haue iust cause to feare lest God do not on his part performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions To this M. Perkins answereth That for faith and true repentance euerie man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them To which I replie that for faith being rightly taken it may be knowne of the partie that hath it because it is a light of the vnderstanding and so being like a lampe may be easily seene but true repentance requires besides faith both hope and charitie vvhich are seated in the darke corners of the vvill and cannot by faith be seene in themselues but are knowne by their effects vvhich being also vncertaine do make but coniectures and a probable opinion so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith Proue your selues whether you be in faith or no. 2. Cor. 13. Because we accord that it may be tried by vs whether we haue faith or no although I know well that Saint Pauls words carrie a farre different sence But let that passe as impertinent To the other 1. Cor. 2.12 That we haue receiued the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God What things these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs S. Paul teacheth in the same place That which the eye hath not seene nor eare hath heard c. God hath prepared for them that loue him but to vs God hath reuealed by his spirit All this is true but who they be that shall attaine to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared God onely knoweth and by his spirit reuealeth it to verie few And will you learne out of S. Ierome that ancient Doctor the cause why In 3. caput Ion. Therefore saith he it is put ambiguous and left vncertaine that while men are doubtfull of their Saluation they may do penance more manfully and so may moue God to take compassion on them R. ABBOT The condition of repentance is required not as whereby we worke our Saluation but whereby we seeke it and that not by the keeping of the commandements wherein we all faile but in Christ alone by faith in him whence followeth a measure of keeping Gods commandements and of striuing lawfully vnto him not as any proper cause of Saluation but as parts and tokens and preparations of and to that Saluation which we receiue and haue by Christ alone Now here M. Perkins bringeth in the Popish Doctors affirming that we cannot be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that which we suppose our selues to haue M. Perkins answereth that he that doth truely repent and beleeue knoweth that he doth so To this M. Bishop replieth that faith being rightly taken may be
cause in confession of sinnes to ioyne themselues with other men euen as the Prophet Esay elsewhere doth d Esa 6.5 Wo is me I am a man of polluted lippes and I dwell in the middest of a people of polluted lippes But saith M. Bishop if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lied in saying There is none that calleth vpon thy name because he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort As if they in whose name the Prophet speaketh might not without a lie by wordes of the present time deplore the vniuersall neglect of calling vpon God which had beene amongst them as Daniel acknowledgeth and for the most part continued still though God had stirred vp some of their hearts now to make supplication vnto him or as if they that did pray might not finde in themselues that faintnesse and want of heart and spirit as might cause them in this behalfe to accuse themselues vnto God We cannot doubt but that there were manie faithfull and godly amongst the Iewes in that time of their desolation yet in those faithfull and godly there was that default to be found as that God sayd of them e Esa 51.18 There is none to guide her among all the sonnes that shee hath brought foorth there is none that taketh her by the hand of all the sonnes that shee hath brought vp In a word the Prophet in saying There is no man that calleth vpon thee might note a publicke contempt of calling vpon God without exception against himselfe as where he saith f Esa 59.4 No man calleth for iustice no man contendeth for truth and such like and yet could not say We haue sinned vve haue all beene as an vncleane thing without intendment of himselfe Last of all he alledgeth that the best learned among vs quoting Luther and Caluin on this place doe confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes What Luther saith vpon the place I know not not hauing the booke at hand but g Assert artic 31 otherwhere he doth alledge it against the vertue of good workes Caluin giueth his opinion that it doth not so properly serue to that purpose but his reason is of lesse waight then that it should take from vs a proofe in the verie words so cleere and pregnant as this is But if Luther and Caluin on our side doe denie it let him take h Pigh controu de fide iustificat Pighius and i Ferus in Mat. cap. 20. Ferus of his owne side confessing and acknowledging that this place doth make against the vertue of good workes both of them alledging it for an argument against the perfection thereof Or if they beare no sway with him let him heare them whose authoritie hee may not well disclaime Origen saying thus k Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Quis vel super iustitia sua gloriabitur cùm audiat Deum per Prophetam dicentem quia omnis iustitia vestra sicut pannus mulieris meÌ„struatae Who vvill glorie concerning his Righteousnesse seeing he heareth God saying by the Prophet All your Righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous vvoman Hierome thus l Hieron in Esa cap 64. Quicquid videmur habere iustitiae panno menstruaâ—e mulieris comparatur By thy mercie vve shall bee saued vvho by our selues are vncleane and vvhatsoeuer Righteousnesse vve seeme to haue it is compared vnto a menstruous cloth Saint Austine alluding to the same place sayeth m August soliloq cap. 28. Nos omnes quasi pannus menstruatae de massa corrupta immunda venientes maculam immunditiae nostrae in frontibus portamus c. Whatsoeuer hee toucheth that is vncleane by the lavv it shall be vncleane But vve all as the cloth of a menstruous vvoman being come of an vncleane and corrupt masse do carrie in our foreheads the blot of our vncleannesse vvhich from God that seeth all things vve cannot hide thereby acknowledging that blot remaining in vs which must needes staine whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs. But Saint Bernard is most frequent both in affirming this staine of all our Righteousnesse and in applying this place to the proofe thereof n Bernard in Fest omn. sanct serm 1. Quid potest esse omnis iustitia nostra coram Deo Nonne iuxta Prophetam velut pannus menstruatae reputabitur si destrictè iudicetur iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra minus habens What can all our Righteousnesse be saith he in the sight of God shall it not as the Prophet sayth be reputed as a menstruous or defiled cloth and shall not our iustice if it be strictly iudged be found vniust and scant And in another place o Idem de verb. Esa serm 5. Nostra siqua est humilis iustitia recta forsitan sed non pura nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quà m patres nostros qui non minùs veracitèr quam humiliter atebant Omnes iustitiae c. Our base Righteousnesse if it bee any is right perhaps but not pure vnlesse haply vve thinke our selues better then our fathers vvho no lesse truly then humbly sayd All our Righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth Againe in another place he sayeth likewise p Jdem in dedicat eccles ser 5. Ipsae iustitiae nostrae omnes ad lumen veritatis inspectae velut pannus menstruatae inueniuntur All our verie Righteousnesses beeing looked vpon by the light of truth are found as a menstruous cloth Againe q Idem de verb. Apost Qui gloriatur c. Perfecta secura gloriatio est cùm veremur omnia opera nostra c. Et cum Esâ—ia Propheta omnes iustitias nostras non aliud quâ—m pannum menstruatae reputandas esse cognoscimus Our perfect and secure reioycing is vvhen vvee are afraide of all our vvorkes as holy Iob vvitnesseth of himselfe and vvith the Prophet Esay doe knovv that all our Righteousnesse is to be no otherwise reputed but as a defiled cloth Hereby then let M. Bishop now vnderstand that M. Perkins dealt no otherwise but dexterously in the handling of this place and that that which the Prophet Esay spake did so concerne the faithfull of that time and place whereof he spake as that they haue true application to the faithfull of all times and in all places because no reason can bee giuen why the faithfull of one time should so speake but by the same it is enforced vpon the faithfull of all times 4. W. BISHOP 1. Cor. 4. But he will amend it in the next where he proues out of Saint Paul that a cleare conscience which is a great part of inherent iustice can nothing helpe to our Iustification I am priuie to nothing in my selfe and yet I am not iustified thereby Here is a verie pretie peece of cosinage What doth the Apostle say that he vvas not iustified by his cleere conscience nothing lesse but that albeit he
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
Christ had imposed vpon him Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon alledgeth as Gregorie doth the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man not moued with the l 2. Cor. 5.11 terrours of the Lord and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at We know it well saith he Yea do but what is then your refuge and defence Marrie seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne as saith he M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame For neither the Apostle nor M. Perkins do teach that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned so that though it continue still in vs yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned Surely they that rightly know themselues do know that in themselues there is that still being for which God might iustly cast them away if he should iudge them in themselues but their comfort hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise There is no condemnation because there is nothing worthie of condemnation all iustice all innocencie no impuritie or vncleannesse no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day We are purged from Originall sinne saith he vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd as we heard before n August epist 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabâ—tur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne What hope then is there saith he vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement And what in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge no sinne no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of We haue seene before that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes S. Austin saith very well o Aug. in Psal 42. Quiâ—unque hic viâ—it quantum libet iuste viuaâ— vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith p Greg. Moral li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant nequaquam sibi ad iustâ—tiam vel electi sufficieÌ„t si districtè in iudicio requirantur Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice shal be able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome q Hieron in Esa l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissolueÌ„tur omnes manus quia nâ—llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur c. Omne quoque corâ—siue anima hominis tabescet pauebit conscientia peccati sui When the day of iudgment or of death shall come all hands shal be dissolued because there shal no worke be found vvorthie of the iustice of God neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight Whereupon the Prophet saith O Lord if thou markest iniquities who shall endure it euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge The best is that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified Yet to make his matter good he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith that he had runne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie as well in the r Rom. 3.27 law of faith as in the law of workes but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth he considereth with fauour and Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not and all this he doth as a iust iudge because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26 the vttermost farthing nothing pleaseth but what is exact and perfect and fully answerable to the rule S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne not by the law of workes but by the law of faith wherein God u Psal 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse because this crowne is a crowne of iustice x Bernard de grat lib. arbit sub finem Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae JustuÌ„ est quippe vt reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus promissio
yet are reputed iust and righteous for his sake and for the Righteousnesse that is in him To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in and the place quoted He omitted to answer to Anselme because the place was not quoted but why did he ouerpasse the other place cited directly to the point but because he intendeth nothing but treacherie and falshood and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth The words of Hierome are as cleare as the sunne c Hieron in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit vt nos efficeremâ—r iustitia Dei in ipso non nostra nec in nobis Christ being offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that vve might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him not ours nor in vs. Where it is euident that the Righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is not any Righteousnesse that is in vs but it is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs euen as our sinne was imputed vnto him Now then it should seeme that it was not M. Perkins his vaine glosse to make this comparison but it was some likelihood thereof in the text that made all these to conceiue thereof as M. Perkins did As touching the other proposition But Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he saith that it also is false and denieth that Christ vvas made sinne by imputation But how then if not by imputation Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sinne But how was he made a sacrifice for sinne if not by hauing sinne imputed vnto him The ancient writers well obserued in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law that the sacrifice for sinne was sometimes called by the name of sinne As where Moses saith d Leuit. 4.29 He shall lay his hand vpon the head of the sinne that is of the sinne offering and he shall slay the sinne that is the sacrifice for sinne Now because they found the name of sinne to be thus giuen to the sacrifice for sinne therefore where it is sayd of Christ that he was made sinne for vs they tooke the meaning to be this that he was made a sacrifice for sinne Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing because there is yet question to be made why the sacrifice for sinne should it selfe be called by the name of sinne Surely it could be for no other cause but because the sinne of the man for whom it was offered was imputed to the dumbe beast in figure of Christ and it was to die as if it had committed the sinne Therfore the man that had sinned was appointed e Leuit. 1.4 to lay his hand vpon the head of his offering as it were there to lay his sinne So saith Theodoret f Theod in Leuit quaest 1. Qui victimam offerebat imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat He that brought the sacrifice layed his hands vpon the head thereof as to lay vpon it his owne workes for which he offered the sacrifice Thus doth God himselfe expresse the meaning of that ceremonie * Leuiâ— 16.21 Aaron shall put his hands vpon the head of the Goate and confesse ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their trespasses in all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the goate so the goate shall beare vpon him all their iniquities Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sinne it followeth that the sinne of them for whom he was sacrificed was layed vpon him and imputed to him Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith that g Origen in Leuit lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suuÌ„ Christ layed the sinnes of mankind vpon his owne bodie And thus the Scripture teacheth vs h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray c. and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquities of vs all i 1. Pet. 2.24 He hath borne our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree Thus Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour Christ saying k Hieron in Psal 87. Irâ—m protellam furoru tui quâ— in gentibus effâ—surus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to power forth vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes How are our sinnes layed vpon Christ how did he beare them how hath he taken them vpon him but by hauing the same imputed vnto him Therefore Saint Austin saith l August in Psal 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit vt iustitiam suam nostâ—anâ— iustitiam faceret He made our sinnes his sinnes that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse God made him sinne that is saith Elias Cretensis m Elias Cretens in Gregor Nazianzen Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sinne But Chrysostome goeth yet further not onely n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. he made him sinne that is he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner but also o Ibid. Iustum fecit peccatorem vt peccatores faceret iustos he made the iust a sinner saith he that he might make sinners iust All which speeches can no otherwise be made good but by graunting the imputation of our sinnes to be layed vpon Iesus Christ especially the last which seemeth verie hardly spoken but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speake to signifie this imputation as shall appeare further hereafter in the eleuenth Section Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austine to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the iustice or Righteousnesse of God there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against vs. For we also say that the iustice of God is meant not that whereby God himselfe is iust but whereby he iustifieth vs. For Christ needed not for himselfe to be made vnder the lavv so to performe the Righteousnesse thereof for his owne Iustification before God being otherwise simply and absolutely iust but what he did he did it for our sakes that we thereby through faith in him should be iustified in Gods sight And this iustice or righteousnesse we acknowledge to be giuen vnto vs by Gods free liberality and bounty euen as Christ himselfe is giuen vnto vs and therefore are we said therein p Rom. 5.17 to receiue the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse Which cannot be vnderstood of inherent iustice because we do not yet receiue the abundance of that gift but only q Cap. 8.23 the first fruits it being such as that S. Austine saith thereof so long as we liue here that r August de ciuit Dei li. 19. ca. 27. Jpsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum it rather consisteth in
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
of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to leade a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues met together which we hold to concurre to iustification and among the rest the preheminence worthily is giuen to loue as to the principall disposition She loued our Sauiour as the fountaine of all mercies and goodnesse and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him yea and the humblest seruice and most affectionate she could offer him to be all too little and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bare him Which noble affection of hers towards her diuine Redeemer no question was most acceptable vnto him as by his owne word is most manifest for he said That many sinnes were forgiuen her because she loued much But M. Perkins saith that her loue was no cause that moued Christ to pardon her but onely a signe of pardon giuen before which is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it First Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon Because she had loued much Secondly that her loue went before is as plainly declared both by mention of the time past Because she hath loued and by the euidence of her fact of washing wiping and anointing his feete for the which saith our Sauiour then already performed Many sinnes are forgiuen her So that here can be no impediment of beleeuing the Catholike Doctrine so clearlie deliuered by the holy Ghost vnlesse one will be so blindly led by our new Maisters that he will beleeue no words of Christ be they neuer so plaine otherwise then it please the Ministers to expound them And this much of the first of those reasons which M. Perkins said were of no moment R. ABBOT I wished thee gentle Reader before to obserue that which here plainly thou seest that by the Romish doctrine there is one faith hope charity before iustification which must prepare a man in iustification to receiue and is the cause for which in iustification he doth receiue another a faith which is the cause why God endueth him with faith a hope which is the cause for which God endueth him with hope a charity which is the cause for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of charity A strange doctrine and the same for which Pelagius was of old condemned a August epist 46. that vpon our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. M. Bishop will say that they make no merits of these yet he himselfe knoweth that their schooles do make them merits ex congruo though not ex condigno merits which are of force to moue God and which it is conuenient that God should respect though they do not fully deserue grace And this merit b Bellarm. de iustif lib. 1. cap. 17. Fides suo quodaÌ„ modo meretur remissionem peccatorum iustificat per moduÌ„ dispositionis ac meriti Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth as before was said But let vs know why they account them not properly merits The reason indeede is because they say they are not the effects of any infused grace for they make them intrinsecally the acts onely of mans free will though adioyning the shew of a counterfeit grace which doth as it were put a hand vnder the arme to helpe lift it vp for the acting thereof Yet M. Bishop at randon not knowing what he saith calleth them diuine qualities contrary to the doctrine of his owne schooles For if faith hope and charity before iustification be diuine qualities and essentially the works of grace there can nothing hinder but that they should be as properly meritorious as those infused graces wherein they affirme iustification to consist But now he must vnderstand that the Fathers did not take merit so strictly as that they giue him way to shift off from himselfe the assertion of Pelagius They vnderstood it so largely as that c August epist 105. Si excusatio iusta est quisquis ea vtitur non gratia sed merito liberatur if a man can but plead a iust excuse for his deliuerance he that vseth it is not deliuered by grace but by merit if there be but d Cont. 2. epist Pelag. lib 1. cap. 19. Pro meritis videlicet voluntatis bonae ac sic gratia nö sit gratia sed sit illud c. gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari a good will before grace then grace is not grace but is giuen vpon merit And if he will say that they affirme not any good will before grace let him remember that Pelagius affirmed such a preuenting grace as they do but S. Austine professeth to know no grace but iustifying grace as hath bene shewed e Cha. 1. sect 5. before so that if before iustifying grace there be any good will or good worke then the grace of God is not freely giuen but by merit according to the doctrine of Pelagius Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the f Bellarm. de grat li. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5. Gratiam secundum merita nostra dari intelligum patres cùm aliquid sit proprijs viribus etiamsi nâ—n sit meritum de condigno ratione cuius datur gratia Fathers do vnderstand the grace of God to be giuen by merits when any thing is done by our owne strength in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not any merit de condigno of condignity or worth Such are the faith hope and charity that they teach before iustification which therefore as I haue said are denied to be merits de condigno because they proceede from our owne strength Yea say they but not without the helpe of God But so Pelagius also said as we haue shewed in the place before quoted in the question of Free wil and therefore in that they say nothing to free themselues from saying that which the Fathers condemned in Pelagius that according to our merits the grace of God is bestowed vpon vs. And this M. Bishop will proue by the example of the woman who in the Pharisees house washed the feete of Christ of whom our Sauiour saith g Luk. 7.47 Manie sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much She was iustified therefore saith he because of her loue M. Perkins answereth that that because importeth not any impulsiue cause of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes but onely a signe thereof as if Christ had said It is a token that much hath bene forgiuen her because she loueth much But M. Bishop like to bad disposed persons who face the matter most boldly where their cause is woorst saith that this is so contrary to the text that a man not past all shame would blush once to affirme it The text of it owne accord yeeldeth this construction and no other The creditour forgiueth to one fiue hundred talents to the other fifty whether of
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâ—ttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ— remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ— plura meruissâ—t to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâ—s debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌ„t iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌ„plete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
iustification yet the very habite of iustice is with them a thing meerely infused of God and not the act of man himselfe Therfore as touching the very habite of iustice a man must be onely passiue not actiue in the same sence as M. Perkins speaketh onely a receiuer and not at all a worker thereof But now he telleth vs that the iustification which they so teach wrought and procured by hope feare loue c. excludeth all boasting as well as ours But that cannot be for the Apostle telleth vs that l Rom. 3.27 boasting or reioycing is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith So long as any thing is attributed to our workes in this behalfe we haue somewhat to glorie in as that by our workes and for our workes sake we haue obtained that which we haue The Apostle saith that m Rom. 4.2 if Abraham were iustified by workes he had whereof to glorie or reioyce and therefore it is not true that iustification being attributed to workes we haue nothing whereof to reioyce or boast our selues Neither doth M. Bishops explanation helpe the matter at all that we cannot boast of those preparations as though they came of our selues because we see the Pharisee in the Gospell to glorie of that which notwithstanding he confesseth to be the gift of God n Luc. 18.11 August in Psal 31. Cùm dicebat gratias tibi fatebatur ab illo se â—â—cepisse quod habebat Hieron aduer Pelag li. 3 Jlle gratias agit Deo quia ipsius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines c. O God I thanke thee saith he that I am not as other men are But by his words of these good inspirations descending froÌ„ the Father of lights he doth but abuse his Reader dealing onely colourably as Pelagius the hereticke was wont to do For they make God the occasion only and not the true cause of them They make him externally an assistant to them but the internall producing and proper originall of them is of the Free will of man which is the cause why they affirme these works that go before iustificatioÌ„ not to be meritorious as they say those are that follow after For if they made them essentially the workes of grace they could haue no colour to attribute merit to the one and to deny it to the other Yea M. Bishop himselfe apparantly excludeth them from being the works of grace in that presently after he calleth the grace of iustification the first grace as being ignorant of the language of their owne schools wheras these workes are said to go before to prepare vs for the receiuing of iustifying grace In these works of preparation therfore there is apparantly somwhat attributed to man wherof he hath to glorie in himselfe for that howsoeuer being helped of God yet he doth somewhat himselfe for which God bestoweth vpon him the gift of iustification Yea M. Bishop plainly ascribeth to him somewhat wherof to reioyce in that he ascribeth it to him to consent to the grace of God Yea but a man saith he can no more vaunt of consent to these workes then of consent to faith true and therefore if either way he haue any thing of himselfe he hath somewhat whereof to boast M. Bishop therefore buildeth vp his owne glorie in both so acknowledging the grace of God both in faith and workes as that all is nothing but by the free wil of man Now we on the other side together with the auncient Church o Fulgen. ad Monim lib. 1. Nullatenus sinimus immo salâ—briter prohibemus tam in nostra fide quà m in nostrâ— opere tanquam nostrum nobis aliquid vindicare suffer not nay we vtterly forbid that either in our faith or in our worke we challenge to our selues any thing as our owne But in the iustification of faith boasting or reioycing is excluded not onely for that faith and all consent of faith is wholly the gift of God but also for that to faith nothing at all is ascribed for it selfe but onely to Christ who is receiued thereby and is it selfe a meere acknowledgement that we haue all that we haue of the soueraigne bountie and mercy of God only for his owne sake not for any thing that is in vs. Now therfore we hence argue against M. Bishops iustification that that is the onely true doctrine of iustification by which mans boasting or reioycing is excluded By the doctrine of iustification by workes mans boasting is not excluded Therfore the doctrine of iustification by works is not the true doctrine of iustification As for his comparison of a man mired in a lake and content that another should helpe him out it sauoureth very strongly of the stinke of the Pelagians leauing in a man both will and power for the helping of himselfe whereas the Scripture affirming vs to be p Ephe. 2.1 dead in trespasses and sinnes bereaueth vs altogether of all either will or power whereby we should yeeld any furtherance to the sauing of our selues But the same is also otherwise vnfit because the conuersion of a man is an acceptance of a seruice and an entrance into it wherein he is to bestow his labour and paines to deserue well as M. Bishop saith at his hands whose seruant he is and by couenant to merit heauen Hereto he worketh partly by grace as he saith and partly by free will and therefore hauing merited and deserued he hath somewhat in respect of himselfe wherein to glorie and reioyce whereas the course that God taketh is q Bernard Cant. Ser. 50. Vt sâ—iamâ—â— in dâ—e illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae feâ—imus nos sed pro misericordia sua saluos nos fecit that we may know at that day as S. Bernard saith that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. For this cause albeit he could haue perfected vs at once and euen at the first haue reformed vs to full and vnspotted righteousnesse to serue him accordingly yet hath he thought good to leaue vs groning vnder a burden of sinne and vnder many infirmities and imperfections in the seruice that we do vnto him that the sight of our foule feet may still pull downe our Peacockes tayle and we may alwaies fully know that we are to giue all the honour and glorie of our saluation to God alone But M. Bishop telleth vs that all glorying and boasting is not forbidden and we acknowledge the same for else the Apostle wold not haue said r 1. Cor. 1.31 He that glorieth let him glorie in the Lord. Our glorying or reioycing must be with the acknowledgement of his goodnesse and to the magnifying of him and not of our selues He that exalteth himselfe as the Pharisee did in that which he confesseth to be the gift of God reioyceth against God But M. Bishop offendeth both wayes he attributeth not all vnto God
concupiscence to be restrained and bridled Therefore he saith f De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis quòd lex dixit Ne concupiscas Hoc modo impleri non potest The perfection of vertue is that which the law saith Thou shalt not lust this now in this life cannot be fulfilled And againe g Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere hoc est non concupiscere Quis ergo hoc qui viuit potest To fulfill the law is not to iust and who is there liuing that can so do It is manifest then by S. Austin that that commandement requireth a perfection which in this world we neuer are able to attaine vnto because it doth not onely forbid consent but euen the very hauing of any euill motions or affections contrarie to the law And by those motions we do not onely breake the commandement Thou shalt not lust but we faile of yeelding loue to God with all our heart with all our soule c. because euil motions and lusts do occupie some part of the heart and soule and withhold the same from God Therefore S. Austin saith againe h Aug. de perf iust Cùm est aliquid concupisceÌ„tiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carnaliter anima concupiscit so long as there is any part of carnall concupiscence by continencie to be bridled God is not perfectly loued with all the soule for the flesh lusteth not without the soule although the flesh be said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh Now therefore albeit it be true that a man may resist such euill motions and deny consent vnto them yet is he not therby freed froÌ„ transgression of the law But yet M. Bishop falsely alledgeth S. Austin to that purpose who in the place i August Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus c. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lasciuos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere c Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas vsque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam cited not the seuenth as he quoteth but the thirtieth Chapter affirmeth indeed that somtimes men resist those concupiscences euen in their sleepe that it is in Gods power to make him alwaies so to do He signifieth his longing desire after that puritie and perfection but his expectation of it onely then when death shall be swallowed into victorie howsoeuer God be able if so it were his pleasure to giue it euen now also in the meane time And indeed there is no man liuing to whom can be attributed that perfection to be altogether and wholy free from consent of sinfull lust There is no man that fighteth so warily but that sometimes yea many times he receiueth grieuous wounds and findeth cause to cry mournfully vnto God for the cure thereof A man resisteth in one thing and is ouertaken in another at one time he checketh those corrupt desires with which as nets he is strongly intangled at another This is the state of all flesh and of this we haue cause to complaine so long as we liue here 41 W. BISHOP Iac. 3.2 1. Ioan. 1. We do offend in many things and if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Answer I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily led by the craft of the diuell into many offences which we might auoyde if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the law which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we commit some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing with it But of this matter more fully in some other place R. ABBOT There is no doubt but if all impediments were taken away whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandements of God it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfill the same It is true which S. Austine saith that a August de spâ— lit cap. 19. Non vitio suo non implebatur lex sed vitio prudentiae carnis it is not by any default of the lawe that we fulfill it not but by default of the wisedome of the flesh which as the Apostle saith is b Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God and is not subiect vnto the law of God nor indeed can be We are by our frailtie led into many offences saith M. Bishop and we might auoyde the same if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be But so long as this frailtie hangeth vpon vs and by the weaknesse and corruption of flesh we are not so warie and watchfull as we ought to be why doth he attribute vnto vs a power and ablenesse to fulfill the lawe And what is that that he saith but euen the deuice of the Pelagian Heretickes who affirming c Hieron Epist ad Ctesiphont Hominem posse esse sine peccato si velit c. Cùm ab eis quaerimus qui sint quos absque peâ—cato putent noua stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint sed qui esse possint that a man may be without sinne if he will and being demaunded who they were whom they tooke to be without sinne by a wily shift answered that they said not what men are or what they haue bene but what they may be Euen thus M. Bishop being vrged by the confession of the Apostles themselues that in many things we all offend and sinne that is do trespasse and breake the commandements of God confesseth it to be true but yet notwithstanding saith that it is vnpossible to keepe them But as Hierome answered the Pelagiaâ—s so we answer him d Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare What a reason is this that that is possible to be which neuer was and may be done which thou bearest witnesse that neuer any man did and to giue to euery man that which in the Patriarkes and Prophets and Apostles thou art not able to make good To be short as it is not possible for a man being feeble and weake and sicke to beare a
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
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
but God no Angell no Archangell no creature whatsoeuer could merit at the hands of God and yet this man sticketh not blasphemously to affirme that in this point of meriting we are like vnto the Sonne of God And all this meriting for ought he saith remaineth still needlesse and causelesse because for shame he dareth not deny that in words which indeed he doth deny that Christs merits are inestimable and haue deserued all graces and blessings for vs. Which being graunted to what end should we be like vnto Christ in meriting Nay we rightly conclude thereof because God doth nothing idlely that therefore he doth not appoint vs to merit that for our selues which Christ hath already merited in our behalfe Wheras he saith that God desirous to traine vs vp in all good workes best knew that there is no better spurre to pricke forward our dull nature then to ordaine and propose such heauenly rewards we acknowledge that so farre he saith truly but where he addeth that they are proposed to such as wil endeuour to deserue them I must remember him of the sentence of Marke the Hermite before alledged that a Marc. Herem Supra sect 14. some keeping the commandements expect the Kingdome of heauen as a wages deserued or due vnto them and that these faile of the Kingdome of heauen Now here M. Bishop in his brauery sitteth him downe in his chaire and taketh vpon him to teach M. Perkins as a man much ignorant in the matter of Christes mediation but if M. Perkins had knowne it in no better sort then he teacheth him we might haue taken him indeede for a very simple and ignorant man True it is which he saith that the office of Christes mediation consisteth in reconciling man to God and that he performed this by paying the ransome of our sinnes by purchasing Gods fauour and ordaining meanes how all mankinde might attaine to eternall life But he saith very vntruly that in the two first points for the most part we agree for they are farre from agreeing therein with vs or with the truth of the Gospell of Christ They do not hold that our sinnes are freely pardoned or that we are freely iustified albeit he is ashamed to confesse that they hold it otherwise For what is it to say freely but b Rhem. Testam explication of words in the end for nothing as his Rhemish Maisters haue expounded it and they do not hold that our sinnes are pardoned or we iustified for nothing but for works And that appeareth by that he addeth next although we require other preparation then they do For the workes of preparation they make to be the cause of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and iustification as he himselfe hath c Of Iustification Sect. 21. before disputed onely he thinketh the matter handsomly salued that workes are the cause of iustification but not the merit of works and with this iugling deuice he addeth that they as fully denie any merit of ours to be cause thereof as we do Wheras the Scripture saith nothing of the merit of workes but absolutely excludeth workes from being any part of the cause of our iustification before God neither opposeth each to other grace and merits but grace and workes not saying If it be of grace it is not of merits but d Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace were no grace Therefore these words of his are but words of hypocrisie and falshood and vsed onely to blinde the vnskilfull Reader and to conceale that venime and poison that would otherwise easily be espied Albeit his maister Bellarmine sticketh not to tell vs that e Bellarm. de iustificat lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustificat per modū meriti suo quodā modo meretur remissionē peccatorum faith which is one of their preparations doth iustifie by way of merit and doth in some sort merit forgiuenesse of sinnes that we may know that very vntruly and against his owne knowledge M. Bishop affirmeth that they as fully deny merit to be the cause of forgiuenesse of sinnes or iustification as we do About the meanes of attaining to heauen he saith we differ altogether For they say saith he that God requires no iustice in vs. Where as he hath sought to cleare his owne part with a lye so doth he with a lye seeke to disgrace ours We do not say that God requireth no iustice in vs we only deny that the iustice which God requireth in vs is the cause of our iustification before God or can yeeld vs any merit towards God and therefore in this respect we desire f Phil. 3.9 to be found in Christ and by faith to stand vnder the couerture of his merits and righteousnesse and in the imputation thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life Now against this he saith that Christes righteousnesse and merits are not communicable vnto anie meere creature But he saith he knoweth not what for what should hinder but that what Christ hath done for vs should be communicated and imputed vnto vs And is not Christ himselfe communicated vnto vs g Esa 9.6 borne vnto vs giuen vnto vs become h Iohn 17.23 one with vs Accordingly therefore he is i 1. Cor. 1.30 of God made righteousnesse vnto vs euen k Ierem. 23.6 the Lord our righteousnesse that we may say l Psal 71.14 I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God and will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely But he will haue it that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes and to merit eternall life One part whereof we acknowledge to be true that through Christes merits grace is giuen vnto vs to do good workes because good workes are the way wherein we are to walke to that eternall life which he hath merited and purchased for vs. But the other part thereof is false and we denie that he hath appointed vs by our good workes to merit for our selues eternall life It is a Romish fancie which we maruell they so busie themselues to cōmend to others when none of them dare presume of it in himselfe M. Perkins by sound argument hath confuted it and M. Bishop is content againe barely to affirme it without either proofe of his owne part or disproofe of that that is said against it In a word we do not finde in Scripture that Christ died for our good workes that they might merit but onely for our sinnes that they might be pardoned This is the auncient receiued faith of the Church of Christ but the other is a nouelty which antiquity neuer imagined but is lately deuised in the Church of Rome He saith that they by this doctrine of Merits do much more magnifie Gods grace and Christes merits then we do And why For the greater the gift is saith he the greater is the glory of the giuer But I answer him that the gift is greater in that Christ giueth himselfe to be
exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable to the fault committed But this cannot be i Hieron in Esa cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas ex parte mendaciū◠eredatur in Christo least as S. Hierome saith in another case it be partly a truth and partly a lye which we beleeue in Christ For then as touching eternall punishment it shall be a truth that Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes but as touching temporall satisfactions it shall be a lye and we shall be said to be the propitiation and attonement for our owne sinnes Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirme neither hath the Scripture taught vs any such diuision betwixt Christ and vs therfore we must confesse that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement vnto God we do nothing for our selues but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sinnes Christ did not onely beare the infinite wrath of God to acquit vs of eternall punishment but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Euangelist k Esa 53.4 Math. 8.17 He tooke vpō him our infirmities and beare our sicknesses that is our temporall punishments which what doth it import but that in respect of temporall punishments also Christ is our Redeemer Christ is our satisfaction vnto God And if not so why do we then pray to God to be deliuered from temporall calamities and afflictions for Christes sake Nay see how wickedly this deuice is framed The bloud of Christ serueth not to acquit vs from temporall punishments but the bloud of S. Peter doth and the bloud of Paul and the bloud of the Martyrs these all are helpfull to free vs from temporall satisfactions They pray by one Saint against the toothach by another against the falling sicknesse by another against the plague c. their merits are auaileable in this behalfe but the merit of Christ auaileth nothing And yet they tell vs that the conclusion of all their praiers is Per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ if Christ in this respect haue done nothing for vs If Christ haue left the burden of temporall satisfactions to lie wholy vpon vs why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof This the Church of the faithfull hath alwaies done and in all times The Church of Rome therefore dealeth vnfaithfully to retaine the words of the faithfull and to giue checke to the meaning of them by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God whereby temporall afflictions and punishments are laid vpon vs. As for vs we resolue that as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam to answer that in sauing which the other had done in destroying hath made satisfaction to God for both so that the faithfull penitent soule beleeuing receiuing in Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes beleeueth it selfe to be perfectly reconciled vnto God reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made vnto him Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christes satisfaction is of infinite value therfore that our satisfactiō is not to supply his But if it be of infinite value why doth he restraine abridge the effect thereof in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong why doth he make the value therof in respect of the temporall punishments of sin altogether idle of no vse and if it might haue freed vs from doing satisfaction for our selues why doth it not He giueth vs reasons that by the smart therof we may be feared and made carefull to auoid sin that by suffering we may be cōformed as mēbers to Christ our head You say wel M. Bishop but yet we heare nothing here concerning satisfaction We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions for that Christ we say hath yeelded a full satisfaction for vs you tell vs of being frighted from sin made cōformable vnto Christ which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction The Scripture teacheth vs these vses of the sufferings of the faithfull but it saith nothing to vs concerning satisfaction But for the better vnderstanding of this whole matter it is to be obserued that the temporal calamities euils of this life are of thēselues and in their own nature the punishments of sin the effects of Gods curse the beames of his euerlasting fury wrath the forerunners of his dreadful iudgment preparations to death death it self the vpshot of all the rest as it were a gulfe swallowing vs vp into feareful darknesse and vtter destruction both of body soule Now Christ being l Iohn 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world in taking away our sins taketh away consequently the effects of sin because the cause being remoued the effects cannot remaine But in sin as hath bene before declared we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt of which the guilt being taken away the corruption may stil remaine and the effects of sinne haue reference to both these Being then reconciled vnto God through Iesus Christ by the not imputing of our sins we see that the temporal afflictions and grieuances of this life are stil continuing lying vpon vs. Hereupon the question is our sins being forgiuen in what nature they continue We say not as satisfactions to the wrath of God in respect of the guilt of sin but as cautions and prouisions of his loue for the destroying of the corruption of it The guilt of sinne is the foundation of satisfaction and where no guilt is there is no satisfaction to be demaunded When therefore forgiuenes hath taken away the guilt there can be no requiring of satisfaction the afflictions thenceforth lying vpon vs are of another nature and to other ends vses then that either we should be said thereby to satisfie God or that God should be said thereby to satisfie himselfe of vs. The vses thereof the Scripture noteth m Rom. 6.6 the destroying of the body of sin n Heb. 12.10 the making of vs partakers of his holinesse o 2. Cor. 4.16 the renewing of the inner man from day to day p Col. 1.12 the making of vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light q 1. Cor. 11.32 We are chastened of the Lord when we are iudged that we should not be cōdemned with the world r Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata velad exercendam probandamque iustitiam vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriā vt illa vbi erit beatitudo vera atque perpetua desideretur ardenriùs instantiùs inquiratur Vide in Ioan. tract 124. They serue saith Austine
meaning whereof we speake He meaneth indeed that he vsed no apologie no excuse or answer for himselfe but yeelded himselfe with teares to the acknowledgement of that that he had done amisse The word of satisfactioÌ„ is here very vnproperly vsed and therefore may very easily be mistaken without any purpose of cosinage or fraud I might as well obiect cosinage here to M. Bishop who taking vpon him to make good his answer by another place of Ambrose alledgeth for another place the very same which M. Perkins cited But Ambrose hath the words indeed in another place in one of his i Ser. 46. Lachrymas eius lego satisfactionem non lego Rectè planè Petrus fleuit tacuit quia quod defleri solet non solet excusari sermons and therefore we will not charge M. Bishop here with cosinage there being otherwise euery while occasions enough to discouer him to be a cosiner As for that which he saith that Peter sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for his fault we take him to deale very absurdly in that he should go about to make the Apostle so absurd as to thinke the shedding of a few teares to be any part of the redemption of so great a sinne The Apostles teares were no part of Popish satisfaction but the tokens of true repentance lamenting the wound but seeking the cure onely in the satisfaction of the crosse of Christ As for that which he alledgeth from Ambrose that k De poenit lib. 2 cap. 5. Qui poenitentiam agit non solum diluere lachrymis debet peccatum suum sed etiam c. he that repenteth must with his teares wash away his sin he needed not for that phrase to haue gone so far he might haue found it in the places l In Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. Lauant lachrymae delictâ— quod voce pudor est confiteri idem habet ser 46. before alledged But he spake therein as we many times do not as thinking the teares of the bodie to be the washing away of the sinnes of the soule but as to note that the weeping and teares of faith do obtaine of God the washing away of our sinnes in the bloud of Iesus Christ In the other place S. Ambrose saith thus m Debono mortis cap. 12. Nos eum in temporuÌ„ fine quaeramus et complectamur pedes eius adoremus eum vt dâ—cat nobis Nolite timere id est nolite timere à peccatis seculi nolite timere ab iniquitatibus mundi nolite timere à fluctibus corporalium passionuÌ„ ego sum peccatorum remissio Let vs seeke Christ in our times let vs embrace his feete and worship him that he may say vnto vs Feare not that is feare not for the sins and iniquities of the world feare not for the waues of bodily sufferings I am the forgiuenesse of sinnes So long as there is necessitie of punishment especially such a n Bellar. de poenit lib. 4. cap. 1. Poena illa quae luenda restat post culpae remissioneÌ„ est illa ipsa poena sensus quaÌ„ in gelienna pati debuisset peccator remota solùm aâ—ernitate hellish punishment as they say is in purgatorie so long there is iust cause of feare But S. Ambrose telleth vs here that Christ by forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh away all occasion of feare that in our sinnes and iniquities he leaueth vs nothing to be afraid of It followeth therefore that after forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no further punishment no further satisfaction to be made Here M. Bishop againe putteth off his Reader with a dodge If saith he by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes and the punishment of them then doth it follow that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them Which is as leaden an answer as if a man should say If by intreating praying the Physicion I obtaine of him a medicine whereby I am cured then my intreating and praying is the very medicine it selfe by which I am cured For what do we seeke Christ worship him embrace him desire him pray vnto him but to be releeued succoured comforted and saued by him that in him we may haue satisfaction and remission of our sinnes What madnesse is it then to make our seeking our worshipping our praying to be themselues the satisfaction that we professe to seeke in him But such madnesse do they runne into who will not submit their right mindes to the obedience of the faith of Christ In the next place followeth Hierome o Hieron in psal 31. Quod regitur noÌ„ videtur quod non videtur non imputâ—tur quod non imputatur nec punietur That which is couered is not seene that which is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished He speaketh it for exposition of the words of Dauid p Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Now if the forgiuing of sinne be not the imputing of sinne then where sinne is forgiuen there is no punishment because there is no imputation of that to which the punishment is due That which is not imputed is not punished To wit saith M. Bishop with hell fire But that answer will not serue his turne for if it be any way punished it cannot be said not to be imputed for whence ariseth the punishment but from the imputation of the sinne Now of not imputing S. Austine telleth vs that q August in Psal 118. Siquid à deuiante committitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur when sinne is not imputed a man is taken as if he had neuer done it So saith S. Bernard that r Bernar in Can. ser 23 Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare 〈◊〉 decreuerâ—t sic est quasi non fuerit whatsoeuer God hath determined not to impute it is as if it had neuer bene If it be as if it had neuer bene if a man be taken as if he had neuer done it how then doth M. Bishop tell vs that there is still a satisfaction and punishment to be endured for it But therefore he bringeth vs another answer such as for which be deserueth to be admited for a wise and well learned man Sinne may be said to be couered when not onely the fault is pardoned but also all punishment due vnto it is fully payed So then whereas in briefe Hierome saith The sinne that is couered is not punished his meaning must be that it is not couered till it be fully punished nay he is made directly to contradict himselfe and to say The sinne that is punished is not punished Would not a man thinke him to be out of his right wits that maketh such wrong constructions of plaine
faults vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painful works done to appease Gods iustice were works of satisfaction M. Perkins answereth many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God as these words also do witnesse Leuit. 4. ver 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it R. ABBOT M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place Ilfauouredly it is propounded and ilfauouredly maintained but yet such learning it is as he with great paines hath brought from Rome The foundation that he layeth is a lie and the building that he setteth vpon it a ridiculous consequence He telleth vs that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices according the diuersitie of the sinnes But where is that ordinance why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith where do we find in Moses law that for such or such a sinne greater or lesse shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price was framed according to the same law of Moses and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices as in sinnes of ignorance a Leuit. 4.3 for the Priest a yong bullocke b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same c Ver 22.23 for a ruler a he goate for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goate e Chap. 5.15 for any consecrate thing by errour withholden a ramme of two shekels f Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done the same for g Chap. 6.6 sinne wittingly committed the same also for the high h Chap. 16.3 Priests yearly offering for himself and his house a bullocke and a ramme and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goates and a ramme This diuersitie we reade and some few other such like but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price according to the diuersity of the sinnes we reade nothing it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew Well let that go let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults saith he vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull workes done to appease Gods iustice were workes of satisfaction O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after Vaine man was this a paines to be spoken of for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne But to let this passe if k Of the certaintie of saluation sect 2. the honest man of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before should out with a litle Latin and tell him here M. Doctor negatur argumentum how foully wold he be grauelled and so set at a Nonplus that he could not tell which way to turne him What because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes The honest man would tel him Good sir you erre by assigning a wrong cause for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned but for his faith in Christ He laid not his hand vpon himselfe as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe but l Leuit. 1.4 he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast as in figure of Iesus Christ m Esa 53.6 vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all Therefore his sacrifice if he offered it aright was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him and he reciting the answer by halues asketh What is this to the purpose Very much it is against his purpose if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ n Heb. 10.1 The Law had the shadow of good things to come and not the liuely or substantiall image of the things themselues Therefore no satisfaction indeed but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein For o Ver. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin And therfore the Law was p Chap. 7.18 abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it How should it be said to be weake or why should it be called vnprofitable if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction not to God but to the Church of God as testimonies of their repentance and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men What needed that saith M. Bishop when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth I answer him that because all men are sinners euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe and to shew his care to be reconciled to God either for publike or priuate offences whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe Vpon the doing whereof men were accounted to the Church and with men as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture
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
yeelded them grace for their conuersion it had followed infallibly that they had beene conuerted neither should the frowardnesse of their will haue defeated the purpose of his will k Esa 46.10 My counsell shall stand saith he and I will do whatsoeuer I will therefore of the children of Ierusalem whomsoeuer God would gather he certainly did gather His will was to gather l Rom 11.5 a remnant according to the election of grace Ierusalem would not but resisted the will of God and hindered so much as in it lay the gathering of this remnant of her children m August Euchirâ—â— cap. 97. Vbi est illa omnâ—potentia c. si colligere filios Hierusalem voluit non fâ—cit An potius illa quidem filios sis â—s ab ipso câ—lligi neluit sede quoque relente filios eius câ—llegit ipse quos voluit quia in coelo in terra non quaedam vâ—luit fecit quaedam vero veluit non fecit sedomnia quaecunque volâ—â—t fecit But though Ierusalem would not yet God gathered whom he would and to them he yeelded his infallible sauing grace whereby he worketh to will and to do and giueth the gifts before mentioned of repentance faith knowledge and such like without which there is no conuersion and the giuing whereof is our conuersion vnto God Which seeing God gaue not to Ierusalem saue only to his remnant it is absurdly sayd by M. Bishop that there was no want of Gods helpe inwardly for their conuersion Their refusing and withstanding was the fruit of Free will which howsoeuer God do otherwise offer grace hath nothing in it selfe wherof to do otherwise 13. W. BISHOP Cap. 3. The last testimonie is in the Reuel where it is sayd in the person of God I stand at the doore and knocke if any man shall heare my voyce and open the gates I will enter in to him and will sup with him and he with me Marke well the words God by his grace knocks at the doore of our hearts he doth not breake it open or in any sort force it but attendeth that by our assenting to his call we open him the gates and then lo he with his heauenly gifts will enter in otherwise he leaues vs. What can be more euident in confirmation of the freedome of mans will in working with Gods grace R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop doth somewhat plainly shew himselfe and assureth vs that it is not without cause that we haue hitherto accused him of the Pelagian heresie The grace which for fashion sake he speaketh of is no other but such as whereby God knocketh at the doore of our hearts but worketh nothing in our hearts till we first of our selues assent to let him in He attendeth till we open him the gates and then he with his heauenly gifts will enter in which was the damnable errour of the Pelagians that Gods grace and gifts are bestowed vpon the precedence of our will and workes But we haue heard before out of the Arausicane councell that a Arausican Concil 2. cap 4. Supra sect 8. if any man say that God exspecteth or attendeth our will and doth not confesse that God worketh in vs to will he gainsayth the doctrine of the Apostle Which is the same as to say If any man say that God attendeth for our opening the gates vnto him and doth not confesse that God himselfe openeth the gates vnto himselfe he is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle b August cont duas epist Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 6 Aditus diuinae vocationis ipsa Dei gratia procuratur The entrance of Gods calling is wrought or procured by the grace of God himselfe he knocketh with one hand openeth with another c Psal 107.16 breaking the gates of brasse and smiting the barres of iron in sunder and howsoeuer mightily he knocke we neuer heare we neuer open till he open and make entrance for himselfe It is he that d Act. 16.14 openeth the heart he e Luk. 24.45 openeth the vnderstanding he f Psal 119.18 openeth the eyes he openeth g Iob. 33.16 the eares he openeth h Psal 50.15 the lips he openeth i Act. 14.27 the doore of faith and why then doth M. Bishop say that he attendeth till we open He doth not attend our assenting to his call but k August de praedest sanct cap. 19 Deus operatur in cordibus hominum vocatione illa secundum proposiâ—um vt non inarater audâ—â—nt Euangelium sed eo audâ—to contâ—er taÌ„tur credant exerpientes non vt verbuâ—a hominum sed sicum est verò verbum Dei by his calling which is according to his purpose he worketh in the harts of meÌ„ that they heare not the Gospel in vaine but do conuert and turne receiue it not as the word of man but as it is indeed the word of God And whereas he saith that God doth not break open the doores it is not alwaies true For God somtimes with great violence assaulteth the hart l Iude vers 23. by terror feare pulleth men out of the fire as with a mighty hammer breaketh the pride rebellioÌ„ of the wil fighting stirring against him When men are in the height of their insolencie madly raging against him he striketh them to the ground as he did the Apostle m Act. 9.4 S. Paule and by astonishment ouercometh and subdueth them vnto himselfe thus n August contr duas Epist Pelâ— lib. 1 cap. 19. Non ait duxerit vt illic ali quo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem Quis trahâ—tur c vt supra Sect 10 not leading them as vpon their precedent will but drawing them not to beleeue against their wils which is vnpossible but of vnwilling to become willing In a word when God knocketh o Idem de Praedest sanct ca. 20. Ostrum ergo apertum est in â—is quibus datuÌ„ est aduersarij autem multi ex eis quibus non est datuÌ„ the doore is opened in them onely to whom it is giuen but they to whom it is not giuen are still aduerse and they neuer open and therefore M. Bishop saith amisse that God attendeth that we open him the gates or otherwise leaueth vs. Neither do the words alledged serue for confirmation of the freedome of mans will telling vs onely what must be done that God may enter but not importing that we do it by any power of Free will 14. W. BISHOP To these expresse places taken out of Gods word let vs ioyne the testimonie of those most auncient Fathers against whose workes the Protestants can take no exception The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr Iustinus in his Apologie who vnto the Emperour Antonine speaketh thus Vnlesse man by Free will could flie from foule dishonest deedes and follow those that be faire and good he were without fault as not being cause of such
things as were done But we Christians teach that mankind by free choice and Free will doth both do well and sinne To him we will ioyne that holy Bishop and valiant Martyr Irenaeus who of Free will writeth thus Lib. 4. cap. 72. Not onely in workes but in faith also our Lord reserued libertie and freedome of will vnto man saying Be it done vnto thee according to thy faith I will adde to that worthie companie S. Cyprian who vpon those words of our Sauior Ioan. 6. Lib. 1. Epist 3. Wil you also depart discourseth thus Our Lord did not bitterly inueigh against them which forsooke him but rather vsed these gentle speeches to his Apostles will you also go your way and why so Marry obseruing and keeping as this holy Father declareth that decree by which man left vnto his libertie and put vnto his free choice might deserue vnto himselfe either damnation or saluation These three most auncient and most skilfull in Christian religion and so zealous of Christian truth that they spent their bloud in confirmation of it may suffice to certifie any indifferent reader what was the iudgement of the auncient and most pure Church concerning this article of Free will specially when the learnedst of our Aduersaries confesse all Antiquitie excepting onely S. Augustine to haue beleeued and taught Free will Heare the words of one for all Mathias Illiricus in his large long lying historie hauing rehearsed touching Free will the testimonies of Iustine Irenaeus and others saith In like maner Clement Patriarch of Alex. doth euery where teach Free will Cont. 2. cap. 4. col 59. that it may appeare say these Lutherans not onely the Doctors of that age to haue bene in such darknesse but also that it did much increase in the ages following See the wilfull blindnesse of heresie Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church to haue taught Free will yet had rather beleeue them to haue bene blindly led by the Apostles and their best Schollers who were their Masters then to espie and amend his own error These principall pillars of Christs Church were in darknesse belike as Protestants must needes say and that proud Persian and most wicked Heretike Manes of whom the Manichees are named who first denied Free will began to broach the true light of the new Gospell R. ABBOT M. Bishop held it to be the best course for him clanum clauo pellere to driue out one naile with another not answering the places which M. Perkins alledged out of the Fathers but oâ—ely crossing them with other places Nay he so passed them ouer as that fraudulently and falsly he would make his Reader beleeue that they made all for him But marke I pray thee gentle Reader when M. Bishop driueth all to this that when God hath done his worke for mans conuersion it is left to mans free choice whether to will the same or not doth it make for him or is it not against him which M. Perkins citeth out of Austin that a Aug. de correp grat cap. 12. Iâ—â—o sic volunt quia Deus operatur vt veliâ—t man therefore willeth because God worketh in him to will Surely if man therefore will because God worketh in him to will then Gods worke doth not leaue man to the free choice of his owne will When M. Bishop saith that there is in man a naturall facultie of Free will which being stirred vp and fortified is able to do any act appertaining to saluation doth the same S. Austine agree with him when he affirmeth b Epist 107. Lâ—cerum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum prinâ—s peccati graâ— ditate perâ—â—emuâ— that man lost Free will to the loue of God by the greatnesse of Adams sinne When he attributed mans conuersion but onely principally to grace and blameth vs for that we attribute the whole worke to grace doth S. Bernard agree with him when he saith c Bernard de grat lib. arb Totum ex gratia that it is wholy of grace that we are new created healed saued By these it is easie to make application of the rest but we may looke for good answers at his hands herafter who in the beginning being so directly oppugned would seeke thus in a cloud to steale away But if M. Perkins were able to say nothing against him we must thinke he is able to say for himselfe exceeding much Yet his first authoritie out of Iustinus Martyr maketh nothing at all for him for being written to an heathen Emperour it toucheth onely morall and externall actions in which we deny not but that God hath left some freedome and liberty to mans will as before hath bene declared His very d Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Ne quis nostra dicta sic acciptat quasi Fati necessitateÌ„ asseramus quae fiunt ideò fieri quiae praedicta sunt expâ—ica bonus hoc quoque c drift there is to condemn the wicked fancies of Astrologers and Stoicke Philosophers who did hang all vpon e Aug. contra duas Epist Pela lib. 2. ap 6. in Psal 1â—0 de ciuit Dei lib. 5. cap. 1. destinies and constellations and fatall necessitie and thence sought excuse of their lewd and abominable actions And if we wil more largely extend the words yet are they nothing for M. Bishops turne f Hominem libero arbitrio liberaque voluntate peccare rectè agere docemus We Christians saith he do affirme that by free choice and Free will mankind doth both do well and sinne And so much we affirme also that man by free choice and Free will doth well for there g Prosper de vocâ—t Gent lib 2. cap. 9. Virius nolenuum nulla est is no vertue where a man hath no will to that he doth but we say still against M. Bishop that this is not that Free will that he requireth it is not a power of nature but wholy the effect of grace h Aug. Epi. 107. vt supra Sect. 1. It is the grace of God whereby mans will is made free both to eschue euil and do good and they that teach any other Free will they are i Idem de grat lib arbit cap. 14. Non defensores sed inflatores praecipitatores liberi arbit not the defenders but the puffers vp and break-neckes of Free wil. And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof as appeareth by these words in the same Apologie k Iustin vt supr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like sort as God created vs when we were not so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and being with him who willingly make choice to do those things that are pleasing vnto him But to haue being at the first it was not of our selues In like sort then to choose and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs it is by his perswading and mouing of vs