not giue I can not tell to whom that which you caÌ„ not proue to haue bin in the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles Do not you perceyue that your assertions are contrarie within themselues Either they are easie a great nuÌ„ber of men haue fulfilled them or they are harde and you haue rashly sayd that to be easie which is harde You are wont to say this also eyther the coÌ„maundements are possible and wel giuen of God aut impossibilia in his non esse culpam or vnpossible and no fault in theÌ„ which haue receiued the coÌ„maundemeÌ„ts but in him that gaue those which were impossible Nunquid Deus c. Hath god commaunded me to be that which God is that there should be no difference betwixt men and the Lorde the Creatoure that I should be higher than the Angels That I should haue that which the Angelles haue not Of him it is written as a propertie whiche did not sinne and there was no guyle found in his mouth If this bée coÌ„moÌ„ to mée with Christe what had he proper Otherwise your seÌ„teÌ„ce is destroyd of itself If you think not this whole tretise which I haue alleaged rightly cited against you shew me wherin you differ You say that the commaundementes are possible to be kept you can shew none that hathe kept them either of the Patriarkes or of the Prophets or Apostles You say moreouer that if God hath commaunded things vnpossible the fault is in him and not in vs Seing then that you accord in al these points with them you must either shew some farther reason why S. Hierome may not be deriued against you or else giue glory to God and coÌ„fesse your error For to alledge for your selfe that you there in differ from them because they only graunted gratiam praeuenuntem and you both that adiâ—â—aÌ„tem it auaileth you not For the patriarks had that the Prophets had that the Apostles had that and in such sort that god was vnto them semper larguor semperque donator alwayes a liberall giuer and alwayes a frée giuer and yet they could not as you there read I could here bring in more allegatioÌ„s both out of this father and other but for feare of being to loÌ„g I leaue them I trust these few may serue with the help of gods spirit to open your eyes beleue And thus haue I shewed how they are impossible Now to come to my second meÌ„ber and to shewe you how they are possible may be fulfilled I will not stray far away neither séeke very wide for that I néede not I will come home to my first Allegation which suffiseth for dissoluing of this dout and therefore I chose it moued thereunto because I sée S. Ierome vse the same order and in eschuing of prolixitie our rule is good frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora that is vainely done by a longer way which may be done by easie and short meanes Let vs then sée how the Apostle dissolueth this dout For that that was impossible to the law in as muche as it was weake because of the fleshe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 GOD sending his owne sonne in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condeÌ„ned sin in the flesh And in an ther place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ye which were dead in sinnes in the vncircuÌ„cision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him forgeuing you al your trespasses and putting out the hand wryting of ordinances that was against vs which was coÌ„trary to vs he euen toke it out of the way fastned it vpon the crosse c. Now to coÌ„demn sin in the flesh to fasten the haÌ„d writing vpon the crosse to spoile principalities powers to triuÌ„ph ouer theÌ„ in the cros what other thing doth it import than perfect rightuousnesse gotten than a performing of the law if it be alredy performed then was it a good coÌ„sequeÌ„t to say it might be performed herein we agrée By whoÌ„ the Apostle teacheth you by Christ Iesus by him onely for so is Paules coÌ„sequeÌ„t in these words For that that was impossible to the law in as much as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his son c. For the cause why God sent his own son was the weaknes of our flesh by reason wherof the law could not be fulfilled his anger appeased So then this causeth vs with confidence to say O death where is thy sting O hell where is thy victorie there is no coÌ„deÌ„nation to theÌ„ which are in Christ Iesus And in that the Christe is our iustification our sanctification our peace wée may say that we fulfil the law that no one iote passeth vs nor one pricke in that he forgiueth what wée can not do And so you haue an other way how the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts are possible Therfore to come vnto you I say as you say that the commandements are possible how these words are to bee vnderstaÌ„d that elect vessel doth most playnly teach vs as I alleaged For that that was impossible c. again â—x operibê° legis by the works of the law no flesh shal be iustified And that wée may not thincke it onely spoken of the law of Moyses not of al the coÌ„mandements which are coÌ„prehended in the name of the law the same apostle witnesseth saying Consentio legi Dei. I delight in the law of God coÌ„cerning the inner maÌ„ but I see an other lawe in my members rebelling c. O wretched maÌ„ that I am who shall deliuer me froÌ„ the body of death Gratia dei ê‘ IesuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ dnÌ„m nostruÌ„ it is the grace of god through Christ Iesus M. Feck For as we are cast doun by one so must the gift of rightuousnes be by one that is by Iesus christ and why it caÌ„ be but by Christ that this fulfilling of the law this righteousnes must be the Apostle sheweth in an other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnal sold vnder sin For I alow not that which I do for what I wold that do I not but what I hate that doo I and so forth as it foloweth in the whole text The nature of the most godly of all is such that he can not do as he would By the spirite he may doo muche but as long as he is compassed with this body of death he can not doo all So sayeth the Apostle in this place Non enim facio bonum quod volo I do not the good thing which I would Do not burden vs as you haue done in the beginning Master Gough with the errour of the Manicheans and such like whiche trouble the Churche with their wicked phantasies saying that that nature is naught whiche can not bée changed by any meanes and impute this not to me but to the Apostle who knoweth that God is one man another the
must say for the least sin you can deuise forgiue vs our trespasses if you did trespasse him you were not without blame So you make a contradiction against your self for that you say a iust maÌ„ is without blame yet he must say forgiue me The truthe is as I said M. Fecknam there is no contradiction to say a maÌ„ sinneth damnably and therfore in consideration of his own doing worthy to be condemned yet being pardoned by the frée mercy of Christ he is without blame As the Apostle sayeth who can lay any thing to our charge not respecting that that we are but that that we receiue And so I trust I haue sufficieÌ„tly answeared you for that place To this may bee added the place of S. Iames where he describeth concupisceÌ„ce to make a sin in vs beside mortall sin saying Concupiscentia cùm conceperit c coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne but sinne wheÌ„ it is finished begetteth death Signifying hereby that sinne is then mortall deadly when a man coÌ„mitteth it with a ful consent other circuÌ„staÌ„ces For if a light passion or a carnall thought stealeth vpon a man by sodein delectation without consent the same is not a sinne which engendereth death but a veniall sinne S. Iames his purpose is not as you say to shew how coÌ„cupiscence maketh a sinne besides mortal sinne neither caÌ„ you proue by this place that which you graunt that concupiscence is a sin although it be true S. Iames goeth not about here to shewe when sinne beginneth to be a sinne to be taken and estemed so before God But to shew when it commeth forth and whence it proceadeth that he might against the false surmises of others shewe that their sinne and tempting procedeth not from god His order is this The consummation of sinne procureth Death euerlasting sinne procedeth from vnordinate desires vnordinate desires from concupiscence Therefore in that that men are condemned for their sinnes they receiue but the frute which they brought forth theÌ„ selues and therefore can they not cast any fault on god Can you now theÌ„ proue by this place that either concupiscence is a sinne which I deny not eyther that it is not a mortall sinne Out of thys place I gather that my condemnation is of my self I canne not gather that Concupiscence is a Sinne but onely by a consequent because it bringeth forth sinne For such as the fruyte is suche is the tree and so may I conclude agayne The fruyte is damnable therefore the trée But here I do gather it NoÌ„ coÌ„cupisces Thou shalt not couet and so bicause it is a sinne I conclude it is mortall Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur The soule that shall offend or erre the same shall dye For the word the Prophet there vseth hachoteth signifieth but a missing and an erring from that he is directed vnto whiche is Thou shalt loue the Lorde thy GOD with all thy harte with all thy Soule c. so read wée in the scriptures all these could fling stones at an haires breadth ve lo iachati and not fayle And Paule also speaking of him selfe and not sinning any other mortall sinne sayth Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius who shall deliuer me from the body of this death Whether you make your veniall sinne a fayling or no I referre it to your conscience Some of you wryters say thus Peccatum veniale est quod cum voluntatis deliberatione inordinata homo committit veniall sinne is that which a man commitâ—eth by an vnordinate deliberation of his will what they are he rekeneth vp there as when a man eateth and drinketh more than he néedeth yf it bée by chaunce when he speaketh more than he ought or holdeth his peace more than is conuenient when he vexeth the poore desiring almes out of time The vse of a mans owne wife otherwise than the institution of God is drunkennesse yf it bée not to often For of nature it is no deadly sinne such like And as you put in a lighte passion or a carnall thought stealing vppon a man by sodayne delectation These and suche others are your veniall sinnes such sins as are worthy pardon of their owne nature Is drunkennesse but once done worthy of pardon by nature Is making whoredome of mariage a sinne worthy pardon euen of nature Is vexing the afflicted a sinne to bée pardoned euen of nature is the enimitie of God a sinne worthie pardon euen of nature Paule sayth that a drunkerd an adulterer shall not inherite the kingdome of Heauen What Christe aunswereth them that are suche too the poore Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum goe ye cursed into euerlasting fyre will tell you That that is of the flesh displeaseth God the scripture telleth you also what the displeasure of God is the whole scriptures teach you Do not you fayle thinke you in these and suche like from the will of your heauenly father S. Augustine sayth that these things pertayne ad corruptionem Templi Dei to the corruption of the temple of God not onely the more greeuous sinnes but the least Si qua vobis immoderatio de vsu isto concessarum rerum vitae humanae infirmitate irrepserit yf any immoderatenes by the vse of thinges permitted vnto you do créepe into you by the frayltie of mans lyfe Quoniam pertinet ad corruptionem Templi Dei Because it pertayneth to the corruption of the Temple of God tenete hold you c. And make you a small thing of the marring of the temple of God Qui templum Dei corrumperit corrumpet illum Deus c. sayth he He that marreth the temple of God God will marre him What meaneth that corrumpet illum Deus God will marre him I thinke it bée not very farre from death Well let vs sée what you bring out of Augustine To this place alludeth S. Augustine where he speaketh of concupiscence that remayneth in those whiche bee regenerate saying Ab illo rebellante si non laetaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur That is of that sinne concupiscence rebelling against vs we be ouercomed although not deadly yet venially It followeth in his contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus dimittae nobis debita nostra And in these veniall sinnes we gather by meanes whereof we may say daily Forgeue vs Lord our trespasses S. Augustine in déede speaketh of such remnaunts of originall sinne as remayne in the elect after they bée regenerate whereof S. Paule spake Caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum The flesh coueteth agaynst the spirite and sayth that wée are ouercome of this remnaunt not deadly but venially The reason is in S. Paule Because there is no condemnation to them whiche are in Christ Iesus and that that relique is not able to bringe foorth any suche Sinne in the electe whereby he may bée condemned yet notwithstanding least we shuld think ourselues not to be
frailnesse of the flesh is one and the strength of the spirite an other For the fleshe desireth against the spirite and the spirite ageynst the flesh and these do so striue and contend eche with other that wée can not doo such things as wée would doe You shall neuer heare of me that nature is naught but how the fragilitie of the flesh is to bée reasoned of let vs learne of him whiche teacheth Aske him why he sayde for that whiche I would do that I do not but the euil which I hate that do I. What necessitie hindreth his will what force commaundeth him to do things so hatefull so that not that which he would but that which he hated and would not he is constrayned to doo He wil aunswerâ— you O man what art thou that so aunswerest God shall the clay say vnto the potter why hast thou made me so hath not the potter power ouer his claye to make of one lumpe a vessell to honour and an other to dishonour Concerning iustice and grace it may bée well sayd of the giltie whiche is absolued and of the giltie whiche is condemned Take that whiche is thine and go thy wayes I will giue this man that which is not due vnto him Is it not lawfull for me to do what I liste Is thy eye naught bycause I am good Héere yf he should say and why not to me he shall worthely heare O man what art thou that so aunswearest God whome thou séest towardes one of you to bee a moste bountifull bestower and towardes thée a most iust exactor and yet in nether of you vniust Seing that he should be iust yf he punished eyther he whiche is deliuered hath to giue thankes he which is condemned hath not to reprehend Sure it is that our flesh is frayle that our nature is corrupt and so corrupte that it letteth vs that we can not do our dutie let vs not séeke howe it is so but as S. Paul him self did how ye may be deliuered from it and still cry with our selues Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius who shall deliuer me out of the body of this death you stand vppon the possibilitie of the law there are diuersitie of gifts as you knowe can you attaine to all of them there are many sciences as Grammer Rhetoricke Logike c. Who is he of all vs bée he neuer of so excellent a wit that can bee a perfect Gramarian a perfect Logician a perfect Rhetorician a perfecte Philosopher a perfect lawyer a perfecte Phisician the excellent orator lawyer he sayeth There are few which attayne one but both no man can You sée then that God hath commaunded a possible thing and yet that whiche is possible no man can performe by reason of our nature He hath giuen therfore diuers precepts and diuerse vertues which wée can not haue all togither To bée shorte and to make an ende of this parte the olde saying is true non omnia possumus omnes there is none of vs all can doo all things and there is none or very rare is that riche man whiche in all his substaunce possesseth all thinges equallye God hath commaunâ—ed possible things I graunt it But all these possible things wée can not euery one haue not for the weaknesse of nature that is as it was firste made of God least you slaunder God but for the wearinesse of minde which can not haue all vertues togither and alwayes And thus much touching these twoo partes wherby you may vnderstande how wee say that the kéeping of the law is possible And how it is vnpossible This considered I come to your argumentes Your first is taken out of the eleuenth of Mathew and your woordes are these Contrarie to this doctrine is our Sauiour Christ where he willeth vs to take his yoke vppon vs because it is light Tollite iugum meum super vos iugum enim meum suaue est â–ª onus meum leue Take my yoke vppon you for my yoke is sweete and my burden is lighte If it bee a light burden M. Goughs heauy example hath not a peny worth of good skill This is neyther contrarie to his doctrine M. Fecknam neyther is his heauy example voyd of skill But that which causeth you to thincke it to bée contrarie is that you deceyue your selfe and make a Paralogisme as the Logicians call it à fallacia accidentis which I shall bée able to shew you by your doctours For you doe not reason with M. Gough in sensu vniuoco and in his proposed matter He taught you in his sermon that to fulfill the law was impossible you oppose and lay for an aunswere that the yoke of Christe is easie S. Ierome vppon the same place teacheth you that here bée subiecta diuersa therfore in your disputation there is no vniuocatio Your subiectes are Lex and Euangelium the lawe and the Gospell of which two he sayeth thus Quo modo leuius lege Euangelium quum in lege homicidium in Euangelio ira damnetur Qua ratione Euangelij gratia facilior quuÌ„ in lege adulterium in Euangelio concupiscentia puniatur In lege multa precepta sunt quae Apostolus non posse compleri plenissime docet How is the gospell lighter than the law séeing the murder is condemned in the law and anger is condeÌ„ned in the gospel How is the grace of the gospell easier seeing that in the law adulterie and in the gospell concupiscence is punished Many things are commauÌ„ded in the law which the Apostle sheweth most plainly that they can not be accomplished In the law works are required which who soeuer doth shal liue in theÌ„ In the Gospel the will is required which although it haue not the effect yet it léeseth not the reward So that by this Doctor here is a comparison betwixt the law and the gospel and as farre difference there is betwixt your two arguments as is betwixt velle and facere And marke then is this a good argument Non possum facere ergo noÌ„ possum velle I am not able to do therefore I am not able to will or this Possum velle ergo possum facere I am able to wil therfore I am able to do Take which you wil these are your arguments I am sure you sée how little holde there is in them therfore coÌ„fesse the truth giue glorie to God and be not ashamed to haue erred but be ashamed to remayne in your error The gospel sure is easier than the law the grace of Iesus Christ forpasseth surmounteth the letter If you will coÌ„sider your heauy burden and come vnto Christ craue pardoÌ„ for your sins haue a mind to walke in his pathes and where you fall downe desire him to lift you vp to cloth your nakednesse with his garmente you shall find reste and refreshing and this is an easie yoke But yf you will néedes doo when he requireth the will you will
filthie in the sight of God as M. Gough dooth filthily terme theÌ„ Christ would neuer haue made for them such a glorious promis nor prouided for them such a crowne of glorie nor reserued for them his finall iudgement in the which iudgemeÌ„t not the fayth but the works of men shal be examined But M. Goughe doth coÌ„temptuously abuse the gifts of god the works that himself hath wrought in his chosen elect doth miserably coÌ„found the good works of idolaters with the good works of theÌ„ that be his faithful and elect people which works he so much estéemeth being done in faith for his sake as not to suffer a cup of cold water to go vnrewarded I muse therefore at the sutteltie of this opinioÌ„ or rather at the sensible absurditie of it faith only or sole faith to iustifie For if he meane by faith onely faith without penance faith without baptisme then his doctrine is ageinst the couÌ„sell of Peter who answered the Iewes asking of the Apostles what they shold do to be saued saying PoenitentiaÌ„ agite et baptizetur vnusquisque vestruÌ„ in nomine Iesu Christi in remissioneÌ„ peccatorum vestroruÌ„ Do ye penance and let euery one of you be baptized in the name of Iesu Christ that your sins may be remitted If he mean by faith only faith without hope then he is ageinst the Apostle saying Spe enim salui facti sumus For by hope we are saued If he mean by faith only faith without feare then is he ageinst the saying of Iesus the sonne of Sirach Timor Domini expellit peccatuÌ„ naÌ„ qui sine timore est non poterit iustificari The feare of God expelleth sinnes for he that is without feare can not be iustified if he meane by faith onely faith withoute charitie he is then contrarie to the minde of S. Paule him selfe which sheweth what kynd of fayth doth iustifie fides quae per dilectionem operatur that faythe whiche worketh by charitie that is not sole nor onely faythe Wherfore yf Master Goughe will buyld vppon this terme sole or onely and yet neuerthelesse meane by his sole and only fayth fayth with penance faith with Baptisme fayth with feare fayth with hope fayth with loue and charitie then I say that the same fayth can no more be sayd to be onely or alone than a King or Prince beyng in the middest of his Nobilitie may bee sayd to be there onely or alone 4 That euery sinne is not mortall MAster Gough towards the end of his sermon did very constantly affirme that euery sinne committed by a Christian man is a deadly and a mortall sin and that no sinne is veniall no not an ydle thought as light as men made of it much like vnto the old heresie of Iouinian which to make all sinnes equall made euery sinne likewise a deadly sinne whome S. Austen condemned more than a thousand yeare ago as appeareth in his .6 Tome de haeres Haeres 82. M. Fecknam Let vs confer herewithall two sayings of the scripture the one of S. Iohn which sayth as well of himselfe and of euery iust man as of a sinner Si dixerimus quoniam peccatum noÌ„ habemus ipsos nos seducimus veritas in nobis non est If we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truthe is not in vs Meaning that the iustest man a liue is not withoute sinne Now if this sinne be as M. Goughe teacheth deadly mortal and damnable sinne which separateth the soule of man from God and condemneth it to hell fire let vs sée how a man may be called iust which daily committeth such damnable sinne Nay let vs repeat againe that commeÌ„dation of iustice which S. Luke giueth to Zacharie and Elizabeth saying Erant autem iusti ambo ante Deum incedentes in omnibus mandatis et iustificationibus Domini sine quaerâ—la That is they were both iust before God walking in all the commaundements and iustifications of our Lorde without blame He giueth thrée speciall notes of their true and perfecte rightuousnesse the one that they were iust not in the sight of men but before God him selfe the second that they kept all the commandements which M. Gough saith is impossible to kéep the third that they were with out blame and therfore without mortal damnable sinne If M. Goughe neuerthelesse wil say that S. Iohn speaking of him selfe and of iust men ment by sinne a damnable sinne he must then of very force make betwéene him S. Luke the Euangelist a manifest contradiction for no maÌ„ that sinneth damnably is without blame kéepeth the commaundements and is iust in the sight of God. To this may be added the saying of S. Iames where he describeth concupiscence to make a sinne in vs besides mortall sin saying CoÌ„cupiscentia cuÌ„ conceperit parit peccatum peccatuÌ„ verò cùm consummatuÌ„ fuerit generat morteÌ„ that is CoÌ„cupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne but sinne when it is finished begetteth death signifying hereby that sinne is then mortall and deadly when a man committeth it with full consent other circumstances For if a light passion or carnall thought stealeth vpon a man by soden delectation without consent the same is not a sinne which engendereth death but a venial sin To this place alludeth S. Austen where he speaketh of concupiscence that remayneth in those which be regenerate saying Ab illo rebellante si non letaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur That is Of that sinne concupiscence rebelling agaynst vs we bée ouercommed although not deadly yet for al the venially It foloweth Et in his contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus dimitte nobis debita nostra And in these veniall sins we gather by means wherof we may say daily forgiue vs Lord our trespasses Again in his boke de spirit lit he writeth thus of venial sinnes Sicut non impediunt à vita aeterna iustum quaedam peccata venialia sine quibus haec vita non ducitur sic ad saluteÌ„ eternam nihil prosunt impio aliqua bona opera sine quibê° difficillimè vita cuiusque pessimi hominis inuenitur that is Like as some veniall sins do not let a iust man froÌ„ life euerlasting without the which this life is not lead so some good workes do nothing profit a wicked man vnto life euerlasting without the which the life of euery naughtie man is hardly found I might bring here for venial sinne one of Martine Luthers Assertions whom I am sure M. Goughe will rather worship than deny for the pure loues sake which he beareth to his religion but I will not presse him so far only this I wil say that Luther did hold there was a sinne which was not a mortall and damnable sinne For he maketh euery good worke of a Christen man to be a sinne Marie sayeth he a sinne that is veniall His article was Quod omne opus
difference is betwixt iustification and sanctification you should doubt whether sanctification were a piece of iustification or an effect of iustification Let vs then sée whether workes that follow doo conâ—erre any thing to the Iustification Marke I pray you the controuersie betwixt you and master Goughe The question is not whether good woorkes are necessarie to walke in Whether we are bound to walke in the feare of GOD after that he hath manifested vnto vs his election and called vs to embrace his frée mercy and Iustification I say the question is not whether we ought to do well that GOD may be glorifyed by vs But whether a man being already iustified his woorkes afterward may giue encrease of Iustice I pray you Sir after that Quéene Marie had made you Abbot of Westminster dyd you the office of an Abbot that you would be a more Abbot or to do your duetie to the which the Quéene of hir grace hadde called you For therefore shée bestowed it vpon you that you should doe the duetie and not dy doing the duetie to become a more Abbot So fareth it with the children of God Of this whole lumpe of earth which he made of this masse which we call Adam he of his free mercie and goodnesse hathe chosen some whereby he will bée glorified in this world by the good woorkes which they shall do before the face of men When this election of his beginneth to be manifest to euerye chosen when he moueth the hearts of his after they haue long slept in sinne to remember that they are hys that he hathe slayne hys Sonne for them that they are deliuered from the whole cursse of the lawe Is it not requisite thinke you that they walke worthie his vocation That they make sure their vocation Naye doe they in this their course in any parte delyuer them selues from the cursse of the lawe Doe they pay that raunsome which was paide before What is the iustice or Iustification of GOD Redemption and remission of sinnes in the bloud of christ Was then the bloud of Chryst answearable to all the Lawe did there remaine no parte vnpayde For whome then did he all this Not for him selfe for there was no guile found in his mouthe For whome then For the faithfull to whome God dothe giue this Faith not of merite but of grace Haue they then all the iustice of Christe haue they that which Christe dyd in his bodye put vppon them May they say as he sayde Death where is thy sting Hell where is thy victorie May they say death is swallowed vp in victorie May they say there is no condemnation to vs whiche are in Christe Iesus what remayneth then that they walke according to the Spirite not according to the fleshe that they glorifie God before men whiche hath already made them the children of god Not to do ageyn y which is done alreadie for that is impossible not to ioyne a piece to Christes as thoughe it were not perfect For he left no piece vnpayed But to receyue by faith that iustification that God doth giue them without the workes of the lawe For workes sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum they followe a man iustified and goe not before him that is to be iustified Effectus autem non praeiudicat causae as you knowe The effect neuer preiudiceth the cause Thorough al the course of our liues we worke bicause we are iustified and we do not worke that we may be iustified And this is the meaning of the Apostle in this place not as thoughe workes were to be ioyned with faith to deserue some thing For then should wée receyue reward due and not grace And thus much touching M. Goughe his argument Now to your Obiection Firste I maruayle that M. Goughe will allowe this terme Only when it is not expressed in Canonicall scripture Next I am sure that there is nothing equiualent vnto it for faith without the workes of the lawe and fayth onely or fayth simplie withoute workes be not of one like condition You néede not maruayle much if you would rightly consider it Paules whole disputation standeth vpon twoo Subiecta one Praedicatum as the people are twoo to whoÌ„ he addresseth his doctrine and must agrée in one The subiecta are these works or the Law fayth or Christ The Praedicatum is Iustification If then reasoning à diuisione the one be put away what remayneth If I reason thus Of all liuing creatures there is one that is risibile apte to laugh it is not Brutum any brute beast Therefore it is Homo man If I reason thus I say is not this consequent comprehended in Consequenti Therefore onely man is risibilis So likewise Paule reasoneth there is one thing which iustifieth It is not works therfore it is fayth Doth it not nowe folow that being but one and that one faith that we may wel conclude that faith only iustifieth And so adde we nothing to the scripturs which you séeme to lay to M. Goughes charge by a taunte but finde it in the verie letter although not literallie And in so doing we make no new inuentioÌ„ So taught before vs Theophilact whose wordes are these vt autem haberi pro comperto queat posse hunc deum qui impiè vixerit non solum à tormentis eximere sed iustum reddere illud subdit credenti autem in eum qui iustificat c. Num igitur est hic quippiam allaturus Fidem duntaxat that is But that it may be certaynely knowen that God can not onely deliuer froÌ„ torments but also iustifie him which liued wickedly he addeth that but to him that beléeueth in him which iustifieth c. Must he therfore also bring some thing Faith onely â–ª And Origenes vppon this same place whiche M. Goughe alleaged sayeth thus Nunc tam velut conclusionem suarum assertionum ponens in hoc loco dicit Vbi est ergo gloriatio tua Exclusa est â–ª per quam legem operum Non sed per legem fidei Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Nowe making as it were a conclusion of his assertions sayeth in this place where is then thy reioysing it is excluded By what law of workes No but by the lawe of faith for we suppose or conclude that maÌ„ is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and he sayeth that the iustification of only faith is sufficient so that a maÌ„ beléeuing onely may be iustified although that no work be don of him I will not alleage here Hierom on the 4. of this Epistle Conuertentem impium and agein vt omnes qui ex Gentibus c nor Amb. j. Cor. xj hoc constitutum est à Deo. c. nor Bernard ser. 22. super Can. Quamobrem
that bryngeth forth grapes he is a thistle that bryngeth forth figges and when the Lord commeth he shall cut downe this trée and cast it into the fire that shall neuer be put out But hée that hath a true fayth hath a these frutes they follow him as his handmaydes he serueth himselfe of them and serueth his léege Lorde with them he is baptized he is penitent he staÌ„deth in awe he hopeth he loueth and all for the glorie of his Maister and yet not without his owne profit He deserueth nothing yet shall he haue great reward he meriteth not a myte yet shall he haue thousandes So standeth fayth amongest her damsels and yet she is singular She walketh with great companie and yet is she alone And this to your third question 4 That euerie sinne is not mortall MAister Goughe towardes the ende of his sermoÌ„ did verie coÌ„stantly affirme that euery sinne committed by a Christian man is deadly and mortall sinne and that no sinne is veniall no not an idle thought as light as men made of it Much like vnto the old heresie of Iouinian which to make all sinnes equall made euery sinne lykewise a deadly sinne Whome S. Augustine condemned more than a thousande yeares agoe as appeareth in his 6. Tom. de Haeres Haer. 82. How S. Augustine coÌ„demned Iouinian and wherefore it is manifest there in the place you recite and in his Epistles for making all sinnes equall in déed But not for saying that all sinnes deserue death and therefore are mortall That you can not finde in S. Augustine or any other There is great difference betwixte these twoo propositions Omnia peccata sunt aequalia and Omnia peccata sunt mortalia Al sinnes are equall and all sinnes are mortall For you can not conclude They are all mortall therefore they are all equall Although contrarie after a certayne manner it may be sayde they are all equall therefore they be mortall We saye that who soeuer is angrie with his brother without a cause shall be culpable of iudgement We saye to whoso sayeth foole to his brother shal be punished with hell fire We saye the lyke of murder we say the like of the sinne of Sodome and yet say we not that these offeÌ„ces be a like that it is all one to saye foole to thy brother and all one to be a Sodomite a man-slayer an adulterer Although that the maiestie of God be offended in them all yet in some of them thou sinnest ageinst nature thou sinnest ageinst heauen and earth the sonne it selfe is ashamed to behold thy villanie and thou ashamed to shewe thy selfe in light in some thy sin is so horrible that if man do winke yet the earth will cry out for vengeaÌ„ce For some Cities towns fieldes euen paradises for some the whole world hath bin destroyed as you reade with other god hath more mercifully dealt And shall we say that bicause the long patience and mercie of God doth giue vs time to repentance therfore these sinnes that wée coÌ„mit deserue not punishment That bycause he soone pardoneth them to his therfore their reward is not death For so you and yours say veniale peccatum de sui natura est venia dignum veniall sinne of his nature is worthy pardon A sinne it is an erring wandring froÌ„ the will of God a deturning from his ways for so doth this worde Chot signifie and yet forsoothe he 〈◊〉 stand in his owne iustice with God and say vnto him I am worthy to be pardoned A wound which néedeth not to bée wrapped a sore ful of corruption that nedeth no emplaster a swelling that nedeth not to be mollified with oyle a sick maÌ„ which néedeth no PhisitioÌ„ wel we shal haue further occasioÌ„ to speak of these more at large hereafter We wil now come to your reasons you bring to confirme your doctrine Let vs conferre herewithall two sayings of the Scripture the one of S. Iohn which sayeth as well of himselfe and of euery iust man as of the sinner Si dixerimus c. If we say that we haue no sin we deceyue our selues and the truthe is not in vs meaning that the iustest man a lyue is not without sinne Nowe if this sinne be as M. Goughe teacheth deadly mortal and damnable sin whiche separateth the soule of man from God and condemneth it to hell fire let vs see how a maÌ„ may be called iust which dayly committeth such damnable sinne This place maketh more ageinst you than with you you wil not say I thinke that S. Iohn was one of the most grieuous sinners that he was an adulterer a dronkerd c. And yet was he a sinner as the iustest maÌ„ is yet sinned he .vij. tymes and lacked the glorie of god And of the same sinnes he spake in that sentence of the same spake he in the sentence before saying And the bloud of Christ his sonne clenseth vs from all our sinnes And in the sentence after If we acknowledge our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sinnes and to clense vs from all vnrighteousnesse He coÌ„prehendeth him selfe in the number and sayeth clense vs from all forgiue vs all our sinnes Then belike the sinnes of S. Iohn had néede of it If they had néede why was it Was it not bicause that stipendium peccati mors est the wages of sinne is death But peradueÌ„ture he did not acknowledge these for any sinnes Then by your conclusion he had no sinne Take héede of that if you say so he wil answer you straight you are a lier But you can not sée how a man may be called iust which daily coÌ„mitteth such deadly sinne You caÌ„ not sée how Dauid sayth Beati quoruÌ„ remissae sunt iniquitates quorum â—ecta sunt peccata blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered And yet ne intres â—n iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens enter not into iudgemeÌ„t with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none lyuing be iustified Dauid telleth you in an other place the iust man falleth but he riseth vp again He repenteth him self and flyeth to the mercy of God and he doth forgiue him After this you come againe to the place of Luke coÌ„cerning Zacharie and Elizabeth touching which place bicause I haue answered it before I wil say nothing but besides I there alleaged both out of Glossa ordinaria Theophilact and Iustinê° Martyr I will now also refer you to Ierom aduersus Pelag. ad Chte where you shal sée whether any such thing be to be concluded or no take héede you be not a Pelagian in that poinct As for the contradiction you there speake of which foloweth of these two places conferred togither if M. Goughs exposition do stand there is none more thaÌ„ foloweth of your words For as you say here after peraduenture against your will bicause Augustin enforseth you thither you