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
the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued R. ABBOT It was not M. Perkins intent here to set downe any exact or formall description of Originall sinne but onely so to touch it as might serue to leade him to the point that was to be disputed of But out of that which he saith it ariseth that originall sinne is a common guilt of the first sinne of man inferring as a iust punishment an vniuersall distortion and corruption of mans nature and euerlasting destruction both of bodie and soule Concerning the matter therfore he propoundeth three things in Originall sinne to be considered the sinne the guilt and the punishment Where M. Bishop being like a man of glasse afraid of being crackt where he is not touched would for more assurance giue vs a note and I warrant you it is a wise one We say not saith he 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 Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I haue heard concerning an outlandish Mathematicke Reader whose tongue hauing out-runne his wits and making a discourse of he knew not what asketh his hearers at length Intelligitisne Do ye vnderstād me they answered him No. Profectò nihil miror saith he neque enim ego intelligo meipsum Marrie I do not maruel for neither do I vnderstand my selfe Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here reade which no man else vnderstandeth nor he himselfe If he had vnderstood what Originall sinne is and that concupiscence being a part of Originall sinne is also a punishment thereof corruption of nature which is one part arising from the guilt of the first sinne which is the other part he would not so vnaduisedly haue denied that the punishment of Originall sinne is also a part thereof especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming that concupiscence is in such sort a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne and of what sinne but that which Adam in person committed by action and is ours originally by propagation But that either this punishment of Original sinne which is the corruption of nature or the following punishment thereof which is the first and second death should be called expulsion of Originall sinne we lacke some Oedipus to resolue vs sure I am that M. Bishop vnderstood not what he said nor can giue vs anie answer to make it good Such learned men haue we to do with which are so deepe in their points that they know not what they say Now he that vttereth such riddles himselfe might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him yet in it selfe verie easie to be vnderstood What a stirre doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith that in the regenerate the guiltinesse is remoued from the person but not from the sinne in the person The meaning is plaine that the sinne is pardoned to the man regenerate and therfore cannot make him guiltie but yet in it self and in it owne nature it continueth such as that setting aside the pardon it were sufficient still to make him guiltie and to condemne him as shall be afterwards auouched out of Austin to euerlasting death The pardon acquitteth the man but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sinne it setteth a barre against the effect but take away the barre the cause is as strong as it was before His idle and wast words and fighting with a shadow I let passe if he were not a senslesse man that that M. Perkins saith in the plaine meaning thereof would neuer seeme to him any senslesse imagination But he goeth further How can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Why M. Bishop what hindereth I pray you Can there be two contraries saith he in one part of the subiect at once And why not What hath not his Philosophie taught him that contraries are incompatible onely in their extremes Did he neuer reade that contraries when they striue to expell one another do it not in a moment but by degrees and though one be stronger then then the other yet the weaker stil hath that latitude which the strōger hath not gained Thus are there in the regenerate man a Rom. 7.23 the law of sinne and the law of the mind the former rebelling against the latter b Gal. 5.17 the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other as the Apostle speaketh and that in one part of the subiect as shal appeare Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding saith he Why did M. Bishop neuer reade of c Zephan 1.15 a darke day or will he reason therof if it be day it cannot be darke or if it be darke it cannot be day And if he can see that light and darknesse may meete together in a day can he not see that light and darknesse may also be together in the vnderstanding One where our Sauiour Christ commēdeth the light of his Disciples d Matth. 13.16 Blessed are your eyes for they see another where he condemneth their darknesse e Mark 8 18. Haue ye eyes and see not By light of vnderstanding Peter saith f Matth. 16.16 Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Blessed art thou Simon saith Christ for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee but my Father which is in heauen The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darknesse of vnderstanding giuing Christ occasion to say vnto him g Ibid. vers 23 Get thee behind me Satan for thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men h Orig. in Mat. tract 3. Contraria sibi adhu erant in Petro veritas mendaecium De veritate dicebat Tu es Christus c. Ex mendacio dixit Propitius tibi esto c. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro There were contraries as yet in Peter saith Origen truth and falshood he spake by truth one way he spake by falshood another way In a word the Apostle telleth vs that i 1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part we prophecie but in part we see through a glasse darkly or as the maisters of Rhemes translate it in a darke sort How can that be but that there is still some darknesse in the vnderstanding which yet in part hath receiued light He goeth further Can there be vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Yes M. Bishop for whatsoeuer is wanting of perfect vertue k August epist 29. Id quod minus est quà m debet ex vitro est ex vitio est saith S. Austin it is by reason of vice So long therefore as there is not perfect vertue there is vice remaining together with vertue The inner man wherein is the will of man is renewed as the Apostle telleth vs from day to day S.
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
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
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
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
sinne be ascribed to that person which hath neither will nor power to sinne so do I answere to this scholler of Iulian that d Cont. Iulian lib. 6. ca 4. Aliud est perpetratio propriorum aliud alienorum contagio delictorum it is one thing to speake of committing sinnes of a mans owne another thing to speake of he contagion that commeth by anothers sinne Our speech is here of a sinne that without any consent or act of ours is deriued vnto vs by contagion from our father Adam which though it be ours without any consent of ours and against our wils doth tempt vs and entise vs yet we confesse cannot be perpetrated and committed but by the consent and liking of the will M. Bishop if he had meant honestly should haue accordingly propounded the obiection as M. Perkins did that the answer might be seene to be direct and plaine as indeed it is But he thought that was not for his turne he knoweth that by truth simplicity he cannot thriue with bad wares and therefore must vse shufling and shifting for the vttering of them But let vs now see what his reply is to M. Perkins answer to that obiection M. Perkins saith that the proposition that euery sin is voluntary is a politicke rule pertaining to the courts of men and doth not hold in the court of conscience which God holdeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformity to the law is made a sinne To this M. Bishop answereth full wisely Little knowes this man what belongeth to the court of conscience there secret faults indeed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie which is done without a mans free consent Where when M. Perkins hath spoken of a court of conscience kept by God he answereth of a court of conscience kept by men and those as we must vnderstand him his owne fellowes and so to the purpose answereth nothing In Gods court of conscience e Mat. 15.19 euill thoughts defile a man what they do in their courts of conscience it skilleth not In Gods court of conscience f Rom. 7.7 to lust is to sinne because the law hath said Thou shalt not lust it is a signe that they haue no conscience that keepe a court of conscience to iudge against that that God hath iudged that to lust is no sinne In Gods court of conscience g 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne and therefore all transgression of the law because it is vnrighteousnesse is sinne if their court of conscience determine otherwise it must abide the censure of his court and receiue check and charme frō thence In Gods court of conscience is required h Deut. 6.3 all the heart and all the mind and all the soule and all the strength and the true informed conscience for not giuing all resteth conuicted of sinne what court of conscience do they keepe that giue but a part in steed of all and yet haue a conscience to say that they sinne not therein What court of conscience do they keep that frame Gods commandements to their conscience and not their conscience to Gods commandements whose conscience is like the bed of Procrustes the giant whatsoeuer God saith that is too short for it they haue a rack to stretch it longer whatsoeuer God saith that is too long for it they haue an axe to cut it shorter M. Bishop did amisse in steed of a court of conscience kept by God to tell vs of a court of conscience kept by them But if we will speake of a court of conscience for resoluing cases of conscience we may well esteeme by that that we see that M. Perkins did much better know what belongeth to the court of conscience then M. Bishop doth As for those learned in that faculty of whom he speaketh all whelps of the same foxe what they think it is nothing to vs but more learned then they are do know as hath bene shewed that sinne may be without consent of the will nay against the will of him in whom it is sinne For euill motions and thoughts arise in the regenerate man against his will and it hath bene sufficiently proued that such euill motions and thoughts are sinne and who is there that hath a feeling conscience that doth not condemne himselfe in the arising thereof and aske God forgiuenesse that his mind hath bene ouertaken and caried away into such thoughts howsoeuer he haue preuented the consent and liking of them But saith M. Bishop to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer he went to sleepe if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse whereupon doth ensue any euil motion in his flesh Where he hath turned conformity to Gods law into conformity to reason and maketh M. Perkins to talke of conformity in the body who mentioneth nothing of the body onely that he may make way thereby to a dreaming answere of an vncleane dreame Which dreames notwithstanding are a very strong argument of a pollution and vncleannesse of nature yet habitually remaining and a very proper effect thereof which it is Gods mercy not to impute vnto vs for i August cont Iulian lib. 4 ca. 2. Cum sopitos deludunt omnia sensus nescio quomodo etiam casiae animae in turpes labū ur assensus quae si imputares Altissimus quis viueret castus if the most high should impute the same saith S. Austine who should liue chast M. Bishop maketh nothing hereof but S. Austine saith that such dreames are breach of chastity and therein sinne if God should impute the same And therefore he saith that when k Jbid. Si quādo ab eis vllum vel in somnis furatur assensum cū euigilauerint gemere compellit et inter gemitus dicere Quomodo impleta est anima mea illusionibus concupiscence thus in sleepe stealeth a consent when chast soules hereby fall into consent of filthinesse they mourne and grieue thereat when they are awake He teacheth his hearers l De Temp. ser 45. Aliquando ista concupiscentia sic insidiaetur sanctis vt faciat dormientibus quod non potest vigilantibus pudet hic immorari sed ne pigeat inde deü precari not to thinke much to aske God mercy for it when concupiscence so snareth them to do that to them when they are a sleepe which it cannot do when they are awake And this he himselfe bemoneth to God cōcerning himselfe m Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. In somnis occursant mihi talium rerum imagines non solum vsque ad delectationem sed etiam vsque ad cōsensionē factūque simillimum c. Potens est manus tua sanare omnes languores animae mea c. Perpetrat istas corrupielarum turpitudines c Lugens in eo quod inconsummaetus sum
do forbeare to impute the vices or defaults of humane passions and affections Whereupon he himselfe saith Å¿ Ibid. Confitetur etiam peccata iustorum magis eos asserens in Dei misericordia spem ponere quà m de iustitia sua fidere He confesseth the sinnes euen of iust men affirming that they rather trust to the mercie of God then haue any confidence of their owne righteousnesse It is not therefore the merit of righteousnesse that we can rest vpon but onely the pardon of Gods mercie by which as we haue obtained the gift of righteousnesse so we expect also the reward and crowne thereof that it may be verified which the Prophet saith t Psal 103 4. He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion and that of the Apostle that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now to these collections M. Bishop addeth a caueat that this iustice though perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet in comparison of the state of iustice in heauen may be called vnperfect Which is as much as if he should say that it is perfect in it selfe so farre as it may be perfect there where it cannot be perfect For there is not in this life any capacitie of perfect righteousnesse as wherein we continue still with the Apostle u Rom. 7.14.19 carnall sold vnder sinne not doing the good that we would by reason of x Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit y Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the minde leading vs captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members so as that to auoide the entisements of the world and to keepe our selues in our course entierly to God is as S. Ambrose saith z Ambros de suga seculi cap. 1. Res voti magis quà m effectus a matter that we do more wish and desire then we can effect and do and when we haue laboured much for it cannot but condemne our selues for being so farre from it But against this deuice of his we must note what hath bene said that our perfection here is not without some filth and that it leaueth vs still euill and therefore is not perfect in it selfe Yea and S. Hierome againe against the Pelagians distinguishing a Hieron adis Pelag lib. 1. Perspicuum est duas in scripturis sanctis esse perfectiones duasque iustitias Primam perfectionem incomparabilem veritatem perfectamque iustitiam Dei virtutibus coaptandam secundam autem quae competit nostrae fragilitati â—uxta illud quod dicitur Non iustificabitur c. ad eam iustitiam quae non comparatione sed Dei sceintia dicitur esse perfecta two sorts of perfection and righteousnesse the one to be compared to the righteousnesse of God the other belonging to the frailty of man denieth our perfection in this latter kinde and saith that in this sort it is true that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight which he affirmeth to be spoken as touching a righteousnesse called perfect not by comparison but in respect of the knowledge of God The knowledge of God then which knoweth all things according to truth yet knoweth no iustice or perfection in vs whereby we are able to stand iust and perfect before him Therefore Gregory saith that b Grego Moral lib. 5. cap. 8. Ipsa nostra perfectio culpa non caret nisi haâ—c seuerus iudex in subtili lince examinis misericorditèr peâ—set our very perfection is not without fault vnlesse the seuere Iudge do with mercy weigh it in the precise ballance of his examination Neither is it to be omitted which S. Austine saith that c Aug. de Temp. ser 49. In coÌ„paratione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota ista vita quâ—m gerimus Vnusquisque metiatur se quid est modò quid erit tunc inueniet in comparatione illius ista damna esse stercora all the life which we liue here that is all the righteousnesse of this life is but dung in comparison of the resurrection that if a man measure himselfe what he is now and what he shall be then he shall finde that that which now is is but losse and doung in comparison of that Which how can it be true if that that is in this life be perfect in it selfe so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe yea as that it meriteth and deserueth the righteousnesse of heauen Can that that in comparison is but drosse and doung be truly said to deserue the righteousnesse of heauen But concerning the same he addeth further that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law So then thereby a man shall be free from all formall sinne and shall haue no formall trespasse for which to say forgiue vs our trespasses and of formall transgression it shall not be true which S. Iohn saith d 1. Iohn 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues or which S. Iames saith e Iam. 3 2. In many things we offend all Is not this a formall foolery of a man that would be taken to be wise These are drunken fancies fit for no other but drunken men that neither know themselues nor others and therefore we can take M. Bishop for no other but a vile hypocrite who contrary to his owne conscience and knowledge pleadeth in this sort for the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But to fill vp the measure of his lewd dealing he falsifieth another place of Austine making him to say that it belongeth to the lesser iustice that is the iustice of this life not to sinne Wherein he goeth about to make S. Austine a promoter and vpholder of that heresie which with all his might he oppugned in the Pelagians who defended as M. Bishop here doth a righteousnesse in this life wherby a man may be free from sin And indeed the words which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Austine are the aduersaries obiection not the assertion of Austine himselfe He bringeth them in by way of supposition what may be said namely that f Aug de sp lit ca. 36 Sed dici potest quadam iustitia minor huic vitae competens qua iustus ex fide viuit c Non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinere ne peccet there is a lesser righteousnes belonging to this life wherein the iust liueth by faith to which righteousnes it pertaineth not to sinne Which obiection hauing prosecuted more at large and alledged what may be said for the maintenance thereof he at length setteth down answer whereof a part is contained in these words g Ibid. Tales iusti ex fide viuentes non opus habent Deo dicere Dimitte nobis c. Falsumque esse conuincunt quod sâ—riptuÌ„ est Non iustificabitur c. Sed quia haec falsa esse non possunt
21.18 When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shall gird thee and leade thee whither thou wouldest not Thus spake he saith S. Iohn signifying by what death he should glorifie God Where when he saith Whither thou wouldest not there is plainly approued in Peters martyrdome a shrinking and drawing backe a resistance and opposition of the will so that though willingly he did vndergo it yet it was in some part also against his will Whereupon S. Austin maketh this collection e August in Psal 30. conc 1. St Petrus Apostolus tanta perfectione quò nollet ductus est volens nolens mortuus est sed volens coronatus est quid mirum si est aliquis pauor in passione etiaÌ„ iustorum etiam Sanctorum Pauor est ex humana infirmitate spes ex diuina promissione If Peter the Apostle being of so great perfection was led whither he would not and dyed with his will against his will but with his will receiued the crowne what maruell is it if there be some feare in the suffering euen of iust men euen of the Saints There is feare by humane infirmitie and hope by the promise of God And this resistance this feare this shrinking backe the same S. Austine imputeth to the corruption of sinne f Idem Epist 120 Mente seruiens legi Dei carne autem trahens desideria peccati quibus obedire vetat Apostolus mentis quidem ratione concupiscit homo dissolui esse cum Christo sed id sensu carnis recusat refugit A man saith he in mind seruing the law of God and in the flesh carying still the lusts of sinne which the Apostle forbiddeth to obey by reason of the mind desireth indeed to be loosed and to be with Christ but by sence of the flesh refuseth and shunneth it Now what ground hath M. Bishop to except Iohn and Stephen in their martyrdome from the coÌ„mon condition of the Saints and why should he thinke that Iohns preaching and reprehending of Herod was without that spot of resistance and feare when his martyrdome was not And why should we imagine that that weaknesse of the flesh which hath his worke in the martyrdome of the Saints had not the like also in Abrahams oblation of his son being a thing without doubt as crosse to his nature and will as his owne death was But saith M. Bishop Our Sauiour saith that g Mat. 6.22 Luk. 11.34 if the eye be simple the whole body is light some not hauing any part of darknesse in it It is true if the eye be wholy single and cleare but where is the eye that is so cleare Where is he that saith not with Dauid h Psal 13.3 Lighten mine eyes that I sleepe not in death i 119.18 Open thou mine eyes that I may see the wondrous things of thy law k Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Tota opera nostra in hac vita est sanare oculum cordis vnde videtur Deus It is our whole worke or indeuour in this life saith S. Austin to heale the eye of the heart wherewith we should see God If it be our whole worke in this life to heale our eyes then we expect not in this life to haue them fully whole In the meane while therefore because it is Gods prerogatiue which S. Iohn speaketh of l 1. Ioh. 1.5 God is light and in him is no darkenesse at all it must needs be as S. Hierome collecteth thereof m Hieron contr Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari that all our lights are spotted and darkened with some filth But he telleth vs yet further that very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect And it may be indeed that his broken reason so teacheth him howsoeuer his conscience be contrarie to his reason But our reason teacheth vs that if there be yet darknesse in the vnderstanding and waywardnesse in the will and in both a stooping and inclining to the weaknesse and corruption of the flesh as indeed there is then all our workes fauour of our earthly vessels and nothing can come from vs but certainely carieth a blot and imperfection with it And therefore it was no silly shift of M. Perkins but a true defence that neuer any man did any one action with all his due circumstances because n Deut. 6 5. Aug. de perfect iustit Cùm est aliquid conâ—upiscentiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus all the soule which God wholy requireth in euery action of his seruice cannot be wholy bestowed therein so long as concupiscence possesseth any part thereof as perpetually it doth so long as we continue in the warfare of this life But here in stead of that fourth obiection proposed by M. Perkins M. Bishop bringeth vs foorth a leaden dagger of his owne If greater reward be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vnto them that do good workes But a greater reward is prouided for them that do better workes the conclusion should be Therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes In stead wherof in the end of this idle discourse he bringeth in this Whereof followeth most manifestly that there be merits and rewards But I pray you M. Bishop whereof doth that follow do merits follow in the conclusion when in the premisses there is no mention of them But we must pardon you it seemeth your trauelling to Rome hath iogged your Logicke out of your head and therefore such conclusions may easily slippe you But the direct conclusion of your argument we graunt therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes onely with this exception that it is due by the mercifull promise of God not by vertue of any our merit or desert and more your argument proueth not Now he taketh great paines in the handling of this worthy argument to proue inequality of reward and all to no purpose because we deny not but that as God in this life diuersly distributeth his graces to some in greater measure to some in lesse so in the life to come he will sort his rewards accordingly that it may be true which is written that o 1. Cor. 3.8 euery man shall receiue his wages according to his labour But whether greater wages to greater labour or lesser wages to lesser labour both are promised for Christs sake as hath bene shewed and God will performe the same p Ezech. 36.22 for his owne names sake and not for any merit of ours whereby he standeth bound vnto vs. As for the terme of merits which he alledgeth out of the Fathers what we are to conceiue thereof followeth anone after to be declared Of virginity and widowhood we are to intreat in
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
the benefits of God looke how farre thou treadest the foote of thy faith so farre thou shalt possesse For as Cyprian saith m Cypr. lib. 2. ep 6. Dat credentibus tantū quantum se credit capere qui sumit God giueth to them that beleeue so much as he that receiueth beleeueth himselfe to receiue He doth therefore vndoubtedly perseuere in faith and prayer who praying for perseuerance beleeueth that he shall receiue the same And this is further confirmed by the words of Saint Iohn n 1. Ioh. 5.14.15 This is the assurance that we haue in him that if we aske anie thing according to his will he heareth vs and if we know that he heareth vs whatsoeuer we aske we know that we haue the petitions that we haue desired of him To which M. Bishop answereth But where doe we find that it is Gods will to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall Saluation Where the limitation that he vseth at the first entrance into his seruice before also deliuered is but an idle tricke of his vagating wit For the question is not of assurance at the first entrance into Gods seruice but whether first or last there be any assurance at all For he denieth whether in the entrance or in the continuance that God by faith doth giue any man assurance of his owne Saluation Or if that be not his meaning but that though not at the first entrance yet afterwards God doth by faith giue that assurance let him tell vs and we shall be glad that he hath so farre foorth forsaken the doctrine of his Romish mistresse But because that is his meaning he must acknowledge his absurd folly in makings a shew of exception in words where he intended none As for vs we say indeed that God euen at the verie first entrance into his seruice offereth vs this assurance For euen at the very first entrance he saith as he did to the iaylor o Act. 16.31 Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt be saued and from the beginning our faith as it is greater or lesse so either strongly or weakely apprehendeth and embraceth this assurance And in this assurance we labour and endeuour to grow and to go on p Rom 1.17 from faith to faith from q Psal 84.7 strength to strength till we learne to stand as it were vpon the battlements of heauen and to set the world at defiance saying r Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ c. But that answer of his is otherwise also a ridiculous and vaine shift Where do we find that it is Gods will to assure euerie man of eternall Saluation Marrie speaking of them that beleeue euen in the verie place alledged M. Bishop if you dissemble it not By other places we are taught to pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes for Saluation for eternall life and you denie not but that we are thus to pray according to the will of God By this place we haue assurance and are taught to knovv that we haue the petitions that vve desire of him and therefore that according to our prayer we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes we haue Saluation and euerlasting life Speake strictly to the point M. Bishop let vs haue no shifting of words We haue assurance to knovv that vve haue vvhat vve aske of him according to his vvill It is according to his will that we aske of him forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life We haue therefore assurance and are to know that we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes and life eternall M. Bishop is dumbe and to this hath nothing more to say but goeth forward to aske the question Is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour towards him I answere him No it is not sufficient For God made that promise by the former couenant ſ Gal. 3.12 He that doth these things shall liue in them and it auailed not t Heb. 8.9 for they continued not in my couenant and I regarded them not saith the Lord. Therefore God made another couenant and promise not like the former not conditionall vpon faithfull seruice and good behauior but absolute and without exception the performance whereof should depend wholy and onely vpon his mercie so that he would not expect as of vs but did vndertake to giue vs to worke in vs whatsoeuer faithfull seruice and good behauiour should be necessarie thereunto Therefore he saith u Vers 10. I vvill put my lawes in their minds and in their hearts vvill I vvrite them and I vvill be their God and they shall be my people they shall all know me for I will be mercifull vnto their vnrighteousnesse and I will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more So that although comparing the one part of the worke of our Saluation with another the latter is vsually tied to a condition of the former and God accordingly proceed in the execution thereof yet if we entirely consider the whole it issueth absolutely out of the purpose and promise of God who intending the end disposeth and worketh himselfe whatsoeuer belongeth to the accomplishment and attainment of the end Inasmuch therefore as true faith expecteth all of God and on Gods part M. Bishop confesseth we are most assured it must follow that by true faith we stand assured of Saluation because God is neuer wanting to do that that appertaineth vnto him 19. W. BISHOP The fourth reason is Whatsoeuer God commaundeth that a man must and can performe But God commandeth vs to beleeue our Saluation ergo we must beleeue it The proposition is true yet commonly denied by all Protestants for God commands vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaunds vs to beleeue our Saluation is proued saith M. Perkins by these words Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it written in that Gospell beleeue your owne particular Saluation shew vs once but one cleare text for it and we will beleeue it I do beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercie and merits but know well that vnlesse I keepe his words I am by him likened to a foole Math. 7. that built his house vpon the sands He commaunds me to watch and pray Math. 26. least I fall into temptation and elsewhere Math. 25. warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certaine to be shut out with the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions find we in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this securitie of our Saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and diligent to traine our selues in godly exercises of all vertue R. ABBOT The proposition saith he is true and yet
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
may be a difference in vs but Christ cannot be diuided neither is there in him any difference from himselfe Where he goeth he goeth whole and therefore what he is to the strong the same is he to the faint and feeble soule There is greater assurance and lesse assurance but the matter wherof each doth take assurance is the whole mercie of God in Christ 38. W. BISHOP Whether it be possible for a man in grace to fulfill Gods law Pag. 95. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible first for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admit it were so Gal. 5. I then wold answer that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the lawe cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace Rom. 8. he might be able to do it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith that that which was vnpossible to the lawe is made by the grace of Christ possible 2 Obiect The liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect and stayned with sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article 3 Obiect Our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh Rom. 8.13 Not so if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth R. ABBOT The deniall of the possibility of keeping Gods commandement or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant God forbid that we should say that God hath commanded any thing vnpossible to be done We beleeue that Adam was created in state to fulfill all the righteousnesse of the law We beleeue that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for vs and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof In the meane time also we keepe the commandements of God and frame our liues according to the line and rule thereof and herein we labour and trauell to grow and increase from day to day but we attaine not to perfection here that which we do is more in will then in worke more in desire then in deede In the midst of our righteousnesse we condemne our selues of sin we carry our vncleannesse in our hands and thereby do yeeld confession thereof to the Lord if we will say that we fulfill the law our owne mouth shall condemne vs who accordingly as we are taught do daily aske forgiuenes for our transgressions of the lawe There is no man so long as he liueth but must confesse that he is too weake to the bearing of that burthen and cometh much short euery manner of way of that that is required by the law And this S. Paule tooke indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against iustification by the law For rightly he saith a Gal. 3.21 If there had bene a lawe giuen which could haue giuen life then righteousnes shold haue bene by the law He taketh it for granted that the law could not giue life not because it was defectiue in it selfe but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby euen as the Sunne cannot giue light to the blind not for any want that is in it but because the blind hath not meanes to make benefit and vse of the light that most clearely shineth from the Sunne Which reason the Apostle more plainely declareth otherwhere when he saith that b Rom. 8.3 it was impossible for the law namely to iustifie and saue vs because it was weakened by the flesh Wherby he signifieth that the default resteth vpon our weaknesse and the corruption of our sinfull flesh whereby we are vnable in any sort to attaine to that righteousnesse and perfect integritie and innocencie that the law requireth of vs. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to iustifie vs then so long as flesh continueth there must needes be still a weaknesse of the law in that behalfe But so long as here we liue there is still c Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit and d Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the mind We can neuer therefore whilest we liue attaine to the fulfilling of the law to be iustified thereby This remainder of flesh doth argue that we haue yet receiued the grace of God but onely in part It hath begun to heale vs but a great part of our disease and weaknesse continueth still We are therefore as yet but in part onely enabled thereby to fulfill the law and if we keepe it but in part we keepe it not so as to be iustified by the law because by the sentence of the law e â—al 3.10 cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written therin This meaning the Apostle plainely deliuereth neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him but by the corrupting of his words alledging him as if he had said That that was impossible to the law is made by the grace of Christ possible But why doth he put in that vnder the Apostles name which the Apostle doth not say he neither saith nor meant to say that to fulfill the law is made possible by the grace of Christ but rather that in Christ that iustification is supplied vnto vs which it is vnpossible should be yeelded vnto vs by the law And how could he gather that meaning from him when he could not but know that notwithstanding the grace of Christ he affirmeth still in part a remainder of that impediment by which it was vnpossible before to fulfill the lawe But of this text there will be further occasion to speake in the three and fortieth section The second reason alledged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law is that the liues and workes of the most righteous men are vnperfect and stained with sinne M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth Ergo quid he knew the ergo well inough Ergo no man can fulfill the law For if the most righteous faile in that behalfe then it followeth that generally all are excluded from that power If all must confesse themselues to be vnperfect if all must acknowledge themselues to be sinners then all must confesse as I said before that they faile of the performance of the law The connexion would haue bene considered here but M. Bishop pretily passeth it ouer vnder pretence of a seuerall article for the handling of the proposition what he saith of that we shal see anone M. Perkins
Ibid. Conuersus quisque ad Dominum DeuÌ„ suum ex toto corde suo et ex tota anima suae mandatum Dei non haebebit graue when a man shall be conuerted vnto God with all his heart and with all his soule he shall finde the commaundement of God not heauie vnto him But that affection that conuersion is yet but begun So long as concupiscence possesseth any part of the soule all the soule is not yet conuerted vnto God Very vainely therefore doth M. Bishop deale when from that which we haue yet but in part for the fulfilling of the law he inferreth the fulfilling of the whole law But to make vp the matter he bringeth some authorities of the auncient Church as much to his purpose as that that he hath said already That that Basil saith Å¿ Basil in illud Attende tâ—bi JmpiuÌ„ est dicere spiritus praecepta seruari noÌ„ posse that it is impious to say that the commaundements of the spirit cannot be obserued for so the words are is spoken of those things which by no meanes can be done As where the spirit saith Looke to thy selfe if a man will expound it of bodily looking and viewing of himselfe it is that that cannot be done For the eie as he saith cannot see it selfe it cannot see the head nor the backe nor the face nor into the bowels Now it were wickednesse as he saith to say that the spirit commaundeth any thing in this sort But we say not so of the commaundements of God for we teach that by the grace of Christ we fulfill them in part already and shall do it perfectly when the impediment which is the remainder of originall corruption shall be done away But so long as the t Gal. 5.17 flesh lusteth against the spirit so that we cannot do the things that we would so long it is vnpossible for vs to obserue the righteousnesse of the law according to the full measure and perfection thereof Hereby the answer is plaine to the place that he alledgeth out of Austine For we beleeue that God hath not commaunded any thing vnpossible meaning as he doth absolutely and wholy vnpossible We say as he saith u Aug. de sp lit cap. 35. Siue exemplo est in hominibus perfecta iustitia tamen impossibilis non est Fiâ—ret enim si tanta voluntas adhiberetur quanta sufficit tantae res Effet autem tanta si nihil eorum quae pertinent ad iustitiaÌ„ nos lateret ea sic delectarent animuÌ„ vt quicquid aliud siue voluptas siue dolor impedit delectatio illa superaret Quod vt non sit non ad impossibilitatem sed ad iudicium Dei pertinet There is no example of perfect righteousnesse amongst men and yet it is not vnpossible For it might be performed if there were so great will put to it as is sufficient for so great a matter And there should be so great will if on the one side nothing were hidden from vs of those things which belong to righteousnesse and on the other side the same did so delight the mind as that that delight did ouercome all other impediments of pleasure or paine Which that it is not so is not to be referred to any impossibility of the thing but to the iudgement of God x Ibid. cap. 36. Nullo modo dicendum est Deo deesse possibilitatem qua voluntas sic adiunetur humana vt iustitia omni ex parte modò perficiatur in homine Quando quidem si nunc velit in qucquaÌ„ etiam hoc corruptibile induere incorruptionem atque hic inter homines morituros eum iubere viuere minimè morituram vt tota penitâ—â— vetustate consumpta nulla lex in membris eius repugnet legi mentis deumque vbique praesentem ita cognoscat sicut eum sancti postea cognituri sunt quis demens audeat affirmarâ— non posse Sed quare non faciat c. est aliquid in abdito profundo iuditiorum Dei vt etiam iustorum omne os obstruatur in laude sua non aperiatur nisi in laudem Dei For God as he saith afterwards wanteth not power so to assist the will of man as that euen now righteousnesse may in euery sort be made perfect in him And if it were the will of God that euen now this corruptible in any man should put on incorruption and he would appoint that he should liue here immortall amongst mortall men so as that all oldnesse being vtterly consumed there should be no longer any law in the members to rebell against the law of the mind and that he should so know God as the Saints hereafter shall know him who would be so mad as to affirme that God cannot do it But why he doth it not somewhat there is in the secrecie and depth of his iudgement that euery mouth euen of the iust may be stopped in their owne praise and not be opened but to the praise of God Thus therefore the commaundements of God are not vnpossible to be done because God can make vs able perfectly to fulfill the same Yea it is in his power euen in this life to bring vs to this perfection if it were his will and pleasure so to do But in his wisedome he hath thought good to giue vs in this life only some tast and beginnings thereof whereby we very well see and vnderstand that there is no impossibility in the rest The reason why he doth so is because he will haue vs yea euen the most iust and righteous of vs fully to vnderstand by our defects that our saluation is not of our merits or workes but onely of his mercy But in his due time he will giue vs fully to be satisfied with that righteousnesse with the tast onely whereof he now prouoketh rather then asswageth our hunger and thirst Euen y Ibid. Primum praeceptuÌ„ iustitiae quo iutemur diligere Deum ex toto corde c. in illa vita complebimus cùm videbimus faecie ad faciem Sed ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est vt admoneremur quid fide exposcere quò speÌ„ praemittere et obliuiscendo quae retrò sunt in quae anteriora extendere debeamus that great commaundement of righteousnesse to loue the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soule with all our minde whereto is consequent that other of louing our neighbour as our selfe we shall fulfill in that life when we shall see face to face But therefore euen now is that commaunded vnto vs that we should thereby be aduertised what to aske and pray for in faith to what to send our hope before vs and to what to follow hard forward forgetting that that is behind Now therefore as it is most easie for a man that hath sound and perfect eies to discerne the light which yet is vnpossible for him that is blinde so long as he continueth so so when God
Cum est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis c. noÌ„ omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any carnall concupiscence God is not loued with all the soule And so long as we liue here there is carnall concupiscence against the law of the minde Therefore so long as we liue here charity is neuer perfect in vs as it ought to be neither can any perfect good worke be effected by vs. M. Bishop minceth and qualifieth the matter that no man hath so perfect charity but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do But the argument prooueth that charity is alwaies vnperfect in this life and therefore not sometimes onely but alwaies a man doth lesse then he ought to do There is alwaies a blot that staineth our charity l Hilar. apud August cont Julian lib. 2. Supra sect 44. by reason whereof we haue nothing in vs cleane nothing innocent as before was cited out of Hilary and therefore it can yeeld no workes that are free from blot and staine But the Reader is here to note the constancie of this man who affirmeth here that no man hath so perfect charity in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to do whereas before he hath told vs of a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that m Sect. 45. it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe Thus giddily he runneth to and fro being vncertaine what to say and neuer knowing where he may stand sure Now here he saith that the other saying of Austine Woe to the laudable life of man if it be examined without mercy is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes wheras Austine vseth the words in respect of hell fire which they say is not incident to their veniall sinnes For hauing professed that he he durst not say that after baptisme no word went out of his mothers mouth against Gods commaundement and that Christ saith that if a man say to his brother foole he is guilty of hell fire he addeth these words n Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam And woe euen to the commendable life of man if thou set aside mercy in the examining or sifting of it To which purpose he saith also in another place o Idem In Psal 42. Quicunque hic viâ—â—â— quantumlibet iustè viuat vae illi si cuÌ„ illa in iudicium intrauerit Deus Whosoeuer liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue woe vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him In which sort Arnobius also saith p Arno. in Psal 135. Vae nebis si quod debemus exegerit vae nobis si quod debet reddiderit Woe vnto vs if he require what we owe to him woe vnto vs if he pay what he oweth to vs. These woes are not vttered in respect of Purgatory or any temporall affliction but in respect of the issue of that finall dreadfull iudgement the sentence whereof shall stand for euer Now if they haue learned by the word of God to denounce this woe then woe to M. Bishop that to the contrary defendeth a righteousnesse so perfect in this life as that his righteous man q Sect. 4. needeth not greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge as who faileth not in any duty that he is bound to performe who can keepe himselfe from all but veniall sinnes which are easily forgiuen r Rhem. Testam Annot. Mat. 10.12 Sext. Proaemaâ— glossa by the Bishops blessing by holy water by knocking the brest by saying a Pater noster by extreame vnction and some other such deuotions madly deuised to that end As touching the other place of Austine it hath bene already shewed that our righteousnesse in this life is vnperfect not onely by comparison but simply in it selfe and according to that that here is required of vs The imperfections of wit and will which M. Bishop speaketh of are so great and so many as that if he did but with a feeling heart and conscience consider the same he would finde that there is small cause in the most perfect of this life to pleade for that perfection that he maintaineth But being a man of a frosen and dead heart and neither knowing others nor himselfe by the name of many light faults he passeth ouer those things which make the most righteous and iust to groane vnder the burden of them and to say with Dauid Å¿ Psal 38.4 Mine iniquities are gone ouer my head and are like a sore burden too heauie for me to beare t Psal 40.12 My sinnes haue taken such hold vpon me that I am not able to looke vp they are moe in number then the haires of my head and my heart hath failed me Tush saith M. Bishop what neede all this adoe all these are but light and veniall faults but hereby we conceiue that neither his will nor his wit haue indeede that perfection that it were fit they should haue His answer to the words of Gregory is ridiculous and childish Gregorie forsooth by our vertue meaneth the vertue that we haue of our owne strength when as Gregorie teacheth that we haue no vertue of our owne strength but onely by the gift of God u Greg. Moral lib. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est sed quae diuina largitate fit nostra It is called our righteousnesse saith he in another place not which is ours of our owne but which by the gift of God becommeth ours According to this meaning he saith that x Ibid. li. 9 ca. 1. Sanctus vir quia omne virtuâ—is nostrae meritum vitium esse câ—nspexit si ab interno arbitro districté iudicetur rectè subiungit si voluero c. the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be vice if it be strictly iudged by the internall Iudge did rightly adde If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answer him one for a thousand He applieth his speech to Iobs righteousnesse which he had no cause to imagine that Iob alledged as attained vnto by his own strength And shall we be so mad as to thinke that if Iob had bene perfect by a righteousnesse receiued by the gift of God he would say he could not therefore answer God because he saw all the merit of the vertue that he had by his owne strength to be but vice It is strange to see that these men should be so blinde as not to see the grosse absurdity of these shifts Gregory spake to the instruction of his hearers whom surely he thought not to be worse then the Pharisee but knew that they attributed their vertue and righteousnesse to the gift of God and of that righteousnesse which they confessed to be Gods good gift teacheth them to acknowledge that through our weaknesse
vse are therefore deuided in the subiect or may be the one without the companie of the other as by infinite examples may be seene But he maketh faith and charitie more different yet in the Protestants opinion And how For faith sayth he layeth hold of Christs righteousnesse and receiues that in but charitie receiueth nothing in but giueth it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table But what of this Will he conclude thus There is a difference betwixt faith and charitie therefore faith may be without charitie No forsooth but vnlesse faith may be without charitie the Protestants saluation is vnpossible And why so Marrie charitie is the fulnesse of the law and the Protestants hold it vnpossible to fulfill the law therefore they can haue no charitie and therefore by their owne doctrine they can haue no faith because without charitie there is no faith What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is how deepe a reach hath he into hell that hee can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections is easie and ready True and liuely faith by the consideration of the goodnesse and mercy of God towards vs in Iesus Christ enkindleth in our hearts true charitie and loue towards God and towards our brethren and neighbours for Gods sake The ayme and marke of which charitie is to giue foorth it selfe in all duties of the first and second table But charitie so long as here we liue is vnperfect in all men and but vnperfectly attaineth to that that it aymeth at Some attaine in some good sort to the performance of some duties others to the performance of some other duties but none attaineth to all as r Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes c. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretickes yea and in those that we do attaine vnto there is also some weaknesse and default some blot and staine as hath bene shewed by the corruption of sinne Å¿ Heb. 12.1 that hangeth so fast on and presseth vs downe whilest we are labouring and striuing to ascend vpward vnto God Thus therefore faith and charitie go together weake faith and charitie vnperfect running in the way but oftentimes through frailtie stumbling and falling striuing to the keeping of all Gods commandements but yet forced to say with the Apostle t Rom. 7.19 The good that I wold I do not but the euill that I would not that I do I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne But faith is our comfort that God for Christs sake and for his righteousnes sake which he hath wrought for our redemption accepteth vs as perfectly righteous in him that he forgiueth all our sins winketh at all our imperfections and will heale all our wounds and infirmities that what is now impossible through the weaknesse of the flesh may be made expedite and readie vnto vs when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed and u 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Thus the linking of faith and charitie maketh no impossibilitie of our saluation but it is the spirit of error that hath dazeled M. Bishops eyes that he cannot discerne how one truth agreeth and standeth with another 52. W. BISHOP Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of antiquitie that most incorrupt iudge S. Augustine saith flatly Lib. 15. de Trin. ca. 17. con Cresc lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may wel be without charity but it caÌ„not profit vs without charitie And That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therefore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one immaculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued onely but in which onely he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept but in which onely faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is in many without charitie R. ABBOT The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin is answered a Sect. 22. before The faith of which he speaketh is not 〈◊〉 true iustifying faith but onely the outward profession of the doctrine of faith That is plaine by the second b August cont Crescon lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charitie euen without the Church that is one doctrine of faith euen as the Apostle meaneth when he saith One faith one baptisme c. Thus Saint Austin declareth it when he calleth it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei viâ—i Et cap. 29. Fides qua coâ—fitemur Christum esse filium Dei viui the faith whereby it is beleeued that Christ is the Sonne of the liuing God the faith whereby we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith that euery man shall d Habac. 2.4 liue by his owne faith That that he maketh the matter of faith the diuels acknowledge and confesse who yet cannot truly say I beleeue in God I beleeue in Iesus Christ which is the voice and profession of a true iustifying faith and cannot be separated from hope and charitie as hath bene before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himselfe yea and the doctrine of faith though in generall termes it may be sometimes found amongst heretikes yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof it is not to be found with them as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth saying e August Enchirid cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogiteÌ„tur nominetenus inuenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos qui se Christianos vocari volunt te verò ipsa non est apudeos If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ Christ is found as touching his name amongst all sorts of heretikes who will needs be called Christians but indeed he is not with them So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in generall words where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charitie but not the iustifying faith as hath bin often said If there be that
them But if Christ had left any such matters to be deliuered by traditioÌ„ then it should vndoubtedly be knowne which and what they were We desire then by M. Bishop to be aduertised particularly therof and to know what those high mysteries were which the disciples could not beare What shal we think that Christ spake of that trash which they deliuer vnto vs vnder the name of traditions But S. Austin again cutteth him off froÌ„ all answer in that behalf u Ibid. tract 96. Quae cùm ipse tacuerit quis nostrum dicat ista vel illa sunt aut si dicere audeat vnde probat Quis enim est tam vanus aut temerarius qui cum dixerit etiaÌ„ vera quibus voluerit quae voluerit fine vllo testimonio diuino affirmet ea esse quae tuÌ„c dominus dicere noluit Quis hoc nostruÌ„ faciat non mâ—ximaÌ„ culpam remeritatâ— incurrat in quo nec Prophetica nec Apostolica excellit authoritas Seeing Christ himself hath bin silent of those things who of vs can say they are these these or if he dare to say it how doth he proue it For who is there so vaine or so rash who though he say things that are true will affirme without any testimony froÌ„ God that those are the things which Christ wold not say Which of vs should so do and not incurre a note of great presumption not hauing any authority either of a prophet or an Apostle Now if it cannot be known what those things were of which Christ spake then M. Bishop can haue no proofe for their traditioÌ„s hereby because wheras his words import that S. Iohn in his gospel recordeth somewhat hereof though not much after the resurrectioÌ„ of Christ we see nothing in that which he recordeth but that the matter of all the rest may be contained in the rest of his and the other Apostles writings But for the more full clearing of this matter it is to be noted that our Sauior before hath said to his Apostles x Iohn 15.15 All things that I haue heard of my Father haue I made knowne to you And again in his prayer to the Father y Chap. 17.8 I haue giuen vnto them saith he the words which thou gauest me and they haue receiued them If Christ deliuered all the words of God to his disciples before his death then it must needs follow that he deliuered no other words vnto them after his resurrection Therfore those many things which he had to speake vnto them are not to be vnderstood of any other things then he had taught them before but of a more full perfect reuelatioÌ„ for the more ful perfect apprehension vnderstanding of the same things To which purpose we are againe to note against M. Bishops fraudulent collection that our Sauior here saith not that he wold declare those things vnto them himself after his resurrectioÌ„ but deferreth the same to the coming of the Spirit saying z Chap. 16.13 Howbeit when he is come which is the spirit of truth he wil leade you into al truth Now how he shold lead them into all truth he hath before shewed a Chap. 14.26 He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you He shold teach them all things not by teaching them other things but by bringing all things to their remembrance which they had bin taught by Christ himself Therfore here Christ saith further for he shal not speak of himself but whatsoeuer he shal heare that shal he speake Wherby he importeth that the holy Ghost shold speake according to his example and he stil professeth that b chap. 7.16.17 he speaketh not of himselfe that c Chap. 8.28 he doth nothing of himself but as the Father hath taught me saith he so I speake these things Christ spake d Chrysost de sanct adoran spiritu Non discessit à lege non discessit à Prophetis c. Non locutus est ex seipso sed ex Prophetis c. A seipso enim loqui extra legeÌ„ loqui est not of himself as Chrysostom noteth because he spake out of the Law and the Prophets for to speake of himself is to speake without or beside the Law So then the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe but as Christ spake according to the words of the Father in the law and the Prophets so the holy Ghost should speake according to the words of Christ and therefore according to those things that are written in the Law and the Prophets Therefore those many things which Christ had to speake vnto them and into the truth and knowledge whereof the holy Ghost was to leade them were no other things but what were contained in the written word of the Law and the Prophets whereof as yet they were not capable because as yet they did not so well e Iohn 20.9 know the Scripture nor could do vntill he should f Luk. 24.45 open their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the same Origen vnderstandeth the words spokeÌ„ to the Apostles g Origen contra Cels l. 2. Fortassis vt Judaeis in litera legis Mosaicae educatis Apostolis habebat dicenduÌ„ quae sit vera lex c. VideÌ„s perdifficile esse ex animo reuellere penè conata et vsque ad grandem aetateÌ„ coalita dogmata adeòque pro diuinis habita vt amouere illa videretur imptum c. Jdeo dictum Deducet vos in omnem veritateÌ„ id est in omnem veritatem earuÌ„ rerum in quatuÌ„ figuris versantes putabatis vos vero cultu DeuÌ„ colere as Iewes brought vp in the letter of Moses law our Sauior seeing that it was very hard to pull out of their minds the opinions which had grown vp with theÌ„ to those yeers which were taken to be of God so as that it should seeme impious to remoue them Therefore where Christ saith The spirit shall leade you into all truth it is saith he as if he had said Into all the truth of those things in the figures whereof ye haue bin conuersant thinking thereby truly to worship God Here is then no warrant at all for M. Bishops vnwritten mysteries here is nothing as Origen conceiueth but that the spirit shold afterwards instruct them of the abolishing of the ceremonies of Moses law which they were not yet well able to conceiue And therefore against all illusions of heretikes pretending for their vnwritten traditions and doctrines the holy Ghost as the Church of Rome doth Chrysostom taking it for granted that what Christ spake is set foorth vnto vs in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists giueth this most notable rule h Chrysost vt supra Si quis eoruÌ„ qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctuÌ„ ex seipso loquitur non ex Euangelijs non credite Venit Manes dicit Ego sum Paracletus c.
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