legerdemaine He will not be thought captious and yet for two whole pages here in the beginning is nothing but captious His â—â—â—ing the text of M. Perkins his booke to passe whole in places indifferent is nothing but a dismembring and mangling of the text His paring off onely of superfluous words is the paring off of such arguments and authorities as he knew not how to answer His adding of annotations the sophisticating of his reader with idle and friuolous corrections His resting onely vpon points of controuersie the wresting of those things to controuersie whereof there is no controuersie at all M. Perkins defineth Freewill to be a mixt power of the minde and will of man whereby esteeming what is good and what is euill he doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same A little to please himselfe hee giueth a snatch at this definition of Free will as not formal enough onely to shew himselfe more formall then wise the definition being more fitly expressed then that which he hath put in place of it and he honestly is content because it is more popular to let it passe Whereas M. Perkins in his first conclusion affirmeth in the first estate of man as he was created a libertie of nature M. Bishop giueth thereof this learned note that this libertie preceeded not from mans owne nature but from originall iustice wherein he was created as if he should say that the shining of the Sunne proceedeth not from the nature of the Sunne but from the light of it whereas the light is a part of the nature of the Sunne as was originall iustice a part of the nature of man being the a Ephes 4.24 image and likenesse of God in which and according to which he was created And to say that Free will did proceed from originall iustice is wholy against himselfe because it must thereof follow that in the fall of originall iustice must needs be implied the losse of Free wil which cannot stand without that from which it doth proceed so that man in his fall must necessarily be sayd to haue lost his Free will But he should rather haue sayd that God gaue vnto man Free will as the steward and disposer of originall iustice and righteousnesse and as b Tertul adu Marcion lib. 2. Libertas potestas arbitrij quasi ubripens emancipatia deo boni the ballance to turne either to or fro the benefit that God had put into the hands and power of man In the third estate of man as he is renewed M. Perkins affirmeth libertie of grace Carry this in minde saith M. Bishop that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue Free will As though either he or any of vs had made question thereof who all acknowledge by the Gospell that it is the worke of Christ c Iohn 8.36 to make vs free d Rom 6 18. free from sinne e Cap. 8.21 free from the bondage of corruption that in holinesse wee may bee seruants vnto God Nay that the reader may the more cleerly conceiue the truth of this whole matter we deny not Free will in any estate of man For it is true which S. Austin saith f August de ciuit dei lib 5. cap. 10. Necesse est esse vt cùm volumus libero velimus arbitrio that whatsoeuer we will we will the same by Free will because the will is not subiect to compulsion but willeth alwayes freely and of it owne accord or else looseth the nature and name of will Which freedome of will by originall institution stood indifferent either to good or euill yet was not to continue so but vpon election once made to be free onely in that whereto of it selfe it should betake it selfe free onely in euill if it should apply it selfe to euill free only in good if it should make choise to continue therein Therefore the Angels which kept their originall habitation and estate haue their g Bernard de grat liâ— arb Angeli sancti ita sunt boni vt non possuit esse â—â—ali Free wil by Gods election and grace stablished in goodnes so that it is not inclineable to any thing that is euill But the Angels which sinned and abode not in the truth haue their Free will by it selfe and of it selfe h Ibâ—d praeuaricatores angeli ita sunt mali vt 〈◊〉 non valeant esse boni obdured and hardened in that that is euill so that it is not at all appliable to any thing that is good Man therefore by sinne hath not lost Free will for by i August cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap 2 Liberum arbitrium vsque aâ—â—o in peccatore non perijâ— vt per illud peccant maximè omnes qui cum delectatione peccant lib. 3. ca. 8 Non nisi ad peccatuâ— vâ—let Free wil it is that now he sinneth yea and can nothing but sinne But this Free will that is thus free in sinne hath no freedome at all as S. Austin in sundry places expresseth to righteousnesse and to the seruice of God vntill it be rectified and made free by Iesus Christ no freedome or power at all but what is newly and meerely k Idem de peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 6. Ipsum liberum arbitrium ad dei gratiam hoc est ad Dei dona pertinere non ambigens c. the grace and gift of God Therfore hauing affirmed the freedome of the will to sinne he addeth that l Cont 2. epist Pelag. l. 3. cap. 8. Ad iustitiam nisi diuinitùs liberatum aduitumque non valet to righteousnesse but as it is made free and helped of God it auaileth nothing m Ibid. lib. 4 ca. 8 Quid mihi obiâ—â—dâ—s liberum arbitrium quod ad faciendam iustitiam liberum non erit nisi ouis fuerit Qui facit igitur òues homines ipse ad obedientiam pietatie humanas liberat voluntates What tellest thou me of Free will saith he which to the doing of righteousnesse shall not be free except thou become a sheepe of Gods he then who of men maketh his sheepe euen he maketh the wils of men Free to the obedience of godlinesse n Epist 107. Liberum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus antea Gratia nostrum ad de linandum à malo faciendum bonum liberatur arbitrium We lost free will to loue God by the greatnesse of the first sinne saith he but by grace our will is made free to decline from euill and do good So then we do not deny Free will to be righteousnesse but yet we haue regard to that caution which S. Austin giueth against Pelagians and Papists o Ibid. si verè volumus defenders liberum arbitrium non oppugnemus vâ—de â—ic liberum if wee will defend Free will aright not to oppugne that whence it is made free What p Cont. 2. ep Pelag. l. 4
sinnes may be called a satisfaction for our sinnes There is no disproportion whence he may take any aduantage against the force of this exception But yet further he maketh God by this meanes like vnto his needy creditour For as the creditour must be appeased by money so must God by merit and on both parts satisfaction is required What it is wherewith the satisfaction is made it skilleth not be it to God one way and to the creditor another way but on both sides there must be iust and worthy satisfaction He would make vs beleeue that God freely forgiueth nothing but either we must by merit purchase our release or else we must lye by it till we haue payed the vttermost farthing Yea and that must be many times for mony also for although God himselfe take no mony for Pardons yet the Vicar of Rome doth for him An humble and contrite heart will not serue the turne he must pay for it that will be pardoned Thus M. Bishops shifts fall out amisse on euery side and he can say nothing to serue his turne Better were it for him to yeeld to the truth then thus to shame himselfe by fighting so childishly against it In a word we tell him that God indeed esteemeth an humble and contrite heart grieuing for sinne and suing for pardon but he esteemeth the same as suing for pardon not as presuming of satisfaction A strange suter is he that thinketh suite to be satisfaction or that by requesting a pardon he iustly deserueth to be pardoned He alledgeth that it is said h Mat. 18.32 Did not I forgiue thee the debt because thou besoughtest me but yet he doth not find that it is said I forgaue thee the debt because by beseeching me thou madest me a full recoÌ„pence satisfaction for the debt If he had made satisfaction therby then it should not haue bene said afterwards which M. Bishop should haue remembred i Vers 34. His master was wroth and deliuered him to the iaylers till he should pay all that was due vnto him There could nothing remaine due where iust satisfaction had bene made 16. W. BISHOP Secondly saith M. Perkins Fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking no more conferring to the kingdome of heauen then eating and drinking doth What an Epicurian and fleshly doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuites fast put on sack-cloth and lye on the ground all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercy if the one had bene as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thin diet if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Christ saith expressely That if we fast in secret his heauenly Father will repay vs openly will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of fasting we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore brieflly I here conclude that this doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweet speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is no pleasure true for such belli-gods and their followers R. ABBOT That fasting of it self is a thing indifferent neuer wise man made any doubt No man euer yet in a right mind thought it to be a matter of vertue to keepe a mans belly emptie Surely if to fast be a vertue then to eate and drink is a vice because whatsoeuer is contrarie to vertue is vice If fasting of it selfe be a good worke a man may do a good worke against his will because a man may be made to fast when he hath more will to eate But it might please his wisdome to vnderstand that some things simply and of themselues are good other some things simply and of themselues are euill othersome of themselues are neither good nor euill but yet are instruments and may be vsed either to good or euill Of this last kind are riches health strength walking sitting waking sleeping mariage virginitie and such like by which for the things themselues a man is neither the better nor the worse but by a good man they may be applyed to good and by an euill man to euill Of the same nature are eating drinking fasting for none of which can a man be called better then another man because they are things indifferently common both to good and euill although by a good man they may be vsed to good And therefore as Iohn Baptist came a Mat. 11 18.1â— neither eating nor drinking so the sonne of man came both eating and drinking to giue to vnderstand that neither eating nor fasting of themselues do make vs any whit the more accepted in the sight of God Neither did our Sauiour Christ by eating and drinking cherish the flesh in such sort as it is vnlawful to cherish the flesh which is meant of the vices not of the substance of the flesh by wantonnesse intemperancie and excesse not by moderate and sober feeding and diet in which respect let him remember what the Apostle saith that b Eph. 5.29 neuer any man hated his owne flesh but loueth and cherisheth it euen as the Lord doth the Church thereby noting them to be vnnaturall monsters rather then men of whom he speaketh in another place who place c Col. 2.23 religion in not sparing the body and not hauing it in any honour to satisfie the flesh As for the Niniuites if they had but only fasted they had done as good as nothing what had they done more then their cattle did But they fasted to humble themselues to God and to shew their feare of his iudgement and for these things God vouchsafed to respect their fast And thus he that d Mat. 6.17.18 fasteth in secret not to fast but e Tertul. de poen leiunijs preces a alâ—re by fasting to cherish prayer not to afflict the body but to affect the soule that is that vseth the one not for it selfe but for the other not for f 1. Tim. 4.8 bodily but for spirituall and godly exercise him the Father seeth in secret and will reward him openly It is not simply fasting that God requireth but humiliation and prayer he requireth fasting accidentally onely as a support and help therof Therefore the doctrine of Poperie is most absurd and senslesse which maketh fasting distinctly by it selfe and for it selfe not only an act of Gods worship but also a matter of merit such as whereby we make satisfaction to God and purchase of him the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop alledgeth somewhat concerning fasting as we see but concerning this vse of fasting though it were the matter in hand he had nothing at all to say As for his cauils they are handled before in g Sect. 18. answer to his Epistle to the King The kingdom of Atheists Epicures in the whole world doth not flourish more then in the
at Caluin when he in the mean time going like a stately Lion shaketh them off like curres and dasheth them against the walles If Caluin were so poore a man alas what shal we thinke of M. Bishop what shall we make of him but a begger outright Yet he taketh vpon him to proue and that out of those workes which S. Austin wrote after the Pelagian heresie was a foote that the same Austin taught Free will And we deny not but that he did so and in that meaning wherein he taught it we are readie to affirme it Yea let him remeÌ„ber that Caluin professeth that c Ibid. Sect. 8. if any man will vse the name of Free will without the corrupt meaning of it he will not gainesay him onely because it cannot be retained without danger of euill vnderstanding he wisheth it to be forborne and in that respect we for the most part do forbeare it But this Free will in true meaning is no facultie of nature as M. Bishop will needs haue it but d Aug de pecca mei remiss lib. 2 ca. 6 Ipsum liberum arbitriuÌ„ ad gratiam Dei hoc est ad dona Dei pertinere noÌ„ ambâ—go nec soluÌ„ vt sit sed etiam vt bonum sit hoc est ad facienda Domini mandata conuertatur it belongeth to the grace of God to the gifts of God not onely the being of it but the conuerting of it vnto God And very truly doth the same S. Austin argue that e Ibid cap. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo est quae adhuc potest esse vel bona vel mala bona verò voluntas ex nobis est melius est id quod à nobis quam quod ab illo est if we haue of God by nature a Free will which may be either good or euill and haue of our selues a good will by consenting or applying it when God calleth to that that is good then better is that that we haue of our selues then that that we haue of God Which because it is absurd we must needes acknowledge that a good will that is to say Free will to faith and righteousnesse is not of our selues but of God onely But M. Bishop alledgeth Austin affirming that f De spirit lit cap. 34. to consent to Gods calling or not to consent propriae voluntatis est belongeth to mans owne will But rather he should say propriè voluntatis est that is it concerneth properly the will the place by changing of a letter being vndoubtedly corrupted S. Austins purpose there being onely to note the will to be the subiect not the cause of this consenting To consent he meaneth is an act of the will which howsoeuer God worketh in the will to do yet the will it is that doth it but that the will consenteth by a power of it own he meaneth not yea he himselfe plainly euicteth the contrarie in the words immediatly going before For what is it to consent but velle credere to be willing to beleeue And g Ipsum velle credere Deus operatur in homine God it is saith he that worketh in vs to be willing to beleeue Therefore it must needes be that God worketh in man to giue consent Mans will consenteth it is true h Contra duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1 cap. 18 lib. 2. cap 8. de Praedest sanct ca. 5. sed praeparatur voluntas à Domino but the will is framed or prepared of the Lord. Faith is in the power of man i De spir lit cap. 31. sed nulla est potestas nisi à Deo but there is no power but of God It is in mans will when God hath giuen him to will it is in mans power when God hath giuen him power And more then this howsoeuer we reade the words S. Austin intended not For full and certaine assurance whereof M. Bishop should haue remembred that S. Austin himselfe reporteth it as an error which he had sometimes holden k De Praedest sanct cap. 3. Vt praedicato nobis Euangelio consentiremus nostruÌ„ esse nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar Quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicam ante Episcopatum meum scripta that to consent to the Gospell when it is preached is of our owne will and that we haue that of our selues From which error he professeth he was reclaimed by those words of the Apostle l 1. Cor. 4.7 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued For if it be of our own will that we consent then somwhat we haue of our selues which we haue not receiued He should further haue remembred that S. Austin noteth it as the error of the PelagiaÌ„s that m Epist 107 CoÌ„sentire vel non consentire ita nostrum est vt si velimus to consent or not to consent is in our selues and of our selues so that if we will we do so or if we will not we cause that the worke of God nought auaileth in vs. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Austin a patron of that opinion which he reformed as an error in himselfe and condemned as an error in other men The second place that he alledgeth in Austins true meaning is altogether against him n Contra Pelag. Celest lib 1. cap. 14 Quis noÌ„ videat venire quenquam noÌ„ venire arbitrio voluntatis sed hoc arbitrium potest esse solum si non venit non potest autem nisi aediutum esse si venit Who doth not see saith he that euery man cometh or cometh not arbitrio voluntatis by his will Let it be as M. Bishop saith by Free will But this will may be alone saith he if he come not but it caÌ„not be but helped if he do come Where shewing that our coming or not coming to Christ is acted by our will he giueth to vnderstand that our will is of it selfe free to refuse to come but that the Free will whereby we do come is the gift of God euen as our Sauiour Christ teacheth vs saying o Ioh. 6.65 No man can come vnto me except it be giuen him of my Father And therfore the same S. Austin elsewhere reasoneth with a man in this sort p August Quomodo venisti c Veni â—â—quis libero arbitrio voluntate propria venâ— Quid turgescu vâ— nosse quod hoc praestitum est tibi Ipsum audi vocantem Nemo venit ad me c. Thou sayest vnto me I am come to Christ by my Free will I am come by mine owne will Why art thou proud of this Wilt thou know that euen this also was giuen thee Heare him that called thee No man cometh vnto me except my Father draw him For q De Praedest sanct cap. 20. supra Sect 6. when God will haue a man do that which is not to be done but by the will he in
the Papists not willing in any thing to swarue from the Pelagian heresie do very religiously obserue For the prouing of Free will they obiect vnto vs that man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice c. and therefore can will these things without the helpe of grace M. Bishop saith they vse this argument to proue libertie of will in ciuill and morall matters But therefore very lewdly do they b Coster Enchirid cap. 5. vse it against vs and exclaime that we by deniall of Free will make lawes and exhortations and instructions of no effect when as we deny not libertie and freedome of will in morall and ciuill actions Yet of such workes we say that although in morall and ciuill life they stand for good yet spiritually and with God they are not good workes but euill because howsoeuer there is the outward matter and substance yet there wanteth the inward forme and life whereby they should haue the condition of good workes Hereof M. Perkins saith that the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart a good conscience and a faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glorie of God But saith M. Bishop it faileth neither in the one nor in the other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good Where I wonder whether he did well aduise of that he saith For if naturall compassion be a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good then because bruit beasts haue true naturall compassion and true naturall affections we must needs attribute to them vertuous and morall actions But S. Austin was not of M. Bishops mind when he sayd c Aug in Psal 31. Crede in cum qui iustificat impium vt possint opera tua esse opera bona nam nec bona illa appellauerim quaÌ„que non deradice bona procedunt Beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly that thy workes may be good workes For I will not call them good workes so long as they proceed not from a good roote Faith then by S. Austins iudgement is the good roote whence good workes must grow and if they grow not from this roote they cannot be called good And this he learned of the Apostle teaching vs that d Heb 11.6 without faith it is vnpossible to please God and that e Rom. 14.23 whatsoeuer is not of faith it is sinne And therefore of naturall compassion he saith that f Aug contra Iulian li 4 ca 3. Etsi misericordia ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonam etiam isto bono malè vâ—â—tur qui infideliter vâ—â—â—m hoc bonum malè facit qui infideliter facit Qui auteÌ„ inâ—sâ— pacit aliquid prefecto pec cat Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quaeâ— faciunt infiâ—eâ—es non ipserum esse sedillius qui benè vâ—â—tur malis ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus bona malè faciunt quia ea non fideli sed â—â—fideli hoc est stulâ—a noxta faciunt voluntate although in it selfe it be a good worke yet he vseth this good worke amisse that vseth it vnbeleeuingly and doth it amisse that doth it vnbeleeuingly Now he that doth any thing amisse saith he sinneth therein and therefore the good workes which vnbeleeuers do are Gods who vseth to good purpose them that are euill but to them that do them they are sinnes in that they do good things amisse because they do them with an vnbeleeuing that is with a foolish and corrupt will Wherin he accordeth with the Apostle saying that g Tit. 1.15 to vnbeleeuers all things are vncleane because euen their mind and conscience is defiled And thereto Prosper alluding saith that h Prosp de lib. arbit Patet in impiorum animis nullam habitare virtutem sed omnia opera eorum immunda esse atque polluta c. dum ea ipsa quae non haberent nisi dante Deo subduntur ei qui primus recessit à Deo Et post Multa laudabilia reperiuntur etiam in ingenijs â—â—â—orum quae ex naâ—â—a â—uidem prodeunt sed quoniam ab eo quâ—â—aturam condidit recesserunt virtutes esse non possuâ—t in the minds of the vngodly albeit there be found many commendable things yet there dwelleth no vertue but all their workes are polluted and vncleane whilest therein they are subiect to him who did first fall by apostasie from God Therefore M. Bishops distinction of good workes and meritorious worke is an idle and vaine presumption there being no workes meritorious at all nor any workes good but onely such as are done in the faith of Christ The other circumstance required by M. Perkins in good workes is the end whereto they are referred For Austin rightly saith i Aug. cont Julian lib 4 cap. 3. Noueris non officijs sed finibâ—s a vitijs dâ—sâ—eâ—nendas esse virtutes c. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid vbi peccare non videtur si non propter hoc facit propter quod facere debet peccare conuincitur that workes are not esteemed by the actions but by the ends so that when a man doth a thing wherein he seemeth not to sinne if he do it not for that end for which he should do it that which he doth becommeth thereby sinne Now the true and proper end of all good workes and which maketh them good is the glorie of God of which the Apostle saith k 1. Cor. 10.31 Whether ye eate or drinke or whatsoeuer ye do do all to the glorie of God and of which Prosper telleth vs that l Prospâ—r de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 2. etiamsi in bonis moribus agat malè adhuc viuit si non in gloriam Dei viuit albeit a man liue in good behauiour yet he liueth still an euill life if he liue not to the glorie of God But hereto belongeth the knowledge of God which is m Arnob. cont gent. lib. 2. Cognitio Dei fermeÌ„tum quoddam est vitae as it were the leauen that seasoneth the whole life of man And this knowledge of God must be by the word of God so that n Clem. Alexand in Protrepi Qui absque verbo veritatis operantur aliquid vel loquuntur sunt similes ijs qui conantur in gredi absque pedibus they who without the word of truth do worke or speake any thing are as they that striue to go without feete And it must breed the loue of God because o Jdem Stromat lib. 3. Nec castitas est bonuÌ„ ex virtute nisi fiat propter delectionem in Deum chastitie and so the like are not vertues except they be done or obserued for the loue of God And in the loue of God consisteth the
committing of sinne is properly vnderstood of the externall act and accomplishment thereof and this indeed cannot be without the consent and liking of the will But the doing euill of which the Apostle speaketh is no externall act but onely the internall c August contr duas Epist Pela lib. 1. cap. 10. Facere se dixit non affectu consentiendi implendi sed ipso motis concupiscendi motion of concupiscence For we may not vnderstand the Apostles words of doing the euill which he hated and doing that which he would not d Idem de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Non sic intelligamus quod dixit Non quod volo c tanquaÌ„ velit esse castus esset adulter aut velit esse misericers esset crudelis aut velit esse pius esset impius sed volo non concupiscere concupisco Vide Epiphan haer 64. as if he had said he would haue bene chast and yet was an Adulterer or would haue bene mercifull and yet was cruell or would haue bene godly and yet was vngodly or such like but his meaning is Volo non concupiscere concupisco My will and desire is to haue no act no motion of concupiscence and yet I haue so I would not haue so much as any cogitation any affection any thought any inclination or passion of desire tending to euill and yet I cannot preuaile to be without them Now therefore M. Bishop did amisse to breede ambiguitie by chaunging of the tearmes and to put vpon the Apostle a suspition of other meaning then indeed he had But if his meaning be as it should be that no euill can be done which may truly be called a sinne without the consent and liking of the will he saith vntruly and doth therein but walke in the steppes of the Pelagian Heretickes Saint Austine answered them and we answer him that e De perfect iustit Rat. 15. Peccatum est cùm non est chaeritas quae esse debet vel minor est quà m debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit it is sinne when either there is not charity which ought to be or it is lesse then it ought to be whether it may be auoyded by the will or cannot be auoyded that is to say whether it be with the will or against the will And whereas he had defined sinne against the Manichees to be f De duab anim contr Manich. cap. 11. See of Free wil sect 18 the desire of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth and whence it is in a mans liberty to forbeare as if there were no sinne but what the will by it owne libertie doth approue and yeeld vnto he sheweth that he there defined g Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. that which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne So hauing affirmed h De vera reli cap. 14. Vsqueadeo peccatum voluntarium ma lum est vt nullo modo sit peccatuÌ„ si non sit voluntarium that in no sort it is sinne which is not voluntarie he giueth the same restraint againe that i Retract lib. 1. cap. 13. PeccatuÌ„ illud cogitanduÌ„ est quod tantummodo peccatum est non quod est etiam poena peccati that sinne onely must there be vnderstood which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sin as therby stil giuing to vnderstand that that sinne which is the punishment of sinne as is concupiscence or lust is rightly and truly so called though it haue not the consent and approbation of the will It was k Jbid. Non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium quia ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum factum est quodammodo haereditarium voluntarie onely by the will of him by whom sinne was first committed and from him it is become originall and hereditarie vnto vs. M. Bishops exception therefore is nothing woorth neither doth it let but that concupiscence being a part of Original sin is properly called sinne in the regenerate though it be without the consent and liking of the will He saith that because the Apostle hated it therfore it is no sin but we say that therfore the Apostle hated it because it is sin For the Apostle hated it according to God neither wold he hate any thing but what God hateth And God hateth nothing in man but sin that therfore which the Apostle hated in himselfe was sin yea what is it to do euill but to sinne The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances and inconueniences of crosses grieuances but the doing of euill is neuer affirmed but of sin Now to lust the Apostle telleth vs is to do euill To lust therfore is to sinne And because the act and motion of lusting is sinne therefore the habite of concupiscence or lust is a habite of sin also because the action alwaies hath his nature and denomination from the habit and quality from whence it doth proceed Yet M. Bishop saith that the Apostle therin was so farre from sinning as that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill But the Scripture calleth the resisting of that euill l Heb. 12.4 the fighting against sinne and will M. Bishop say that because we fight against it therfore it is not sin See what accord here is The Scripture saith that it is sinne against which we fight M. Bishop saith that we do a vertuous deed in fighting against it and therfore it is no sin As for the place of S. Austin it helpeth him nothing at al. Reason somtimes manfully bridleth and restraineth concupiscence being moued or stirred which when it doth non labimur in peccatum we fall not into sinne Which is not a rule in the regenerate onely but also in the vnregenerate so that heathen Moralists for the auoiding of sins haue deliuered it for a precept m Tul. Offic. l. 1. Ratio praesit appetitus obtemperet Let reason rule and let lust obey Yea that moralisme which S. Austin prosecuteth in the place alledged comparing pleasure or temptation to the tempting serpent concupiscence to Eue the woman reason to Adam the man was borrowed froÌ„ the allegories of n Philo Iud. Allegor legis lib. 1. 2. Philo the Iew who would thereby shew that concupiscence should be kept in from being tempted and though by temptation it were seduced yet that reason should subdue it that it might not runne to any further euill as it desireth to do Now when this is done by 〈◊〉 â—nregenerate man and either a Iew or a heathen man bridle his passions and affections that thereby he fall not into sin will M. Bishop conclude hereof that those passions and affections which he bridleth are no sinne He will not deny the same to be sinne in the vnregenerate man and yet S. Austines words so farrefoorth do indifferently concerne both He vnderstandeth sinne morally onely and as it is
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
paint it out euen in the regenerate with such names and termes as doe plainely conuict it to be sinne He calleth it a De nat gr cap. 38. Vitium vitiosae affectionis appetitum vice lust of vitious affection b De nupt concup li. 1. cap. 31. Vitiosa concupiscentiae vitious concupiscence c Epist 54. Ab omni vitiositate vitiousnes or corruption and what doth vitiate defile corrupt the soule but only sinne He calleth it d De nup. con lib. 1. cap 29. In hoc mâ—â—bo Et cap. 31. Vbi est morbidus carnis affectus Ab capeste morboque sanâ—ta a disease a diseased affection of the flesh a pestilence e De Temp. Ser. 45. Vulnus tabeÌ„ Et contr Iul lib 6. cap. 7. Quodam operante contagio id est concupiscentia affectu a wound and contagious filth and what other disease or pestilence or wound and contagion of man is there but onely sinne He calleth this law of sin f De Temp. ibid. Legem foedam legem miseram a filthy law a miserable law not for that it hath a being by it selfe to be filthy and miserable but because we by it are in our selues filthy and miserable which nothing can cause but onely sinne He calleth it g Contr. Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Annon est malunis quis neget esse malam Et ibid. cap. 7. Qualitat mala De nup. concupis li. 1. ca. 25. Affectio malae qualitatis an euill euill concupiscence an euill qualitie an affection of euill qualitie and what euill qualitie is there of the soule what spirituall euil but onely sin He calleth the first motions and affections thereof h Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. Ciuile bellum interiorum vitioruni Aduersus ingenerata vitia bellum gerunt Vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus Desideria stulia noxia inward vices vices borne and bred in vs vices from the guilt whereof we are freed foolish and hurtful desires i De nupt concup lib. 1. ca. 25. Vitiosa desideria Et cap. 27. Desideria mala turpia vitious desires euill and filthy desires k In Ioan. Tr. 41. Jllicitae concupiscentiae in carne tua vnlawfull concupiscences and how do these termes agree to them if they be no sinne He calleth it l De Ciuit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 25. Illa concupiscentialis inobedientia qua in moribundis membris habitat a lustfull disobedience and saith that m Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. lib. 6. cap. 8 supr sect 7 it is an iniquitie that the flesh lusteth against the spirit though the guilt thereof be acquitted and all n Rom. 5.19 disobedience and o 1. Ioh. 5.17 iniquitie is sinne He saith that p Contr. Iulian. lib. 4 cap. 2. Desiderij malimatuÌ„ est etiamsi et non consentiatur there is euill in an euill desire though a man consent not to it for euil And wheras there are two sorts of euils q Tertul. cont Marcion lib. 2. mala peccatoria vltoria euils of sin and euils of punishment and reuenge that we may know that in naming concupiscence euill he meaneth an euill of sinne he citeth the words of Hilarie that r Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal 118. Samech Ipsis Apostolis verbo licèt fidei iam emundetis atque sanctificatu non deesse tamen malitiam per conditionem communis nobis origenis docuit dicens Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though the Apostles were cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith yet our Sauiour teacheth that there was not wanting in them euilnesse ilnesse by the condition of our common originall in that he saith If you being euill do know to giue good gifts vnto your children Where very euidently we are taught that of Originall sinne there remaineth still in the regenerate such an euill as wherby they are still euill so that though they be Å¿ Epi. 54. Ipse Dominus quos dicit bonos propter participationem gratiae diuinae eosdem etiam malos dicit propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam vbi nihil omnino peccabitur good by participation of the grace of God yet they be still euill by reason of the vices of humane infirmitie till all be healed à vitiositate from corruption c. Now though sometimes the name of euill be otherwise vsed then of sinne yet neuer is a man called euill by any euill but that that is sin Crosses and afflictions are euils but by these euils or for these euils no man is called euill But concupiscence is such an euill as whereby a man is euill and for which the regenerate man is still truly called euill and therefore is a sinfull euill an euill that is truly and properly a sinne Therefore Saint Austine maketh it an euill in the same kind and nature as sinne is euill when he saith t Cont. Julian lib 6. ca. 5. Quis ita insaâ—uâ— demens qui cùm peccata maia esse fiteatur neget esse malam concupiscentiam peccatorum etiaÌ„ si aduersur eam concuâ—â—scâ—ntiam spiritu peccata concipere ac pareri non sinatur Tale porrò ac tam magnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non teneret in morte per traheret in vltimam mortem nisi eius vinculuÌ„ in illa quae fit in baptisme peccatorum omnium remissione solueretur Who is so mad as that confessing sinnes to be euill he will deny the concupiscence of sinnes to be euil albeit by reason of the spirit lusting against it it be not suffered to conceiue and bring foorth sinnes And to take away all exception and at once to strike the matter dead he addeth that it is such and so great an euill as that onely for being in vs it should hold vs in death and draw vs to euerlasting death but that the bond thereof is loosed in baptisme by the forgiuenesse of all our sinnes euen as he had said a little before that it should not onely be in the faithfull but also greeuously hurt them but that the guilt thereof which had bound vs is loosed by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Which onely words might suffice to declare vnto vs S. Austines minde that he neuer thought but that concupiscence is sinne in that meaning wherein we here dispute of sinne For if it be such an euill as that saue onely that the guilt thereof is pardoned it should greatly hurt vs and so hurt vs as that it should draw vs vnto euerlasting death it cannot be denied to be truly sinne because nothing could bring vs to euerlasting death but onely sinne And yet more fully to shew this and to prooue against Iulian the blot and staine of Originall sinne remaining after baptisme he alledgeth further out of Hilary u Contra Iulian. lib.
though in regard of our selues our own indisposition we cannot THE DISSENT 1. VVE hold that a man may be certaine of his saluation in his owne conscience euen in this life and that by an ordinarie and speciall faith They hold that a man is Certaine of his Saluation only by hope both hold a Certainty we by faith they by hope 2. We say our Certaintie is infallible they that it is onely probable 3 Our confidence in Gods mercy in Christ commeth frō certaine and ordinary faith theirs from hope False Thus much of the difference now let vs come to the reasons to and fro R. ABBOT In this first diuision M. Bishop giueth vs onely some briefe notes which need not to be stood vpon In the third conclusion he denieth their agreement with vs but if he vnderstand it as M. Perkins doth of ordinary assurance he had no cause to denie it For seeing in the first conclusion of dissent he graunteth Certainty or assurance by hope and requireth therewith doubting yea affirmeth still that it cannot be without doubting what reason had he to denie the conclusion being indifferently propounded of assurance afterwards more particularly to be distinguished but that he well knew not what he was to say But in that conclusion he should haue taken knowledge what manner of Certainty or assurance of Saluation it is that we teach not such as whereby a man is meerely secure and made absolutely out of doubt but such as many times is assaulted and shaken with many difficulties and feares and doubts which oft do intricate and perplexe the soule of the righteous and faithfull man Which notwithstanding arise not of the nature and condition of faith as if it ought so to be but of the frailty and corruption of our euill nature by reason whereof faith is not such as it ought to be For the true and proper worke of faith is to giue to the beleeuer a stedfast and vnmoueable assurance of the loue of God that he may fully enioy the comfort thereof without interruption or let and whatsoeuer is aduerse and contrary to this assurance and comfort is to be accounted the enemie of faith Therefore it is not the office of faith to cherish and maintaine such feares and doubts but to resist them to fight against them and so much as is possible to expell them and driue them out But yet by reason of the strength of our naturall corruption and the weakenesse of our faith we attaine not to this and how much the weaker our faith is so much are we the further from it So that the case standeth betwixt faith and doubting as it doth betwixt righteousnesse and sinne For there is true righteousnesse in the faithfull and sometimes it mightily preuaileth and the conscience euen gratulateth it selfe and reioyceth in the vse and practise thereof But anone it beginneth to find defect the temptations of sinne iustle it aside the man stumbleth falleth and the light whereby he shined before as a starre in the firmament becommeth eclipsed and darkned and he seemeth to himselfe not to be the man that he was before Neither doth this seldome fall out but euen daily is there a vicissitude and change by turnes euery day bringing his griefes of infirmity and weaknesse and sometimes giuing occasion of great lamentation and mourning by great and grieuous trespasse against God and men But God that a 2. Cor. 4.6 commaundeth the light to shine out of darknesse and can of a poison make a preseruatiue turneth these infirmities to their good making them by experience of sinne to loue righteousnesse the more and to become more wise and warie against temptation and in rising to take the better heed not to fall againe Euen in like sort the case standeth with the assurance of faith wherein is a comfortable testimonie of the loue of God towards vs which we receiue as b 1. Kings 19.7.8 Elias did his meate from the hands of the Angel securing our selues to go in the strength thereof vnto the mount of God and that c 1. Pet. 1.5 thereby we shall be kept through the power of God vnto that saluation which is prepared to be shewed in the last time But yet in the course thereof there is much variety and change by reason that we apprehend not this assurance directly and immediatly as a principle but by consequence and collection as a conclusion so that being subiect to alteration in the apprehending of the premisses there must necessarily be an alteration in the apprehending of the conclusion Our eies are not alwaies alike intent to the word of God we do not alwaies alike conceiue the promises of God nay temptation sometimes hideth them out of our sight The effects of grace do not alwaies appeare the same yea sometimes they seeme to be quite ouerwhelmed with contrarie effects Moreouer in nature it selfe is a voluntary shrinking and relinquishing of the comfort of faith through the seeds of vnbeleefe that originally are sowen in vs so that the ground of our owne hearts is euery while casting vp obiections and questions as mire and dirt to trouble d Iohn 7.38 the spring of the waters of life that they runne not so pure and cleare as otherwise they should do By all which occasions it commeth to passe that the daies of faith are as the daies of the yeare some faire some foule one while a sunne-shine sommer another while a long and tedious winter sometimes no more but a storme and away one while cast downe as it were to hell another while seeming to be as it were in the courts of heauen where is assured standing and no falling sometimes labouring and strugling some other times triumphantly reioycing but in all perplexities and distractions conceiuing still what it hath felt and striuing to attaine to the same againe And as a child affrighted runneth to the father looking for defence and helpe of him euen so in the middest of all feares and temptations faith is stil running vnto God stil importuning of him calling vpon him expostulating with him casting it selfe stil vpon him depending vpon his aid and expecting of him that things become otherwise then presently they are and seldome going so farre but that it seeth a glimse at least of light in darknesse of hope in despaire of comfort in distresse of life in death of heauen in hell or if it loose the sight thereof yet recouereth it soone againe Of all which we see pregnant example in the distresses and temptations of the Saints which for our instruction and comfort are recommended vnto vs in the word of God And this God doth to the intent that being in some sort for the time put off from him we may take the faster hold when we returne againe that the tast of his loue may be the sweeter and our ioy thereof the greater when out of these flouds of temptations we arriue vnto it that e Rom. 5.3 affliction may bring forth
leaues the reader to thinke as it seemeth best vnto himselfe whether hope be any cause of saluation and yet M. Perkins words are plainely these We are not saued by hope because it is any cause of our saluation The meaning of S. Paul as he declareth is this We are saued by hope that is we haue our saluation in hope but not yet in act we enioy it in expectation but not yet in possession In which sort he saith in another place that y Tit. 3.7 being iustified by the grace of God we are made heires as touching hope of eternall life We haue not yet the fruition of eternal life but yet in hope we are inheritors therof And hence did S. Austin take the ground of that exception which many times he vseth by distinction of that that we are in hope and that that we are indeed or in reall being Whereof he speaketh directly to declare the meaning of these words of the Apostle z Aug. de pec mer. remis l. 2 c. 8. Primittat sp nunc habemus vnde iaÌ„ filij Dei reipsa facta sumas in cateris verò spe sicut salui sicut innouati ita filij Dei re autem ipsa quia nâ—ndum salus ideò nonâ—um plenè innouati nondum etiam filij Dei sed filij seculi We haue now the first fruits of the spirit whence we are reipsa indeed the sonnes of God but for the rest as spe in hope we are saued as in hope we are renewed so are we also the sonnes of God but because reipsa indeed we are not yet saued therefore we are not yet fully renewed we are not yet the sonnes of God but the children of this world Againe he saith a Ibid cap. 10. Homo totus in spe iam et iam in re ex parte in regeneratione spirituali renouatus A man wholly in hope and partly also in act or in deed is renewed in spirituall regeneration Of the Church being without spot or wrinkle b Epist 57. Tunc perficietur in re quò nunc proficiendo ambulatur in spe Then shall that be performed indeed to which now by profiting we walke in hope Thus of Gods raising vs vp together with Christ and setting vs together with him in heauenly places c De bapt cont Donat. lib. 1. c 4. Nondum in re sed in spe He hath not yet done it really but in hope d In Psal 37. Re sumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus Really we are yet the children of wrath saith he but in hope we are not so e Jbid. Gaude te redemptum corpore sed nondum re spe securus esto Reioyce that in body thou art redeemed not yet in deed or in reall effect but in hope we are out of doubt By all which it is plaine that the Apostle named not hope as a cause of the saluation that we hope for but onely to signifie the not hauing as yet really of the thing whereof the hope we haue embraced And it hath no sence that hope should be made a cause of the thing hoped for because the verie name of hope importeth some former ground or cause from whence we conceiue our hope and by vertue whereof we expect that which we hope for and do not therefore hope to obtaine it because we hope Thus M. Bishop hath neither S. Paule nor anie other testimonie of Scripture whereby to giue warrant that either hope or any other vertue hath any part in the worke of iustification but onely faith As touching the nature of hope f before hath bene spoken and it hath bene shewed a Cap. 3. secâ— 20. that as the Scripture vnderstandeth it it is nothing else but a patient and constant expectation of that which we by faith in the promise of God do assuredly beleeue shall come vnto vs. 26. W. BISHOP To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scripture let vs ioyne here some testimonies out of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein Maister Perkins citeth some for him the most auncient and most valiant Martyr Saint Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith Epist ad Philip. but the end of it is charitie but both vnited and ioyned together do make the man of God perfect Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before Lib. 2. Strom. but feare doth build and charitie bringeth to perfection Saint Iohn Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Hom. 70. in Mat. Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith and the faithfull to liue well S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants saith Lib. 3. Hypognos Heare ô foolish heretike and enemy to the true faith Good works which that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free will we condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue bene iustified are iustified and shall be iustified And De side oper cap. 14. Now let vs see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrarie For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can do by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kinde of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by theÌ„ magnified and called the onely and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all Cenditio sine qua non but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified If it be an instrumentall cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and chuse whether he had leifer to haue charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace R. ABBOT Of his fiue proofes there is but onely one that maketh any mention of iustification by works The two first were surely put in but onely to fil vp a roome for there is not so much as any shew of any thing against vs. For although we defend that a man is iustified by faith onely yet do we not make faith onely the full perfection of a iustified man In the naturall bodie the heart onely is the seate and fountaine of life and yet a man consisteth not onely of a heart nor is a perfect man by hauing a heart but many other members and parts are required some for substance some for ornament which make vp the
him insomuch as it sayth nothing positiuely for the drawing and painting of the holy Ghost in the forme of a doue and doth approue those speeches which generally condemne the resembling of the godhead in any forme A relation is made of one Seuerus who at Daphne tooke away the Doues framed in gold and siluer and hanged ouer the fonts as in figure of the holy Ghost saying that they ought not to vse the name of the holy Ghost coÌ„cerning anie such forme of a Doue Hereupon Tharasius readie to apprehend euery thing that might make for their Image-idolatrie answereth thus l Nicen. 2. Act. 5 Si in nomine sancti Spiritus dedicaetas columbas sancti Patres receperunt quantò magis corpus incarnati verbi in terris in corpore visi recipiendum If the holy Fathers receiued doues dedicated in the name of the holy Ghost how much more is the body of the incarnat Word seene vpon the earth in a body to be receiued meaning the image of the body of Christ If they did he saith but he saith not that they did it lawfully if they did so A man may say if a Popish Priest may be permitted to keepe a concubine or a harlot much more should it be thought lawfull for him to marrie a wife and yet doth not therefore approue that it should be lawfull for a Popish Priest to keepe a concubine or harlot And that the Councell did not approue it as a thing lawfull it is manifest by those narrations and authorities which they do approue and alledge for the approuing of their Images They alledge a Sermon of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica containing a disputation betwixt a Pagan and a Christian where the Pagan obiecting in defence of their Images that Christians also did make Images not onely to their Saints but also to their God the Christian answereth as touching God thus m Ibid. ex Ser. Joan. Episc Thess Dei auteÌ„ imaginem dico Seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quemadmodum ipse super terraÌ„ eum hominibus conuersatus est pingimus non vt ipsae natura Deus est Quae enim posset esse Dei similitudâ— aut quae figura incorporei ineffigiabilisque verbi Patris Deus enim vt scriptum est spiritus est Quoniam visum est Deo Patri vnigenitum filiuÌ„ suum è coelis demittere quo pro nostra salute ex Spiritu sancto inâ—olata virgine Dâ—â—para incarnaretur nos eius humanitateÌ„ ea ratione pingimus non illius incorpoream Deitatem The image of God I meane of our Sauior Iesus Christ we make according as he was conuersant with men vpon the earth not as by nature he is God for what likenesse can there be of God or what figure of the word of the Father which is without body and not to be expressed by any shape for God as it is written is a spirit Because it seemed good to the Father to send downe from heauen his onely begotten Sonne that by the holy Ghost he might be incarnate of the pure Virgin the mother of God therefore we paint his humanitie in that sort but not his incorporall Godhead Afterwards out of Leontius there is read a disputation betwixt a Iew and a Christian the Iew professing to beleeue that Christ is the Sonne of God but that he was offended to see Christians contrarie to the commandement to fall downe before Images and the Christian thereto answering n Ibid. ex Leont Deo vt talis est Scriptura iubet non esse faciendaÌ„ similitudinem ne que aliquam imaginem adorandam esse vt Deum Imagines enim quas vides ad memoriam Iesu Christi salutaris nobis incarnationis pinguntur Personam illius humanitatis ex primentes SanctoruÌ„ auteÌ„ imagines eodem modo vniuscuiusque praelia contra diabolum mundum victoriasque significant The Scripture commandeth that to God as he is God no similitude or likenesse shall be made and that no image shall be worshipped as God but the images which thou seest are made to the remembrance of the incarnation of Iesus Christ which hath yeelded saluation to vs. But the Saints images do in like sort signifie the battels and victories of euery of them against the Diuell and the world Againe it is alledged out of the confessions of certaine Martyrs thus o Ibid. ex Const. Diacon Chartophyl Non enim diuinuÌ„ simplex existens incomprehensibile formis figuris assimilamus neque cera lignis supersubstantialeÌ„ ante principia existentem substantiam honorare decreuimus We do not by formes and shapes resemble God being simple and incomprehensible neither haue we intended by waxe and wood to honour the substance whith is aboue all substance and hath his being before beginning By al which it is euident that they wholy disclaimed the painting and picturing of the Godhead so that their whole decree throughout the Councell proceedeth onely as touching the images of Christ p Jbid Act. 7. Epist. ad ConstaÌ„ Iren. Quatenus scilicet perfectus homo suit as he was perfect man and of the Angels and Saints as appeareth also by their Synodall Epistle in the end of the Councell but of images of the Godhead they decree nothing Whereby we see that M. Bishop is a man of an euill nature and disposition who will thus make a bad matter worse then it is A good mind will make things better and not worse but whereas the Councell was bad enough in decreeing worship to the images of Christ and his Saints he maketh it worse then it was by fathering vpon it the approuing of the images of the holy Ghost We see then that he hath no proofe at all for making an image of God and therefore it was but a point of indiscretion in him to tell vs in what manner and meaning they picture and resemble God it being alledged that it is not lawfull many manner or meaning so to do As for his discourse of motiues that come by sight it sauoureth of the grosse conceipt of all idolaters who cannot endure to be without babies and puppets and no longer think they haue a God then they haue a God to looke vpon To heare of God or to reade of him in his word and to behold him in his workes it is not sufficient but by an image they must needes haue him set foorth more nearely to feed their eyes Surely if the wisedome of God had thought it fit that we should haue learned him by painting and caruing he would not haue failed to haue giuen vs instruction thereof But sith he hath not so taught vs yea sith he hath taught the contrarie and condemned them as hath bene before shewed who haue pretended to be instructed by such meanes what a simple man doth Master Bishop shew himselfe to reason against God and to say If Angels and vertues may be figured and represented why may not some propertie or action of God be in like
perseuerantèr proficiat siue vt ad bonuÌ„ sempiternum peruentat The sound Catholike faith saith he neither denieth Free will vvhether to euill life or to good neither attributeth so much to it as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace either to be conuerted from euill to good or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good or to attaine to the euerlasting good Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme according to the true meaning of S. Austin that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will and if he be willingly that that he is it is by Free vvill because the vvill is alwayes Free and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill to that that is good q Retract lib. 1. cap 15. IntantuÌ„ lâ—bera est 1 quatum liberata est it is so farre onely Free as it is made Free r Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept grat cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus neither can any man in this respect be free vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free We say therefore that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace that is in S. Austins construction auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it either for conuerting vnto God or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh Å¿ Epist 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntateÌ„ per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire ante Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coeâ—iâ— est doâ—uit esse poscenda ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good and to preserue the same when it hath so made them and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell least presuming of Free vvill vve fall away from the grace of God If all things then are we to begge of him to open to yeeld to assent to receiue his grace and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin as if he had meant that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse but that this power is not sufficient is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace whatsoeuer the will of man doth so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do t De verb Apos ser 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliquâ—d sumus si tameÌ„ in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus â—ihâ—l nobis arrogemus ne quod accepimus perdamus sed in eo quod accepimus illi gloriam demus Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ how much soeuer it be we may take nothing to our selues but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill and detest also Pelagians and Papists for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace I haue before shewed that he saith vntruly and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd Free vvill and grace are not the one excluded by the other neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other if we make the one the cause of the other as Austin doth and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace For u De corrept grat ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate coÌ„sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill and though it be in the will and by the will that we receiue grace yet x Prosper de vocat gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God 16. W. BISHOP Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names But misapplyeth them First obiection That man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice speake the truth c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it And his answer here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the vvorke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure heart and a faith vnfained and also in the end which is not the glorie of God Answer It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the heart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie God his Creator and Maister is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto R. ABBOT It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians a Prosper de lib. arbit Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctoruÌ„ merita referamus vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemuâ— naturae that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill This caution