c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
another whereas to that purpose it was vsed and to that purpose most fitly is applyed and therein nothing contained but what is agreable to the truth For whereas he taketh vpon him to correct that terme of necessitie and will haue it to be called infallibilitie and certaintie he malapertly taketh vpon him to teach them that are more learned then himselfe It is a word which S. Austin often vseth vpon the like occasion both against the Pelagians and Manichees b August de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Quia peccauit voluntas secula est peccantem peccatuÌ„ habendi dura necessitas Man sinned by his will saith he and thereupon followed a cruell necessitie of hauing sinne c Retract lib. 1. cap. 1 Naturae nostrae dura necessitas merito praecedentis iniquitatis exortae est A cruell necessitie of sinne grew vpon our nature by the desert of the first sinne d De nat gra cap. 66 Ex vitijs naturae non ex coÌ„ditione naturae est quaedam peccandi necessitas Not by creation but by corruption of nature there is a certaine necessitie of committing sinne e Cont Fortunat. disput â— Post quaÌ„ libera ipse voluntate peccauit nos in necessitatem praecâ—pitati sumus After that Adam sinned by free will we were throwne headlong into a necessitie of sinne all that haue descended of his race And that this necessitie doth well stand with libertie S. Bernard sheweth in calling it f Bernard in Cantic Ser. 81. Ipsa sua voluÌ„tas necessitateÌ„ facit vt nec necessitas cùm voluntaria sit excludere valeat voluntatem nec voluntas cùm sit illecta excludere necessitatem Et postâ— Anima sub voluntaria quadam malè libera voluntate tenetur Et iterum post Voluntas inexcusabilem incorrigibileÌ„ necessitas facis a voluntarie and mis-free necessitie wherein neither can necessitie excuse the will because it is voluntarie nor the will exclude necessitie because it is entangled with delight therein wherein will taketh froÌ„ him all matter of defence and necessitie bereaueth him of possibilitie of amendment and in a word the will it selfe in strange wise causeth this necessitie to it selfe Now then because the state of sinne is such as that there is one way necessitie by the habit of corruption and another way libertie by the free motion of the will very rightly did M. Perkins to expresse the same vse the example of a prison that puts necessitie in one thing and libertie in another And thus in righteousnesse also necessitie and libertie agree and do not one exclude the other For the Angels being by the grace and power of God confirmed in goodnesse are thereby necessarily good g Jdem de grat lib. arist sup so and in such sort good as that they cannot become euill and yet they are freely and voluntarily good because it is the will it selfe that is established in goodnesse The same shall be the state of eternall life to the elect and faithfull h August de perfect iustitia Bene viuendi nunquam peccandi voluntaria foelixque necessitas A voluntarie and happy necessitie of liuing wel and neuer sinning any more Let M. Bishop take knowledge now of this manner of speech and learne not to find fault when he hath no cause But he noteth that we must not vnderstand that a man is at any time compelled to sinne where I may answer him with his owne words before Who knowes not this And againe that this is none of M. Bishops caueat but taken out of M. Perkins M. Perkins had told him so much before hand and therfore what needed this note For this necessitie groweth not of any outward force but from inward nature not by condition of the substance but by accidentall corruption which being supposed there is a necessitie of sinne as in the palsey a necessitie of shaking in the hot feauer a necessitie of burning in the broken legge a necessitie of halting so continuing till the maladie and distemper be cured and done away And whereas M. Bishop referreth this necessitie of sinne to the weaknesse of man and to the craft of the diuell he speaketh too short in the one and impertinently in the other For we are not to conceiue weaknesse onely which may be onely a priuation but a positiue euill habite and contagion of sinne whereby a man sinneth euen without any furtherance of the diuels temptations by the onely euill disposition of himselfe Which euill disposition because it is also in the will it selfe therefore in the midst of that necessitie a man sinneth no otherwise but as M. Bishop requireth to haue it said with free consent of his owne will W. BISHOP M. P. 5. Conclusion The second kind of spirituall actions be good as Repentance Faith Obedience c. In which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conuersion of a sinner mans Free will concurreth with Gods grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort for in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required the word Gods spirit and Mans will for Mans will is not passiue in all and euery respect but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule when any man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willingly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he willeth his conuersion To this end saith S. Augustine He which made thee without thee Seâ— 15 de verb. Apost will not saue thee without thee Againe that it is certaine that our will is required in this that we may do any thing well it is not onely then required in our first conuersion if it be required to all good things which we do but we haue it not from our owne power but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giues a will to desire and will the same as for example when God worke faith at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling wil a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man go together yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and moued by grace and then it also acteth willeth and moueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane Church touching Free-will neither may we proceed farther with them Hitherto M. Perkins Now before I come to the supposed difference I gather first that he yeeldeth vnto the principall point in controuersie that is freedome of will in ciuill and morall
way stirreth yet the inward corrupt qualitie sticketh still euen as a man is truly said to be i Jbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini tâ—â—ido etiaÌ„ quando ne sumet timorous fearfull when yet for the present time he feareth nothing Now the question here is of both these both the sticking euill qualitie and the first and immediate motions and stirrings thereof before they be apprehended and consented vnto by the will For many times euill cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart which yet a man checketh and for which he is grieued at himselfe and reproueth himselfe and by no meanes will yeeld way vnto them Of these therefore together with the fountaine whence they spring the controuersie is whether they do properly vndergo the name of sinne Now what sinne is the Apostle Saint Iohn briefly instructeth vs saying that k 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law His word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth all priuation or defect whereby we come short of that that is commaunded or required by the lawe To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paule telleth vs that l Rom. 3.20 by the lawe is the knowledge of sinne and that m Cap 7.7 he had not knowne sinne but by the law For how is sinne knowne by the lawe but by that we vnderstand it to be sinne whatsoeuer declineth or swarueth from the lawe euen as the Apostle for example addeth that he had not knowne lust to be sinne except the lawe had said Thou shalt not lust presuming it as graunted that it is sinne whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe And this the Apostle Saint Iohn further confirmeth in that he saith that n 1. Ioh 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne For what is vnrighteousnesse but the transgressing of the lawe which is the rule of righteousnesse If then all vnrighteousnesse be sin and all transgression of the lawe be vnrighteousnesse then all transgression of the lawe is sinne The heathen Orator Tully could say that o Tul. Paradox 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas peccare to sinne is as a man would say to go without or beyond the bounds or lines We are listed and bounded by the lawe of God it draweth vs lines within the compasse whereof we are to keepe our selues What is it then to sinne with vs but to breake the bounds prescribed vnto vs and to go beside that which we are directed by the law Therfore saith Origen p Origen in Ro. cap 7. Peccati natura hac est si fiat quod lex fieri vetat This is the nature of sin if any thing be done which the law forbiddeth to be done Oecumenius out of the ancient Commentaries of the Fathers saith to the like purpose that q Oecum in 1. Joan cap. 3. Conueniunt inter se circa idem sunt Rectè discipulus Domini vtrunque in ideÌ„ commutauit sin and transgression of the law do agree together and that rightly S. Iohn did make them both one So r Grego Moral lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet Ioannes qui ait peccatuÌ„ est iniquitas Gregorie Bishop of Rome calling transgression of the law by the name of iniquity as the vulgar Latin translateth it saith that betwixt sin and iniquity that is betwixt sin and the transgression of the law S. Iohn doth witnesse that there is no difference In like sort Bede saith that Å¿ Beda in 1. IoaÌ„ 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is sinne Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth vs that t Caesar dialog 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis aduersus virtuum resistende coâ—atus repugnantia he taketh it that sinne is all assay of resistance and all repugnancie against vertue Saint Austine saith that u Aug. de nat grat cap. 14. Ideo est peccatuÌ„ quia non debet fieri therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to be done and that x Contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat to do any thing amisse is to sinne Againe he defineth y August cont Faust Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum vel dictuÌ„ vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam sinne to be euery thing that is said or done or coueted against the euerlasting law of God Yea Thomas Aquinas saith that z Thom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art 4. in corp Nihil est aliud peccare quà m transgredi diuina mandata to sinne is nothing else but to transgresse the commandements of God In a word the curse of God belongeth to nothing saue to sinne onely But the curse of God belongeth to euery swaruing from the law of God for a Gal. 3.10 cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to do them Therefore euery swaruing from the lawe of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sinne And surely this is a truth so apparant and euident as that we may wonder not at the blindnesse for vndoubtedly they see it well enough but at the extreame peruersenesse and impudencie of the Papists that so stiffely stand in the deniall thereof Now then the question being whether concupiscence or lust in it selfe be sinne in the regenerate man the resolution is very readie and plaine and the answer manifestly apparant that because euery diuerting or swaruing from the lawe is sinne therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sinne in as much as it is a declining from the lawe saying Thou shalt not lust And therefore doth the Apostle say that he knew lust to be sinne as before was noted because the law sayd Thou shalt not lust He calleth and tearmeth it sinne againe and againe so as that we may wonder that he should call it sinne sinne and yet his meaning should be that it is not sinne For as Tertullian saith b Tertul. aduers Hermogen Acuius habitu quid diuertit pariter à vocatu eius recedit Looke from the being and nature whereof a thing departeth it departeth also from the name and calling thereof If therefore concupiscence had lost the nature of sinne it should consequently also be depriued of the name But now whereas M. Perkins alledged the words of the Apostle that sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hateth M. Bishop telleth vs that contrarie to M. Perkins purpose and intention those words do proue that sinne must be there taken improperly And how so I pray you For saith he if it made him to do the euill which he hated then could it not be sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will Where by Aequiuocation of tearmes he meerely abuseth his Reader For the
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
To which purpose he addeth further that albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme Which now how farre it is from truth it appeareth by that that hath beene alreadie sayd I will here adde only the words of Hilary who saith t Hilar. in Psal 118. Gimel Habemus etiaÌ„ nunc admixtam nobit materiam quae morus legi atque peccat bonoxia est in huius caducae carius infirmaeque domicilio corruptionis labeÌ„ ex eius consortio mutuaâ—ur ac nisi glorificato in naturam spiritus corpore vitae verae in nobis non potest esse naturae c. Scit hanc mundi istius sedeÌ„ regionem no esse viuentium scit nos adhuc secundum praefiguraetionem legis emundandos esse Nunc enim admiscemur morticinae in lege quisquis mortuis contrectas immundus est c. We haue as now a matter mingled with vs which is subiect to the law of sinne and death and that in the house of this mortall and weake flesh we gather a blot of corruption by the societie thereof and vntill the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit there cannot be in vs the nature of true life that this world is not the land of the liuing but that we are here still to be cleansed by reason of being blended with the carion of concupiscence and that this was the thing figured in the law where a man was vncleane for touching any dead body Surely if in this life we remaine still in case to be cleansed if there be still a blot of corruption by reason of concupiscence still cleaning fast vnto vs and it can be no otherwise till the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit then it is vtterly false as indeed it is to say that in Baptisme all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules But whereas all men find by experience both in themselues and others that there is a wonderfull prauity and corruption of nature still continuing whereby we are all forward to that that is euill and altogether backward and vntoward to goodnesse to preuent the obiection hereof M. Bishop acknowledgeth a remainder of somewhat but he qualifieth the opinion thereof with fauourable and gentle termes He saith that defects and infirmities remaine in vs marry in no case must we thinke them to be sinnes But these defects and infirmities are such as for which it is true of vs which Saint Austin saith u August in Psal 37. Resumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus By reall state and being we are still the children of wrath it is in hope as touching which we are not so How are we yet the children of wrath but by hauing in vs the matter of x In Psal 101. Jâ—â— cum qua omnes â—ati sumâ—â— â—ra de propagine â—aqudaetu â—e massa â—eccati that wrath wherewith we were all borne which what is it but onely sinne These defects then and infirmities what are they properly and in truth but onely sinne But M. Bishop in vsing these termes alludeth to S. Austin who oftentimes so calleth concupiscence and the lusts and motions thereof which if he did in the same meaning as S. Austin doth there should be no matter of great question betwixt him vs. For S. Austin calleth concupiscence vitium a defect not as vnderstanding thereby as the English word importeth a meer priuation and want of somewhat that should be but a positiue euil quality that ought not to be a vicious corrupt condition of man such a defect if we wil so cal it let vs call it y De lib arbit lib 2 cap 1. 〈…〉 â—eâ—tmi â—ites esse corruptio a corruption as he himself expoundeth it as z Fâ—â—st to â—ispra Sect. 8. by reason wherof the same S. Austin saith that no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God as we haue seene before It is vitium such a defect as whereby a De ciuit Dei lib. 12. cap. 3. the nature of man is vitiated and corrupted and so farre as it is corrupted is euill and there is nothing that maketh an euill man but onely sinne It is b Cont. Iul. li. 2. defectus à iustitia a defection or swaruing from righteousnesse hindering that c De perfect iust Rat. 17. sup sec 4 we loue not God with all our soule d Cont. Iul. l. 4 c. 2. InquantuÌ„ inest nocet etsi non ad perdenauÌ„ de sorte sanctorum tameÌ„ ad motuendam spiritualeÌ„ delectationeÌ„ sanctaruÌ„ mentium illaÌ„ de qua dicit Apostolus CoÌ„delector legi c. diminishing that spirituall delight that we ought to haue in the law of God and e De perfect iust Rat. 15. Supra Sect. 2. it is sinne when there is not that loue in vs that ought to be or the same is lesse then it ought to be But it is not onely after Baptisme that S. Austin giueth to concupiscence this name of vitium a defect or rather a vice or vicious qualitie he calleth it from the beginning f De nupt concup l. 1. c. 23. vitium quo vitiata est natura humana a vice or vicious qualitie wherewith the nature of man is vitiated and defiled Now before Baptisme there is no doubt but S. Austin by vice importeth sinne because for it he saith g Ibid. Propter quod damnatur propter hoc damnabili diabolo subrugatur the nature of man is condemned and is vnder the power of the diuell and the thing being still the same how should it after Baptisme be no sinne Albeit after Baptisme he calleth it h Cont. Iul lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat vitium mortuum a vice or vicious qualitie that is now dead because saith he it is dead as touching the guilt wherewith it held vs but otherwise it liueth still He calleth the lusts thereof i Ibid. vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus vices from the guilt whereof we are released importing still that saue the guilt they are still the same that they were before Therefore albeit he forbeare the name of sinne after Baptisme in respect that they haue not the effect of sinne to make guiltie before God because they are alreadie pardoned yet he cannot be supposed otherwise to exclude them from the nature and name of sinne They did make guiltie before and should make guiltie still but that they are pardoned which cannot agree but to sinne onely And this did Pighius a friend of M. Bishops see very well k Pigh de peccats Org. cont 1. Vt vna eade nque manente aequitatis iustitiae regula iâ—leÌ„ aliquid in se manens nuÌ„c propriè primò verèque
one of vs. Where my portion raigneth I beleeue that I also raigne where my bloud ruleth I beleeue that I also haue dominion where my flesh is glorified I know that I also am glorious Albeit I be a sinner yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace Albeit my sinnes hold backe yet my substance namely being now of his flesh and his bones requireth it Albeit mine owne defaults doe exclude me yet fellowship of nature putteth mee not away I might despaire because of my exceeding great sinnes and corruptions my defaults and infinite negligences which I haue committed and dayly without ceasing doe commit in thought and word and worke and euery way that humane frailtie can sinne but that thy Word O my God became flesh and dwelt amongst vs. But now I dare not despaire because he being obedient vnto thee vnto death euen the death of the crosse hath taken away the hand-writing of our sinnes and fastening it to the crosse hath crucified sinne and death Now securely I take breath and heart againe in him who sitteth at thy right hand and maketh intercession for vs. By these words and many other that might be alledged out of that booke the Reader may iudge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins We see nothing here but confession of sinnes in himselfe no other hope but onely forgiuenes of sins in Christ Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ablenesse giuen vnto him to deserue eternall life No no it was neuer heard of in the world that the meaning of these words My hope is wholly in the death and merite of Christ should be that we hope to be able by Christ to merite and deserue saluation vntill these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to worke by Antichrist for the confusion of soules by making them to leane vpon the broken staffe of their owne merites in steed of the onely sauing merite of the bloud of Christ The faithful haue alwayes in their end betaken themselues to this hold and many returning vnto God euen at the last gaspe hauing nothing in themselues to comfort themselues haue securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ and with ioy and comfort haue gone to God who if they had vnderstood hope in Christ according to M. Bishops exposition thereof of being to be made able by Christ to merite heauen would haue bene rent and torne in peeces with perplexitie and feare neither could haue conceiued any comfort thereof at all But let him alone he shall one day vnderstand the vntruth of his answer when he shall be glad to make vse of those words which we haue spoken of or the like without that good sence as hee calleth it which now his senslesse and dead heart imagineth of them The place of Basil is as cleare as the light yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also but cannot so doe it but that hee is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalfe k Basil in Psal 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is layd vp eternall rest saith he for them that striue lawfully in this life not to be rendered according to debt for workes but prouided according to the grace of the bountifull God for them that trust in him Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle l Rom. 44. To him that worketh that is to him that hath the righteousnes of workes the reward is not imputed * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by fauour but by debt and therefore the phrases being borowed from the Apostle must with him haue the same meaning as with the Apostle they haue His meaning then is plaine that that eternall rest is not rendered by way of debt but by way of fauour and grace and neuer hath any ecclesiasticall writer vnderstood those phrases otherwise Onely M. Bishop telleth vs that Basils meaning is that it is not rendered according to the debt of workes that is according to the iust rate of workes but in a fuller measure and aboue our merites But his masters of Rhemes reiect this commentary of his and doe tell him that our workes are m Rhem. Testam Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of euerlasting life God then doth not exceed the rate of our workes as they say but giueth onely what we are fully worthy of what we fully and iustly merite and deserue thereby Yea and they saw well that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth is to ouerthrow merite For if God do giue vs aboue our merits then we do not merite that which God giueth or if we do merite it then it cannot be sayd to be aboue our merites But it is aboue our merites sayth M. Bishop therefore it followeth necessarily that we doe not merite or deserue it Yea wee haue seene before out of Fulgentius and Bernard that Gods reward doth so incomparably exceede all the merite and worke of man as that eternall life is not due thereunto by right neither should God doe any wrong if hee did not giue it and therefore the sentence of Basill is true according to the Apostles intendment of those termes which he vseth that eternall life is not rendered by way of debt for workes but by grace that is freely bestowed to them that trust in him M. Bishop telleth vs that hee maketh eternall life to be the prize of the combat but what of that seeing hee giueth vs to vnderstand that this prize is with fauour and mercie proposed and with the same mercie and fauour rendered to them that fight the combat Therefore hee sayth in another place n Basil de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is nothing left thee O man to glorie of whose glorying and hope consisteth in this that thou mortifie all that is thine and seeke in Christ the life to come whereof hauing the first fruites we are now therein liuing wholly by the grace and gift of God There is then with Basil no merit no debt in any sort because we liue wholy by the grace and gift of God so that M. Bishops exposition is but a meere falsification of Basils words M. Perkins further alledgeth a saying of Austin He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. He questioneth the matter What congruitie is it to say thus He directeth a better forme of speech It had bene better sayd thus Now if the sentence be S. Austins what will men but take M. Bishop for a foole that wold so vnaduisedly befoole S. Austin and take vpon him to correct his words when he had no cause The place indeed is misquoted either by M. Perkins mistaking or by the ouersight of the Printer for in steed of Psal 102. he hath quoted Psal 120. by misplacing of the figure a very small and easie ouersight But S.
cap. 9. Nunquid liberum arbitrium negat hominibus quia Deo totum tribuit quòd rectè viuimus doth a man denie Free will saith he because he attributeth it wholy to God that we liue well q Retract lib. 1â— cap 9. Tale est vt sine illo rectè viuere nequeamus without freedome of will we cannot liue well for how should a man do well without his will but yet this Free wil to liue wel is r Cont 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3 cap. 7. Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas a will not free meerly of it selfe but made free by the grace of God For then is Å¿ De ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 11. Arbitrium voluntatu tunc est vere liberum cùm vetijs peccatisque non seruit Tale datum est a Deo quod amissum proprio vitio nisi à quo dari potuit reddi non potest the will of man free indeed when it is free from sinne and such a free will God gaue to man in the beginning but he lost it by his owne default and being lost it cannot be restored but by him that was able first to giue it In Christ therefore it is restored vnto vs who by his t Esai 51.12 free spirit giueth u Esa â—1 1. libertie to the captiues and openeth the prison to them that are bound and x Col. 1.13 deliuereth vs from the power of darknesse and maketh vs y 1 Cor. 7.22 free-men vnto him But yet so as that hauing receiued but a Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit by whom this freedome is wrought according to the words of the Apostle b 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie the same is yet but begun in vs so that c August in Ioan. tract 41. Ex parte libertas ex parte seruitus nondum tota nondum pura nondum plena liberias there is partly freedome and partly bondage not yet whole and pure and perfect freedome For no further is the will freed then it is renewed and it is renewed as yet but in part continuing still d De peccat mer. rem lib. 2. cap. 7. Animus qui est homo interior nondum totus est renouatus in quantuÌ„ nondum est renouatus intantum adhuc in vetustate est in part in the old estate Therefore it is so made free as that in some part we haue cause still to complaine with the Apostle e Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne and to pray with the Prophet Dauid f Psal 142.7 Bring my soule out of prison that I may giue thankes vnto thy name Hence is that heauinesse and dulnesse that waywardnesse and vntowardnesse that retention and holding backe that still we find in vs in the applying of our selues to spirituall and heauenly things And as touching that wherein we are renewed and made free it is not sufficient to vphold vs and keepe vs in the right way but we haue still neede of the grace of God to be assistant and helpefull vnto vs. g Hieron ad Ctesiphont Non sufficit mihi quòd semel donauit nisi semper donauerit Peto vt accipiam eum accepero rursus peto It is not enough that God hath once giuen sayth Hierome except he still giue I pray to receiue and when I haue receiued I pray againe Therefore the ancient church required of Pelagius to confesse that h August epist 106. Fateatur gratiam Dei adâ—utorium etiam ad singulos actus dari the grace of God is giuen vs to euerie act that we do i Enchirid cap. 32. Nolenâ—em praeuenit vt velit volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit He preuenteth vs to make vs willing followeth vs when we are willing that we do not wil in vaine And if his hand do not hold vs and vphold vs it commeth to passe by the burden of corruptible flesh that we are still relapsing to our selues and still readie with the k Exod. 14.11.12 Israelits to yeeld our selues to become bond againe l Bernard in Cant. ser 84. Non est aliud anima nostra quà m spirites valiens non rediensâ—â— ita fuerit derelicta Our soule saith Bernard is no other but as a wind that passeth and returneth not againe if it be left vnto it selfe Now M. Bishop do you carry this in mind thus expressed by the phrases and speeches of the ancient Church and leaue to calumniate our doctrine who affirme Free will as farre as they affirmed it and deny it no otherwise but as they denied it against the Pelagian heretikes But you will hardly leaue your wont because you see well enough that if you take our doctrine as we deliuer it you can deuise nothing plausibly or colourably to speake against it 2. W. BISHOP M. Per. 2. Conclusion The matters whereabout Free will is occupied are principally the actions of men which be of three sorts Naturall Humane Spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men and beasts as to eate sleepe c. In all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will euen since the fall of Adam M. Per. 3. Conclusion Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake to practise any kind of art to performe any kind of ciuill dutie to preach to administer Sacraments c. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice Temperance Gentlenesse and Liberalitie and in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution S. Paul saith The Gentiles that haue not the law Rom. 2.14 do the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength And he saith of himselfe Phil 3 6. Mat 6 5. Ezech. 29.19 that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable And for the externall obedience naturall men receiue reward in temporall things And yet here some caueats must be remembred First that in humane actions he should say morall mans will is weake and his vnderstanding dimme thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines Summe 12 â— 109. art 4. 8. And in all such actions with S. Augustine you might haue quoted the place I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead 2. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it Who knowes not this R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop giueth vs some more of his learned notes and telleth vs that M. Perkins for humane should haue said morall wheras the name of morall actions doth not so properly comprehend all those which he
before we may so obtaine grace that God may incline our heart whither he will And this is also the very selfe same dotage that now possesseth the Church of Rome For if M. Bishop will except that they do not affirme their workes of preparations to be without any helpe of grace onely of Free will I answer him that no more did Pelagius who accursed them as hath bene said who held not the grace of God to be necessarie to euery act But yet in that meaning wherein S. Austine speaketh of z See after in Sect 15. the helpe of God as whereby the thing it selfe is wrought in vs wherein we are said to be helped they say as S. Austine chargeth Pelagius to haue said that their preparations are without any helpe of grace and onely of Free will because there is for the time of this preparation no inhabitant or renuing grace no habitual qualitie or gift of grace that should be the worker thereof They onely teach as Pelagius did a grace though internall in respect of the man yet to the will onely externally assistant mouing and directing it for the doing of these things but meerely the will it selfe is the doer of them Which hereby also is apparant for that if they were properly the effects of they should by their doctrine be meritorio us ex condigno whereas now they are denyed so to be and therby are denied to be the proper effects of grace And hence M. Bishop thinketh to haue another difference betwixt the Pelagians and them because Pelagius affirmed merits before the grace of iustification and they do not so But this will not serue his turne because Bellarmine confesseth as the truth is that the Fathers in condemning Pelagius for affirming grace to be giuen in respect of merits did vnderstand merit a Bellar. de grati lib. arbit lib. 6. cap. 5 GratiaÌ„ Dei secundum merita nostra dari intolligunt Patres cùm aliquid fit propriâ—s viribus ratione cuius datur gratia etiamsi non sit illud meritum de condigno when any thing is done by our owne power in respect whereof grace is giuen though the same be not merit ex condigno Such are their workes of preparation which are done by our owne power in that meaning as the Fathers spake as hath bene said because they are no proper effects of renewing grace and are defended by theÌ„ to be the cause for which God bestoweth his grace vpon vs. They defend therfore that which was condemned in the Pelagians that the grace of God is giuen according to our merits b August contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib 4. cap. 6. Priores vtique dore quod libet ex libero arbitrio vt sit gratia retribuenda pro proemio that we first giue somewhat by Free will for which grace is to be rendred for reward They say as the Pelagians did c Ibid. Nos facimus vt mereamur cum quibus faciat Deus We worke to merit that God may worke with vs. Yea they professedly teach that their preparations are merits though not ex condigno yet ex congruo because by the rule of their schooles d Thom. Aquin. 1. 2. q 114. art 6. in Corp Congrutem est vt dum homo bene vtitur virtute sua Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentiùs operetur it is meete or standing with reason that whilest a man well vseth his owne power God according to his more excellent power do worke more excellently They thinke themselues well discharged for that they put no merits before the first grace as they call it whereas therein they say no more then Pelagius did He made the first grace e Aug. Epist 106. Haec intelligitur doctore ipso gratia Dei quae Paganis atque Christianis napüs pijs fidelibus atque infidelibus communis est a thing common both to the wicked and to the godly to Pagans and Christians to beleeuers and infidels consisting in motions and illuminations offered to all and left to euery mans Free will to accept or reiect them euen f Bellar. de grat lib. arbit lib. 2 cap. 3. Lumine gratiae nemo omnine priuatur so do they They say that before that first grace there are no merits at al precedent euen so said he affirming the calling of God whilest he findeth vs giuen to earthly lusts and like bruite beasts louing onely present things as his own words haue told vs. But the first grace or preuenting grace before which the Fathers say there are no merits is iustifying grace g Aug contr 2. Epist Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 6. Ille facis vt ambulemus vt obseruemus vt faciamus Haec est gratia bonos faciens nos haec miscricerdia praeueniens nos the grace whereby he maketh vs to walke to obserue to do what he commaundeth whereby he himselfe worketh the effect of that which either by outward instruction or inward motion and illumination he doth commend vnto vs. Before this grace they place their merits or workes of preparation thereby to obtaine it contrarie to the words of the Apostle as S. Austin witnesseth h Contr. Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 23. Not of workes lest any man should boast and againe If it be of grace it is not of workes And herein their iniquitie is the greater in that they borrow the termes of a distinction of i Enchir. cap. 32 grace preuenient and subsequent from S. Austin and apply it otherwise then he meant it to the maintenance of an heresie which he oppugned by it Thus M. Bishop for his life cannot imagine a better accord then there is betwixt Pelagius the Heretike and their Councell of Trent both auouching and by fraudulent deuices maintaining the power of nature and Free will against the truth of the grace of God And to assure vs that they attribute thereto as much as Pelagius did k August dena grit cap. 39 Poâ—â—â—at item humoâ—ae naturae ita â—â—stâ—dis vt homo per Liberum arâ—â—erium etiam sine Christi nomine salu a esse posse credatur who so defended the power of nature as that a man without the name of Christ might be saued by Free will Andradius telleth vs out of the secrets of that Councell that they also hold l Andrad Ortho. expli aedi 3. Sine lege Mosâ— Euangelit vnobis per Christura data sola lige naturae permâ—iltos puisse Dei gratia iustificatos saluatos prius vmeum Deum religioâ—è venerati sunt in ipso spes suas omnes collocarum illi perpetuo placere studuerunt ab illo virtutum remunerationem sperarunt that heathen Philosophers hauing no knowledge of the law or of the Gospel of Christ were iustified and saued onely by the law of nature that they religiously worshipped one God put all their trust in him hoped for reward of their vertues from him yet all this by
the grace of God he saith which Pelagius also would say but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed that m Arist de mundo Cic. de Nat. Deer Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit Neminem nisi inuante Deo talem fuisse creuoÌ„ dum est neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct so that Aristotle and Tully and such other acknowledging the same must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians concluding by imitation of the Apostles words that n Aug de nat grat cap. 2. Seâ—er uniturum iullâ—â—a sutilla fâ—dâ— assiâ—â—s Christi resurrectious instâ—tans cego Câ—â—ssâ—â— gratis â—â—â—â—us est if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ then Christ died in vaine And againe that o Ibid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti euâ—cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere to affirme that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect But by all this we see that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne Which being condemned in the p Frosp de lib. arbit Ostendere volun inter boni mali contrarius suasiones ita omnem hâ—minem proprie discretiom esse commissum â—t câ—â—mplus a Deo praesidij quà m a Diabolo fis periculi Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning q Coster Enchirid cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cogâ—tatione concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vtiâ— peccatum consentiat quae sua libertate motiones has omnes admittere potest reijcere tia sunt in nobis dâ—umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds and knocketh at the doore of the heart and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace whether sudden or more constant which do beate and knocke at the hart but so as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said r August Epist 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est c. Libertate naturali si vult facit si non vult non facit that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent and to make good that that I haue before affirmed that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare 6. W. BISHOP Now the verie point controuersed concerning Free will M. Perkins hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Author is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul which are commonly alledged against Free will R. ABBOT This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians that a Aug. ep 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis id est expropria voluntate quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of God but that this we haue of our selues that is to say of our owne will which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts For thus you haue M. Bishop all this while affirmed that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done This you all inculcate beate vpon that that when God hath wholy done his part it is in mans will either to make or marre and so do plainly teach with Pelagius that God doth helpe b Idem de grat Certisti to it Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae our naturall power that we may be able to consent and will but actually to consent and will is left still free to our owne will and choise And thus M. Bishop you your selfe informe vs when propounding the first part of the question Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it you hold affirmatiuely that by Free will we assent vnto grace hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same Whether this be so or not is the point and we resolue with S. Austin c Idem ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat sid etiam velle operatioperatur in nobis that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke but also worketh in vs to will and to worke he doth not so offer vs grace as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it who d De praedest sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt
commandement auaileth nothing from the mouth of God himselfe where he himselfe worketh not within that which he commandeth To this agreeth in effect the exposition of Ambrose though taking the words by way of accusation which Austin construeth by way of precept or exhortation k Amâ—r de Cain Abel li 2. ca. 7. In te reuertitur crimen quod ae te câ—pit Non habes in quo necessit item magis quam menteÌ„ tâ—aÌ„ arguas In te retâ—rque tur improbitas tut â—u princeps illâ—us es Ben aâ—t Tit princeps es illius Et enim impretas mater quaedaÌ„ est delictoram c. The sinne saith God returneth vpon thee which began of thee Thou hast not wherein to blame necessitie more then thine owne mind Thy wickednesse is turned backe vpon thee thou art the beginner of it Rightly doth he say thou art the beginner of it for impietie is a mother of sinnes c. Thus he maketh God in those words to accuse Cain of sinne not to attribute to Cain Free will for conuerting vnto God The other exposition of Austin is in reading the place l Aug. vt supra Cum commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis ad aliquid perperam committendum si acquiescatur Apostolo dicenti Ne exhibeatu membra c. ad mentem domita victa conuertitur vt subditae ratio dominetur Ad te conuersio eius erit c. The conuerting or turning thereof shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it vnderstanding sinne to be meant of carnall concupiscence or lust and making the construction thus that when carnal concupiscence is moued or stirred to commit any wicked thing if a man rest and harken to the Apostle saying Let not sin reigne in your mortall bodies giue not your members weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne then it being tamed and ouercome is conuerted and turned to be in subiection to the mind that reason may haue the rule and dominion ouer it Therefore he taketh it as if God had willed Cain to giue ouer that which by his owne wicked desire and lust he had intended and if he did resist it it should turne and yeeld to him and whilest it was not suffered to worke without it might be the better accustomed not to stirre within Prosper bringeth these latter expositions all into one as if God had sayd to Cain m Prosper de vocat gent lib. 2. ca. 4. Tuus hic error est enumque peccatum quiâ—sce noli in insontem fratrem movert ad te potius tua culpa reuoâ—itur Noli peccato regnum in te dareâ—sed tu potius in ipsum sume dominatuÌ„ Paenitendo enim nec in manus facinus progredieres ab eo in quo te doles displicuisse mundaberis This is thy error and thy sinne be quiet and be not mooued against thy harmelesse brother rather let thy sinne be charged vpon thy selfe yeeld not to it that it shold reigne in thee but do thou take on thee the dominion rule ouer it By repenting thou shalt not go to any further wickednesse thou shalt be reformed in that wherein thou shalt grieue that thou hast offended me Thus here is counsell and commandement to Cain but no assertion of Free will and by Cains going forward in his wicked course we see that Free will auaileth nothing to true obedience and keeping of Gods commandement Now then that M. Bishop can find nothing in Austin let vs see what Hierome hath to iustifie Cains example to be the maintenance of Free will Hierome hath indeed the words and exposition which he alledgeth n Hieron tradit Hebrat in Genes Quia liberi arbitrises monto vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris Because thou hast Free will I admonish and warne thee that sinne do not ouer-rule thee but that thou ouer-rule sinne But that this neither helpeth him nor hurteth vs it will easily and plainly appeare if we consider what was accorded before betwixt him and vs. For we deny not Free will in morall and ciuill outward actions as hath bene before acknowledged by him For in vaine were education and lawes and exhortations and all precepts and directions of life if there were not left in man a power to conforme himselfe outwardly to the prescriptions thereof God hath left in nature o August desp lit cap. 28. Non vsqueadeo in anima humana imago Dei detrita est vt nullae in ea velut lineamenta extrema remanserint Origen cont Celsum lib. 4. Impossibile vt eius imaginis lineamenta in totum delcantur c. some outward most lineaments some vnperfect shadowes and portraiture of his image for the preseruing of publike order and societie amongst men which could not stand if men for feare or shame or other respects could not containe and bridle themselues from those mischiefes and villanies whereto corruption of nature doth incline them To this the words of Hierome are to be referred For Cain was p Chrysost in Gen. hom 18. Sciebat ab initio quòd fratrem hic adoriturus esset ideo antea verbu reprâ—mit now contriuing and plotting the murder of his brother There was now no law to terrifie him from the accomplishing of that which he had intended but God himselfe taketh vppon him to set before him the horrour of his fact and to reclaime him from proceeding any further If therfore we do with Hierome referre the words here questioned to sinne God speaketh to Cain to this effect Why art thou so much offended that thy brother is better accepted then thy selfe why art thou thus moued with enuie towards him and intendest mischiefe against him If thou doest well as he doth assure thy selfe thou shalt be accepted as well as he But if thou do wickedly if thou go forward with that horrible villanie that thou hast conceiued know for a suretie that thy sinne shall lie waiting for thee at the doore and shall neuer cease to attend and follow thee till it haue brought vpon thee iust reuenge Wherefore I aduise thee to giue ouer bridle thy passion be maister thus farre of thine owne affections let not enuie carrie thee forward to commit so monstrous and vnnaturall a fact it is yet in thine owne power and therefore stay thy selfe and giue no further way to this bloudie designement to be sorie when it is too late Thus much and no more do Hieromes words expresse vnto vs and we doubt not but Cain had Free will as touching committing of this cruell act For if some man had stood in his way with a sword drawne to slay him if he should attempt the killing of his brother who doubteth but that it would haue made him hold his hands which he could not if he had not had in him power and libertie to forbeare And if M. Bishop meant no more when he speaketh of Cains power not to sinne if he had listed we would
it is a thing receiued m Aug. de praedest sanct cap. 5. A quo nisi ab illo qui te aâ— ceruit ab alio cui non donauit quod donauit tibi Of whom saith S. Austin but of him who hath not giuen to another that which he hath giuen vnto thee Who as he also answereth the Pelagian heretike obiecting the same place n â—acuâ— de perfect instit prepe fiâ—em â—â—â—p rat 〈…〉 inspireth the loue whereby we chuse He addeth further that vainely it should be sayd Chuse life if grace would haue made them do it infallibly without their consent Where we may wonder at his absurd manner of speech Who was euer so mad as to say that God maketh a man to chuse life without his consent which is the same as if he should say that he should make him consent without consent for how should chusing be without consenting We deny not consent but we say with S. Austin o Aug. epâ—st 107. Vâ—catione illa alta atque secreâ—a siâ— eius agit se sunt vt eidem lege atque doctrinâ— accommodet assensum It is God who by his secret calling worketh the mind of man to giue consent We say with S. Bernard p Bernard de grat ex l b arbit Non quod vel ipse consensus ab ipâ—so fit c fecit volentem noâ— est volunt vt suâ— consentienteÌ„ Consent is not of man himselfe but God maketh a man willing that is consenting vnto his will q In Cant â—er 57. Illius disiderâ—uÌ„ tuum creat quod tu eius properas sermoneÌ„ admittere inde est quòd ipse festinit inirare It is his desire of thee that causeth thy desire of him and that thou art forward to receiue his word it commeth of his forwardnesse and hasting to enter into thee 12. W. BISHOP Vnto these two places of the old Testament one vnder the law of Nature and the other vnder Moses law lâ—t vs couple two more out of the new Testament The first may be those kind words of our Sauiour vnto the Iewes Ierusalem Math. 23. Ierusalem c. how often would I haue gathered together thy children as the hen doth her chickens vnder her wings and thou wouldest not Which do plainly demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion and that the whole fault lay in their owne refusing and withstanding Gods grace as thâ—se words of Christ do plainly witnesse And thou wouldest not R. ABBOT If M. Bishop were put to the framing of an argument from this place and to bring in this conclusion that man hath Free vvill to conuert and turne to God I suppose it would trouble him very sore The words do rather import that howsoeuer Christ himselfe be amongst vs and speake vnto vs yet our Free will auaileth nothing to make vs to hearken to him but we still refuse and rebell vntill God do worke it in vs to obey and to hearken to his call And thus Moses to giue a reason why the people of Israel profited not by the sight of so manifold signes and wonders which the Lord had done before them and for them sayth a Deut. 29.4 The Lord hath not giuen you an heart to perceiue and eyes to see and eares to heare vnto this day Christ speaketh those words out of his humane affection he sheweth his loue towards them as man he signifieth his paines and labour bestowed amongst them and what occasion he had to complaine as Esay had foretold b Esa 49.4 I haue laboured in vaine I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing The words do no more import Free will then all other places of Scripture that do declare and set forth the rebellion of mans nature against God But yet M. Bishop telleth vs that hereby it is signified that God vsed all meanes that concerned him for the sauing of them they by their Free will crossed his purpose herein The words saith he do plainly demonstrate that there was no want either of Gods helpe inwardly or of Christs perswasion outwardly for their conuersion But they do not demonstrate so much yea by diuerse places of the Gospell we see they are very farre from that demonstration For if there wanted no inward helpe for their conuersion how was it sayd by our Sauiour Christ c Mat. 11.25 Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent of the world d Cap. 13.11 To them it is not giuen to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen e Mar. 4.11.12 all things are to them in parables that they seeing may see and not discerne and they hearing may heare and not vnderstand least at any time they should turne and their sinnes should be forgiuen them How was it sayd by the Euangelist S. Iohn f Iohn 12.39 Therefore could they not beleeue because Esay saith againe He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor vnderstand with their heart and should be conuerted and I should heale them How doth S. Paul say g Rom. 11.7 The election hath obtained but the rest haue bene hardened according as it is written God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber eyes that they should not see c. These things being so apparant and plaine how doth M. Bishop tell vs that there wanted no helpe of God inwardly for their conuersion but the want was onely in their owne Free will Surely h Aug. de corrept grat ca. 14. Cui volâ—nti saluuâ— fâ—cere nullum hominuÌ„ resistit arbitriuÌ„ sic enim vâ—lle nolle in volentis aut nolentis est potestate vt diuinam volumtatem non impediat nec superet potestatem De his enim qui faciunt quae non vult facit ipse quae vult c. De ipsis voluntatibus hominum quod vult facit where God is willing to saue as S. Austin saith there no will of man resisteth For to will or to nill is so in the power of him that willeth or nilleth as that it neither hindereth the will of God nor ouerruleth his power because euen of the wils of men he maketh what he will i Euchirid ad Laurent ca. 103 Dum tamen credere non cogamur aliquid omnipotentem DeuÌ„ voluisse fieri factumque non esse qui sine vllu amâ—iguitatibus si in coelo in terra quaecunque voluit fecit profectò facere noluit quodcunque non fecit In no wise may we thinke saith he that the Almightie God would haue any thing to come to passe and that the same doth not come to passe who if he do whatsoeuer he will both in heauen and earth as the truth instructeth vs surely had no wil to do whatsouer he hath not done If therfore God had willed the conuersion of the people of Ierusalem and had inwardly
worship of God p Prosper de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap 3. Sine cultis veri Dei etiam quod virtui videtur esse peccatum est nec placere vllus Deo sine Deo potest without which worship of the true God euen that that seemeth to be vertue is sinne and therefore it offended Austin and he retracted it as a thing mis-spoken that he had sayd q August Retract lib. 1. cap. 3 Displiâ—et mihi quod philosophos non vera pietate praeditos dixi virtutis luce fulâ—â—se that the Philosophers shined with the light of vertue who were not endued with true pietie or religion towards God A part of which pietie it is in all our good workes to haue a respect vnto him to do them for his sake thereby intending to serue and obey and to please him so that r Origen in Numer hom 25. Inanis est omnis actus omnis sermo in quo non est intrinsecus aliquid pro Deo pro mandato Dei vaine is euerie action and euerie speech that hath not somewhat inwardly for God and for the commandement of God and Å¿ August De ciuit Dei lib. 19. cap. 21. Virtutes cum ad se ipsas referuntur nec propter aliud expetuntur etiam tunc inflatae superbae sunt when vertues are referred to themselues and desired onely for themselues and not for some other respect to God they are swelling and proud and are not to be accounted for vertues but vices And this respect to God must acknowledge him to be the giuer of all our vertue and goodnesse and that we do but serue him with his owne so that t Idem cont Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4 cap. 3. Non quia per seipsum factum quod est operire nudum peccatum est sed de tali opere non in Domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatum Et ante Cum non ad suum authorem referuâ—tur donae Dei hoc ipso mali his vtentes afficiuntur iniusts although to cloth a naked man or any other such like worke by it selfe be not a sinne yet of such a worke not to glorie in the Lord and not to referre it to him as the author of it none but a wicked man will denie it to be a sinne Now these conditions and circumstances being required to make a worke good u Arnob. in Psal 26. Fieri poterit vt obsequendi voto offendam si qualitèr debeant ante non discam it may be that a man minding to do a seruice may commit an offence if he do not first learne in what sort he should do it Which a man cannot learne by Free vvill and by the law of nature and therefore offendeth euen in those things wherein he seemeth outwardly to do well But M. Bishop telleth vs that in such workes God is glorified because 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 Where we may iustly wonder that so absurd a fancie should preuaile with him that God should be glorified there where he is neither thought of nor knowne and that actions should be directed to God where there is nothing to direct them that mens actions are the directors of themselues and that though a man haue no meaning to glorifie God yet he doth glorifie him so long as he propoundeth not to himselfe a contrarie end These are M. Bishops dreames and vpon the credit hereof we must beleeue that the Gentiles not knowing none but idol gods yet did glorifie God in those workes wherein they did not put a contrarie end nay the bruit creatures do direct their workes of naturall compassion to the glorie of God for their naturall compassion is a sufficient good fountaine to make their workes good and they propound no end contrary to the glorie of God But S. Austin telleth vs that x August in Psal 31. Bonum opus intentio facit imentionem fides dirigit it is the intent that maketh the worke good and that it is faith that directeth the intent and therefore where there is neither intent to glorifie God nor faith to direct the intent thereto there cannot be any glorifying of God neither can the worke that is done be called a good worke M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to ioyne with the Pelagians y Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 3. Introducens 〈◊〉 hominum genus quod Deo placere pessit sine fide Christi lege naturae Hoc est vnde voâ— maximè Christiana detestatur ecclesia to bring in a kind of men which without the faith of Christ by the law of nature can please God This is it saith S. Austin to them for which the Church of Christ most highly doth detest you I will end this point with the resolution of Origen z Origen in Iob. lib 1. Omne opus bonum quod visi fuerint hominâ—e facere nisi in Dei cultura nisi in Dei agnitione atque confessione fecerint sine causa faciunt superuacuè AudeÌ„tèr dicam omnia gratis faciunt si non in fide fecerint sine causa agunt nisi in agnitione vnius Dei patris in confessione filij eius Domini nostri Jesu Christi illuminatione Sp. Sancti hoc fecerint Omnem iustitiam qui foris a vera Dei cultura atque vera fide fecerit gratis facit in perditione facit non prodest ei non adiuuat eum in die trae c. Ad quod testis est Apostolus Omne quod ex fide c. Quare Quia bona fecisse videntur non quaesita fide non quaesita agnitione eius propter quem hoc fecerint A quo enim accipiet mercedem Ab eo quem non requisiuit quem non agnouit cui non eredidit quem non est confessus non accipiet ab eo remunerationem nisi iudicium iram condemnationem c. Sicut enim nihil est delectabile hominibus sine luce sic nihil est delectabile neque acceptum Deo absque fidei lumine Euerie good worke saith he which men seeme to do except they do it in the worship of God in the acknowledgement and confession of God it is but bootlesse and vaine I will boldly say that they do all in vaine if they do it not in faith they do all to no purpose except they do it in the acknowledgement of one God the Father and in the confession of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ and by the enlightening of the holy Gbost He that doth a worke of righteousnesse being a stranger from the true worship of God and from true faith he doth it to no good he doth it in destruction it profiteth him not it helpeth him not in the day of wrath Whereof the Apostle is witnesse saying Whatsoeuer is not
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
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
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
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
too little and vnworthy for the paines whereof there should be rendered to vs so great reward of future good things as shal be reuealed in vs when being reformed to the image of God we shall merit that is attaine to see his glorie face to face Where to take merit properly to import desert and worthines shold be to make Ambrose in one sentence absurdly crosse contrary to himself to say that we deserue to see God face to face when he hath first affirmed that euen our sufferings for Christs sake are vnworthy to haue so great glorie yeelded vnto them The same is more plaine by that that before hath bene alledged out of Gregorie Å¿ Of iustificatioÌ„ sect 49. ex Gregor Moral lib. 9. cap. 18. If we be iudged without mercy our work is worthy to be punished which we expect to haue rewarded therefore the teares of expiation saith he are required that humilitie of prayer may lift vp the merite of our good worke to the obtaining of eternall reward Where we see he vseth the name of merit as vsually they were wont but sheweth that it is so far from being truly merit as that in extremitie it is worthy to be punished and that it needeth teares of expiation that is earnest intercession and prayer to God for Christs sake to remit the spots and blemishes thereof and that it is thus by prayer onely that is by fauour that any reward is yeelded vnto it But to this place most properly belongeth that of S. Bernard before mentioned that t 〈◊〉 in Aâ—â—â—â—ne ser 1. Neque enim taliae sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam faceret nisi eam donaret the merits of men are not such as that eternal life is due for them of right or as if God should do wrong if he did not yeeld the same vnto them u Idem de grat et lib. arb Si propriè appellentur ea quae nostra ditimus merita c. vta regni sunt non causa regnand If saith hee we will properly name those which we call our merites they are the way to the kingdome not the cause of our obtaining the kingdome Where most plainly he giueth to vnderstand that the name of merits is vnproperly abused and howsoeuer custome had taken it vp to call good works by the name of merits yet that we are not to conceiue that good workes for themselues can challenge any thing by any right or that we can truly and properly be said thereby to deserue at the hands of God And this is fully confirmed by Alfonsus de Castro who mentioning reward due to workes saith x Alphons cont haer li. 7. tit Grat. Debetur inquam non ex operis natura quia vt ait Paulus Non sunt condignae c. sed ex iure promissionis Hanc enim legem nos naturae docuit vt quod quisque promisit debere se credat It is due not by the nature of the worke for the sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the future glory which shal be reuealed vpon vs but it is due by right of promise for nature hath taught vs this law that euery man should take himselfe to ow that which he hath promised Surely if the debt of the reward arise not froÌ„ the nature of the work but onely by vertue of promise then merit is no merit properly because merit properly so called ariseth from the nature of the worke being in it selfe iustly worthy of that that it is said to deserue To come then to the testimonies cited by M. Bishop the first therof which he citeth out of a Ignat. epist. ad Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinite me bestiarum escam esse per quas DeuÌ„ assequi licet Ignatius is a false translation there being nothing in the Greeke to import merit but only the getting or gaining or obtaining of God as hath bene said Suffer me saith he to be the food of beasts that by them I may obtaine God And how far Ignatius was from any such opinion of his owne merit appeareth towards the end of the same Epistle where he saith b Jbid. Ego erubesco ex ipsis dici Non enim sum dignus esse vltimus aut purgamentum sed miserecordiam consecutus sum vt sim aliquis si Deum adipiscor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am ashamed to be named one of them the Pastors of the Church for I am not worthy to be the very last or the very outcast of them but I haue found mercie to be some body if I obtaine God He reckoned not of merit or worth but held it a matter of mercie to him to come to God How hardly then was M. Bishop bestead that in the forefront wold put Ignatius when the words that he citeth are nothing for him and his words in the same Epistle are altogether against him The words of Iustinus Martyr also are very lewdly abused in the same manner The words meritis suis by their merits are meerly foisted in neither is there any thing that can be construed to that purpose c Iustin Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui si dignos consilio illius se operibus ostenderint coÌ„uersatione cum ipso dignatuÌ„ iri accepimus vt vna regnent incorruptibiles à perturbatione immunes effecti They saith he who by their workes shall shew themselues to the counsell of God worthy or as M. Bishop translateth out of Bellarmine who by their workes shew themselues worthy of the counsell and will of God we haue receiued that he doth vouchsafe them to haue companie with him to raigne with him being made immortall and free from all perturbation Where he nameth worthinesse in no other sort then the Scripture doth as hath bin before shewed comparatiuely not simply by acceptation not by perfection according to the phrase of men whereto the holy Ghost is content sometimes to submit himselfe not according to the exact censure of the iudgement of God not as a matter of Popish merite whereto God in iustice is bound but to which God in fauour vouchsafeth as he saith to haue company with him And this he maketh very plaine when in the next words he addeth d See the same of Freewil sect 14. For in like sort as he created vs when we were not so do we thinke that he vouchsafeth them of immortalitie and dwelling with him who willingly make choise to do those things that are pleasing vnto him Now to haue being at first it was not of our selues In like sort to chuse and follow what is pleasing to him by those reasonable powers which he hath giuen vs it is by his perswading and mouing of vs to the faith Whereby he teacheth that our being in God following of those things that are pleasing to him is no more of our selues then our first creation and
Thomas Aquinas his braines who seeing that that which he was to say for their other vowes could not well hang together if the promise of baptisme should be taken for a perfect vow hewed and pared the definition of a vow that it might be fitted for his turne Azorius the Iesuite telleth vs that e Azor. lib. 11. cap 14. Baptisma esse votū propriè dictum veteres Theologi cū magistro videntur sentire sed probabilius est quod scholastici alij tenent the auncient Diuines as also the Master of the Sentences seeme to thinke that baptisme is a vow properly and truly so called but saith he it is more probable which the rest of the Schoole-men hold Thus against the iudgement of the ancient Diuines they frame all things as they list and we must take euery of their blinde sophismes to be a certaine rule of truth But we refuse them to be our masters and chuse to follow that which the Church before them hath followed accounting all those things the matters of our vowes to God which were figured by those ceremonies and sacrifices which were vowed by the law euen all the spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing and al good works whereby we honor and glorifie almightie God all which according to our state of life we promise to God in baptisme and therefore do account that promise a vow because it containeth the spiritual substance of those ancient vows The compiler of the book of Sentences in S. Austins works hath frō one or other gathered this sentence f Sent. apud August to 3. in fine Quisquis benè cogitat quae voueat Deo quae vouendo persoluat seipsum voueat reddat Hoc exigiur hoc debetur Whosoeuer well bethinketh him what to vow to God and what in vowing to pay let him vow himselfe and pay himself This is required of God and this is due to God If this be the right conceit of a vow then the promise of baptisme is a vow and it is not true which M. Bishop saith that there is no vow properly so called of necessary duties because we vow that which God requireth and which is due to God Albeit for conclusion I am to aduertise thee gentle Reader that we make not the matter of vowes to consist onely in necessary duties that is such duties as God namely requireth of vs but that sometimes we vow those things which rest vpon our choise and whereof in particular we are commanded nothing For albeit God require thankfulnesse and dutie for the mercies which we haue receiued of him yet he hath not precisely set downe that by way of thanks a man should always do this or that but hath left the deuout and thankfull minde to cast and consider which way he may testifie the affection of his heart by doing some good worke whereof he hath vnderstanding by the word of God that it shal be acceptable vnto him Thus a man though not bound to it yet may vow to do seruice to God in the ministery of the Church and being a minister conceiuing his seruice in this or that sort to be profitable to the Church may by vowing himself thereto abridge himselfe of that libertie which otherwise he might enioy So may a man vow a part of his goods to the poore as g Luke 19.8 Zacheus did when as by no commaundement he is vrged so to do The like may men do for the building and endowing of Schools Hospitals Colledges and such other godly charitable vses when yet these things by precept are not necessarily layd vpō them Yea neither do we question but that a man vpon good grounds and so long as he shal not therby be h 1. Cor. 7.35 intangled in a snare may priuatly vow vnto God a single life to the end that he may the more commodiously apply himselfe to the seruice of i Mat. 19.12 the kingdome of God this vow being conditionall only so far as it shal be seconded with the gift of God and so long as it shal stand with peace of conscience towards him In these such like is the true imitation of the outward ceremony of the law wherin men were at their liberty whether to vow or not works wherof generally we haue warrant by the word of God but whereof in particular there is no necessitie imposed vpon vs being left vnto vs at large thereby freely and voluntarily to exercise our zeale and deuotion towards God Wherin notwithstanding we are to remember that caution that Chrysostome giueth k Chrysos in psal 49. Si quis autē exactè perpenderit etsi minimè promittatur virtus tamen ei debetur Id Christus fignificans dicebat Quae debuimus facere fecimus If a man exactly weigh the matter our vertues are due to God albeit they be not promised or vowed which Christ signifieth when he saith We haue done that that was our dutie to do For seeing we are bound l Luke 10.17 to loue the Lord our God with all our hart with al our soule with all our mind with al our strength we must conceiue that though nothing be directed vnto vs in particular as touching the necessity of such or such a worke yet in the generall we do nothing therein but what we owe to God because whatsoeuer is within vs or whatsoeuer is without vs we owe all to him Yea and the vow of our baptisme doth after a sort containe all these other vowes in that being there consecrated wholy to God we vndertake thereby to take all occasions and oportunities to do honor vnto God As for popish vows being as they are for the most part brainsick idle fancies such as whereof neither in the general nor in the particular we haue any testimonie from God that they are accepted in his sight they are onely apish counterfeits of those legall and ceremoniall vowes but do no way carrie the true resemblance of them nor that life of spirituall worship and seruice that was shadowed thereby 2. W. BISHOP The second point of our supposed consent is that Vowes were some part of Gods worship in Moses law but are not so in the Gospell which we also deny M. Perk. proues his assertion thus Vows belonged to the ceremonies of Moses law but all those ceremonies are abolished by Christs passion Ans That Vowes in thēselues were no part of the ceremonies of Moses law but true parts of the worship of God in all estates as well in the state of nature and the Gospel as in Moses law but this point M. Perk. handleth againe in the first point of our difference where it shall be discussed Thirdly he saith that speciall vowes may be made in the new law to performe some bodily exercise for some good end as to fast to taske our selues to prayers or study of holy Scripture and such like but many rules must then be obscrued that we vow an honest thing agreeable to
the likenesse of any thing in heauen c. The Papists say that the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods but it must needs be vnderstood by the Image of the true Iehouah and it forbids to resemble God either in his nature or in his properties and works for so saith the Romane Catechisme vpon the second commandement Answer This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Romane Catechisme in defence of that opinion which it doth of set purpose disproue It teacheth indeede that the very nature and substance of God which is wholy spirituall cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours and alledgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull yet by and by annexeth these words Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion and the law of God when any person of the most holy Trinitie is purtraited in such sort as they haue appeared either in the old or new Testament c. But let the Pastor teach that not the nature of God but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God are represented in such pictures If the man be not past grace he will surely blush at such a foule error His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme and do proue only that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse Then Master Perkins returnes to confute the answer made him that Idols are there only prohibited and saith that we then confound the first and second commandement For in the first was forbidden all false Gods which man frames vnto himselfe by giuing his heart and the principall affections thereof vnto them Good and in the second admitting it to be the second is forbidden to draw into any materiall likenesse that Idoll which the heart had before framed vnto it selfe and to giue it any bodily worship which is distinction good enough to make two seuerall commandements Now the Romane Catechisme following Clement of Alexandria Lib. 6. Stromat and Saint Augustine Quest 71. super Exod and Ep. 119. cap. 11. and the Schoole-doctors in 3. Sent. distinct 37. doth make two commaundements of the Protestants last distinguishing desiring thy neighbours wife from coueting thy neighbours goods as they do Thou shalt not commit adulterie from Thou shalt not steale and make but one of the first two because the former doth forbid inward and the second outward Idolatry and the outward and inward actions about the said obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuerse things as a mans wife for lecherie and his goods of couetousnesse And yet besides adde another reason very probable that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandements cannot in good order be thrust into the middle of them but must be placed either with the first or last Now comprehending the two former in one the reward is annexed conueniently to the first whereas if you make them two it is out of order and without any good reason put after the second This I say not to condemne the other diuision which many of the auncient writers follow but to shew how little reason Maister Perkins had to trust to that answer of his that we should confound the first and second which he saw the very Catechisme cited by himselfe doth make but one of both R. ABBOT M. Bishop doth much amisse here to put M. Perkins to the blush for an ouer-sight as touching the Romaine Catechisme and therin very ill prouideth for himselfe who in his owne booke hath scarcely written one leafe wherein there is not cause for himselfe to blush Verily he hath little cause to be so angry with M. Perkins for thinking better of the Romaine Catechisme then it doth deserue he onely pointed at it in a marginall note by memory which oftentimes deceiueth the carefullest man Albeit it may be that M. Bishop and I are both deceiued and so is it very likely that by ouer-sight of the writer or the printer the marginall note is put after which should be applied to the words before The Papists say the commandement is meant of the Images of false Gods But the point of question is whether it be lawfull to make an Image to represent God We say it is not lawfull because God hath wholy forbidden it when he saith Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. That hereby God forbiddeth the making of any Image to him we proue for that God after the giuing of the law aduertiseth his people by Moses as to declare the intent of this commaundement that therefore a Deut. 4.15 they saw no image in the day that the Lord spake vnto them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire because they should take heede vnto themselues not to corrupt themselues by making them a grauen Image or representation of any figure Againe by the Prophet Esay he expostulateth the matter with idolaters saying b Esa 40.18 To whom will ye liken God or what similitude will ye set vp vnto him M. Bishop answereth that those texts do proue onely that Gods proper nature cannot or may not be resembled in any corporall shape or likenesse But if these places proue onely this what do they proue more then the heathen idolaters themselues freely confessed such at least as were of any capacity or discretion amongst them They knew their Images to be but corruptible things hauing beginning and end and therefore that they could not expresse the nature and condition of the Godhead which they knew to be immortall Hermes Trismegistus as Cyrill alledgeth said that c Cyril cont Iulian lib. 1. Jncorpâ—reum corpore significare impossibile perfectum imperfecto coÌ„prehendere non possibile sempiternum conferre cum momentaneo dâ—fficile it is impossible to signifie the incorporeall God by a body or by a thing vnperfect to comprehend that that is perfect or to compare that that is eternall to that that is but for a moment Zenophon a follower of Socrates acknowledgeth that d Minut. Felix in Octa. apud Arnob. ZenophoÌ„ Socraticus formaÌ„ Dei veri neg ac videri posse ideò queri non oportere Aristo Chius comprehendi omninè non posse vterque maiestatem Dei intelligendi desperatione senserunt the forme of the true God cannot be seene and therefore is not to be enquired of as also Aristo Chius that the same cannot be comprehended They both saith Arnobius perceiued the maiestie of God by despaire to attaine to the vnderstanding of him Antisthenes the Cynicke affirmed that e Clement Alexand. in proâ—â—ept Antisthenes dicit Deum nulli esse similem quare eum nemo potest discere ex imagine God is not like to any and therefore that no man can learne him by an image So doth Euripides for the notifying of God vse these words f Ibid Qui cuncta cernu ipse sed noÌ„ cernitur Who seeth
vident et audiuÌ„t vniuersa supernacua ergo sunt simulachra illis vbique praesentibus cuÌ„ satis sit audientiuÌ„ nomina precibus aduocare To what end are images which are the tokens either of them that are dead or of them that are absent Now if the Gods cannot be absent who because they are Gods or of diuine nature in whatsoeuer part of the world they be do heare and see all things then are their images vaine they being euery where because it is sufficient in their hearing to pray vnto them by their names And to this purpose do they obiect vnto them out of their owne bookes the sentences of their owne writers condemning the worshipping of their Gods by images as Austin bringeth in Varro acknowledging that l Aug de ciuit Dei lib. 4 ca. 31. Dicit Varro antiquos Romanos plusquam annot centum septuaginia Deos sine simulachro coluisse quod si adhuc inquit mansisset castius dij obseruarentur c Dicit qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt meâ—uÌ„ dempsisse errorem addidisse prudenter existimanâ— Deos facilè posse in simulachrorum stoliâ—itate contemnâ— the Romanes for aboue a hundred and seuenty yeares worshipped their Gods without images and that if they had still so done the Gods should haue bene more holily and purely serued or regarded and that they who first set vp the images of the Gods for the people did both take away feare and added error wisely esteeming saith S. Austine that the Gods in that blockish senselesnesse of images might easily be contemned Much more might be said to like effect out of Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Cyprian Athanasius and others in their tracts against the Pagans but by these it is sufficiently to be vnderstood that the coÌ„deÌ„nation of their idols ariseth not only of being the images of false Gods but of that being images they were worshipped howsoeuer the Gods might be supposed to be true Gods which they worshipped therby And who wold doubt but that the CarpocratiaÌ„ heretiks m Epiphan haer 27 Carpocrat Habent imagines Pythagorae Platâ—nis Aristotelis c cum quibus etiam imagines Iesu collocant collocatasque adorant gentium mysteria perficiunt c. sacrificium atque alia c. August de haeres Colobant adorando incensumque ponendo Iren. li. 1 ca. 24. setting vp the images of Iesus and Paul withall of Pythagoras Homer Plato Aristotle and doing worship offering sacrifice burning incense vnto theÌ„ did coÌ„mit idolatry make idols of these images albeit they were so far froÌ„ taking theÌ„ to be Gods or images of Gods as that it was one part of that heresie to deny n August ibid. Iesum hominem tantummodo putasse perhibetur the godhead of Christ Thus the name of Idols and Idolatry are sometimes metaphorically applied to those creatures which are vnlawfully worshipped albeit they be either not supposed or expresly denied to be Gods In which sort the Councell of Laodicea o Theodoret. in Col cap. 2 Laodicenae synodus lege cauit ne precarentur Angelos forbidding to pray to Angels as Theodoret briefly expresseth the effect of that Canon addeth p Laodic Concil ca. 35. Quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultè huic idololatriae vacanâ— anathema sit quoniam derelinqueÌ„s Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Whosoeuer shall be found giuing himselfe secretly to this idolatry accursed be he because forsaking our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God he hath made accesse to Idols By which words it is plain that by praying to Angels men make Idols of theÌ„ though they do not think theÌ„ to be Gods because praier is a deuotion that belongeth only to God The like M. Bishop must confesse according to the opinion of Arius euen of Christ himselfe For if the first commandement forbid onely Idols as M. Bishop will haue it and Arius in impugning the diuinitie of Christ and yet acknowledging to worship him did breake the first coÌ„mandement then it cannot be denied but that by the doctrine of Arius Christ must become an Idol That Arius therin brake the first commandement appeareth by Theodoret q Theodoret. in Exod. q 37. Qui Trinitatis vnam substantiam coÌ„fitentur diuinae vocis legem obseruant nihil enim aliud pro Deo coli permittunt excepta diuina naturae Qui vero erroreÌ„ sequuntur Arij atque Eunomij manifestè in diuinam legem committunt confitentes quidem vnum filium sed creatum esse asserentes à diuina substantia alienuÌ„ CuÌ„ auteÌ„ Deus dicat Non erunt tibi dâ— alij praeter me isti profectò Deum aliuÌ„ introducuÌ„t They saith he who confesse one substance of the Trinitie do obserue the law of the word of God for they permit nothing to be worshipped for God saue only the nature of God But they which follow the error of Arius and Eunomius do manifestly trespasse against the law of God coÌ„fessing that the Son is one but affirming him to be created a straÌ„ger froÌ„ the substance of God Whereas God then saith Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me these verily bring in another God M. Bishop therfore must necessarily graunt that Arius made an Idoll of Christ whom notwithstanding he denied to be God and therefore that the name of an Idoll may belong to that which yet is not taken to be a God Therfore doth Athanasius say of them that by their opinion r Athan. cont Arian orat 4. Cur sese non adnumerant gentilibus siquidem ambo Creatore omisso creaturae inseruiant they were to be reckoned with the Gentiles because together with them in steed of the Creator they worshipped the treasure which as it was idolatry in the Gentiles so it must be in them also The like we haue heard before of the Nestorian heresie condemned of idolatry for worshipping the manhood of Christ without acknowledging the personall vniting thereof to the Godhead To be short S. Austine saith of the works of the flesh reckoned vp by the Apostle fornication vncleannesse c. Å¿ Aug. de verb. Apost ser 3. ista in nobis taÌ„quam idela frangenda sunt These are we to breake in our selues as Idols again telleth the Manichees t IdeÌ„ cont Faust lib. 14. ca. 11 In phantasmatibus fabularuÌ„ suaruÌ„ idola colunt that in their fabulous fancies they worship Idols and Hierome generally saith of heretikes that u Hieron in Zachar. ca 13. HaereticeruÌ„ peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in Idolum whatsoeuer they deuise or feigne they turne it to an Idoll not for that men haue any opinion of Godhead in their lusts and fancies but because they yeeld them that affection and seruice which they owe to God By all this then it appeareth that because the name of Idols is metaphorically applied to things for being worshipped or deuoutly and affectionately embraced