cannot erre neither all generally nor one finally 207 Emperours of Rome 86 Errour may be in the church 206 Errours how they come 342 The Eucharist giuen to infants 186 The Eucharist expounded by Chrysostome 461 The Eucharist is not Christs body 467 The Eucharist vnder one kindâ— 402 The Eucharist broken 484 Eutiches and his heresie 181 F Abrahams Faith did iustifie him 383 Sole Faith iustifieth 370 Faith can not be without good woorkes 399 The first Faith broken how vnderstoode 241 A true Fast 72 Fasting and choice of meates 60 The Fathers doe erre very often 342 Festiuall dayes 116 Fidelitie allegeance condemned by the pope 528 Free-will how it remaineth 358 G Grace that iustifieth is not inherent 370 The Grace of the Manicheâ—s 176 Saint Paul iustified by Grace yet a sinner stil 374 Grace infused may stand with sinne 350 The virgin Mary abounded with Grace yet not freâ— from sinne 28â— The Greekes and their supputation 8â— Gryphus at strife with his vncle 123 The Gouernement of the Iewes 135 H The Heresie of Arrius 178 Of Nestorius 180 Of Macedonius 181 Of Eutiches ibidem Of Mahomet 182 The Historie of Nectarius 509 Of Spiridion 64 Hierusalem besieged 153 Destroyed 25 Holy dayes and Sabbaths 116 I Iesuites are humble 144 Dissemblers 145 Images 139 Indulgences 270 Inuocation of Saints 319 Ioseph and his acts 57 Iosue 58 Of the Israelites but seuentie persons went into Egypt 53 Israelites 400. yeeres in Egypt 54 Iustice inherent 383 Iustice of the regenerate vnperfit 351 Iustification by faith 370 Iustification formall in Christ ibid. Iustification by workes 383 and 384 Iulianus Apostata 175 K Kings of the Assyrians 74 Of Egypt 128 Of the Iewes 135 Of Israel 20 24 Of Iuda 24 Of Macedonia 116 Of the Medes 76 Of the Persians 94 Of the Romanes 83 Of Syria 123 Kings are supreame gouernors in causes ecclesiasticall 34 and 426 Kings that afflicted the Iewes 147 Kissing the altar 483 The pax 482 The patine 483 The Popes feete 487 L The Law impossible after Adam 350 c. The Law fulfilled by faith 370 Euery transgression of the Law a mortal sin 381 What time the Law was giuen 56 The Lie in the midwiues 55 The Librarie of king Ptolomie 132 M Macedonius â—81 The Maniches 176 Marriage of Priests prohibited onely by mans lawe 216 Gratian alloweth priests marriage 231 The Nicene councell alloweth priests marriage 233 The Masse how it is called a sacrifice 428 The canon of the popish Masse 480 Masse in one kinde contrary to Christs institution and antiquitie 402 Popish Masse iniurious to Christs passion 417 Popish Masse is not a propitiatorie sacrifice 432.433 c. Popish Masse a clowted beggars cloake 476 Priuate Masse is diabolical 414 c. Masse ought to be saide in the vulgar tongue 476 Melchisedech what he offered 422 c. No Merit in mans worke 372 c. The Merit which the fathers ascribe to good workes 394 c. The Meritorious cause of iustification 345 The popish Miter 486 A Monarchie contained not all power in it 129 The Monarchie of the Assyrians 74 Of the Greekes 121 Of the Persians 92 Of the Romanes 149 Moses and his actes 55 N The seuerall Names of the ten tribes 43 Nectarius abolished confession 510 Nestorius 180 Nero and his wicked actes 150 Noah his floud 27 Nouatus the cause and beginning of popish confession 512 Nunnes may lawfully marry euen after vowes 235 O Olympias 116 The Olympiads 81 The Originall of confession 509 c. Of kissing the Popes feete 487 Of pardons 270 Of pilgrimage 341 c. Of popish masse 480 Of changing Popes names 486 The Originall of praying for the dead 296 Of praying to Saints 311 Of praying on beades 487 Of popish primacie 187 Of purgatorie 296 Of single life 224 Of transubstantiation 436 P Pardons 270 Pax vsed in poperie 481 Phocas author of primacie 188 Pilgrimage 341 c. Popes and their wicked dealing 529 Of kissing the Popes feete 487 Changing the Popes name 486 Praying to Saints 311 For the dead 296 In the vulgar tongue 476 Vpon beads 487 Primaâ—â—â— 187 Priuate masse 414 Purgatorie 296 Ptolomaeus his librarie 232 R Reliques of Saints not to be adored 349 Remus how slaine 82 The Romish church hath erred 203 c. The church of Rome holdeth many things whereof it can yeelde no reason 186 The church of Rome vseth to wrest the scripture ib. Rome how it had the name 82 Rome when builded ibidem S The alteration of the Sabbath 108 c. The Sacrifice of the masse 428 The Saracens 182 A Scribe what it signifieth 133 The Scripture must try euery trueth 342 The Sects of Romish religion and when they began 530 The Septuagints and their celles 131 Succession of kings See Kings Succession in the Romish church 194 c. Supremacie of the Romish church 187 T The Temple when it was built 2â— Transubstantiation when it began 436 The destruction of Troy 81 All Trueth to be tried by the scripture 342 V No sinne Veniall of it owne nature 381 Vestments and their colour 490 The Virgin Mary a sinner 287 Virgins may marry after their vowes 235 The Visible church clogged with superstitions See Church Vowes cannot dissolue lawful marriage 253 c. Vowes vnlawfull 265 W The Wearing of a Cardinalles hat 488 The seuentie Weekes in Daniel are declared 101 The scripture must Witnes trueth 342 A Woman pope of Rome 191 A Woman clad in mans apparell 74 Good Workes cannot iustifie before God 383 c Good Workes do not merit 392 Widowes damned for breaking their first faith 241 FINIS Among other faults escaped in the Printing these especially are thus to be corrected Pag. 2. for Cabatist reade Cabalist Pag. 13. for 432 443 Pag. 19 for 428 443 Ibidem for 4082 4097 Pag 21. The first two lines as part of the sentence afore-going Pag. 37. for Achab Achaz Ibidem for eight seuenth Pag. 74. for hadle handle Pa. 75. for Tantanes Tautanes Ibid. for Tantens Tantens Pag. 1â—â— deest made with other literall faultes which the ingenious Reader may easily espie and amend Act. 9.1 2. Act 9.4 1 Cor. 15.9 1. Cor. 2.8 1. Tim. 1.13 Gal. â— 10 Genes 2. vers The state of 〈◊〉 in his creation The vertue of the tree of life â—ugust de ciuit 〈◊〉 3 cap. 20. â—enes 2.16 â—enes 3.19 â—enes 1. â—9 â—enes 9.3 Aug. de ciuit libr. 22. cap. 30. The difficultie consisteth not in the ages but in the supputatâ—â—on of the yeareâ— Exceeding greâ—â— varietie of opinâ—â—ons 〈◊〉 first age second age August quaest sup Gen. q. 25. Mal. 1. verse 2 3. â— Par 4. v 1. Actes 7. verse â— The third age â—ee the Fift Sectiâ—n of the eight â—hapter where â—his is handled more at large This point must be well noted See Athanasius in synopsi Anno mundâ— 3088 4. Reg. 25. Ier. 52. Iosephus his â—â—â—putation 〈◊〉 be allowed 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 443. yeares 〈◊〉
the Papists themselues and consequently that the papists ought not to make account of his iudgement herein For you doe see that he granteth the punishment of the damned to be mitigated in hell for the prayers of the liuing which thing no papist will or dare auouch And the like is to be saide of other of the Fathers when they folow opinions not grounded vpon the word of God Saint Austen therefore must be reiected by his owne rule as I haue prooued in my Motiues when he dissenteth from Gods word the true touchstone and triall of all trueth And saint Austens inconstancie is plainely vttered in an other place where he hath these wordes Quod quidem non ideo confirmo quoniam non resisâ—o Which verily I do not therefore approue because I do not impugne it Out of which wordes I note that though saint Austen could not approoue the opinion of the vulgar sort as which he knew to haue no ground but a meere naturall affection yet would hee not condemne it but leaue it as in suspense The foureteenth obiection Praier for the dead is proued by the scripture euen in y t new testament for when S. Iohn forbids to pray for them that die without repentance he doubtles exhorts to pray for them that die penitent The answer I say first that when cardinall Allen in his notes vpon this place auoucheth roundly that this text coÌ„uinceth praier for the dead he may tell that tale to wise men and repute himselfe a foole for his paines For first as S. Austen vpon whose authoritie he only buildeth affirmeth that the apostle speaketh of him that dieth impenitent so doth the same S. Austen auouch that he doth iniury to a martyr that praieth for a martyr which is a receiued axiome with the papists and consequently when he inferreth out of S. Austen that we must pray for them that die penitent he concludeth against S. Austen that wee must pray for most constant martyrs and so commit a manifest iniurie So then albeit S. Iohn dehorteth from praying for such as die without repentance yet doth he not exhort vs to pray for those that die penitent for otherwise doubtles wee must pray for martyrs which no papist wil allow I say secondly that S. Iohn exhorteth to pray for penitent sinners here on earth but not for the dead I prooue it because these are saint Iohns words If any shal see his brother sinning a sin not to death but he that sinneth is in this life for wee can not see a man sinning in the next life where no sinne is committed and therfore S. Iohn speaketh of prayer only in this life I say thirdly that saint Iohus purpose is this no other to exhort vs to repentance for our sins in this life because after this life there is neither repentance nor remission of sinnes to be had neither can any other sense be truely deduced out of S. Iohns words Yea their owne cardinall Caietane doth so expound this place to their vtter confusion CHAP. VII Of praying to Saints departed COncerning the inuocation of Saints great abuses and intollerable superstition haue crept into the church and dazeled the eies of the vulgar sort wherein I desire diligent attention and indifferent iudgement vntill the end of my discourse The first Conclusion Albeit a christian man neuer pray to the saints departed yet doth he not sinne therein I prooue it because euery sinne is a transgression of Gods law or commandement but God hath made no law nor giuen any commandement to pray to saints Ergo not to pray to them is no sin at all The proposition is a receiued maxime in the Romish church grounded on these wordes of saint Austen Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam Sinne is any deed word or thought against the eternall law which is the will of God Saint Ambrose confirmeth Saint Augustines description in these wordes Quid est peccatum nisi praeuaricatio legis diuinae caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum What is sinne but the transgression of Gods lawe and the disobedience of his holie precepts The assumption is secure vntil the papists can alleadge some precept out of the olde or new testament for the inuocation of saints which they will doe ad Calendas Graecas But the Papistes thinke they haue a mightie obiection against this Conclusion taken out of Genesis in these wordes Et innocetur super eos nomen meum nomina quaeque patrum meorum Abraham Isaac And let my name be called vpon them and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac To which I answere thus First this vocation or nomination was not any precept from God but the meere fact of Iacob or Israel who as hee was holy so was he a man and might haue erred herein as man Secondly the hebrew text is thus Let my name be named in them that is let them bee called my children by adoption or let them bee surnamed after me For it was the custome both of the Hebrewes and of the Greekes to expresse the surname of euery one by the name of the father as Aristoteles the sonne of Nicomachus Zenophon the sonne of Gryllus Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus Thirdly the whole course of holy scripture doth yeelde this interpretation of Iacobs wordes In the olde testament it was a great reproch for a woman to beare no children though nowe with the Papists they be reputed holy that will rashly vow neuer to marry for which respect the small remnant of men left after the execution of Gods iustice in the destruction of Ierusalem inforced women contrary to womanly shamefastnesse to seek vnto men and to offer themselues to very base conditions to the end they would be their husbands and so take away their reproch Which thing the prophet Ieremy vttereth in these wordes In that day seuen women shall take hold of one man saying We will eate our owne bread and weare our owne garments onely let vs be called by thy name and take away our reproch Thus writeth Gods holy prophet whose discourse with the due circumstances thereof if the christian Reader wil exactly ponder he shall behold as clearely as the glittering beames of the sunne the most impudent and sophisticall dealing of the papists For though the words aswell in the latine as in the Hebrew be all one and the very same yet are the papists ashamed I am well assured to inferre or proue inuocation of Saints by this latter place That which I say is euident because these women desired nothing else of the man but that he would be their husband and that they might be called his wiues and so put away their reproch This interpretation is plainely touched in the expresse wordes of the text when the women desired the man to take their reproch away by letting his name be called vppon them for which end they promised not only
otherwise he should be contrarie to himselfe who affirmeth it to bee sinne in many places of his works as is alreadie prooued but hee onely laboureth to perswade the reader that it is neuer imputed to the faithfull that stoutly striue against it And that this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it by the iudgement of S. Ambrose concerning the selfe same matter Thus doth hee write Caro contra spiritum contra carnem spiritus concupiscit â—ec inuenitur in vllo hominum tanta concordia vt legi mentis lex quae membris est insita non repugnet Propter quod ex omnium sanctorum persona accipitur quod Ioannes apostolus ait si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus nosipsos seducimus veritas in nobis non est cum tamen idem ipse dicat qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit qoniam semen ipsius in eo manet non potest peccare quoniaÌ„ ex Deo natus est Vtrumque ergo verum est quia nemo sine peccato est in eo quod nemo est fine lege peccati qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit quia per legem mentis id est per charitatem quae Dei semen est peccatum non facit Charitas enim operit multitudineÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ the flesh lusteth against the spirit the spirit against the flesh neither is there found in any man such concord but that the lawe of concupiscence which is ingrafted in the members fighteth against the law of the mind And for that cause Saint Iohns words are taken as spoken in the person of all saints If we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs when for al that the same apostle saith He that is borne of God sinneth not because his seed abideth in him and he cannot sinne because he is of God Therfore both are true because no man is without sinne for that no man is without the law of sinne that is concupiscence and he that is borne of God sinneth not bicause he sinneth not by the law of his mind that is by charitie which is Gods seede for charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes Out of these words I note first that concupiscence moueth rebellion against the spirit in the holyest man vpon earth I note secondly that this rebellion of concupiscence is sinne in euerie one because S. Iohn speaketh of sinne indeede whose words saint Ambrose applieth heere to concupiscence I note thirdly that hee speaketh of originall concupiscence because he speaketh of that concupiscence which is in the saints that is in those that are borne of God I note fourthly that the faithfull sinne not because charitie couereth their sins So then S. Austen meaneth as S. Ambrose doth that they are without sin to whom sinne is not imputed Yea Aquinas himselfe granteth which is to be admired that the inordinate motion of sensualitie euen which goeth before the deliberation of reason is sinne though in a lowe degree These are his expresse wordes Dicendum quòd illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione rationis non perfectè ipse facit quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine vnde non est perfectè actus humanus per consequens non potestesse perfectè actus virtutis vel peccati sed aliquid imperfectum in genere horum Vnde talis motus sensualitatis rationem praeueniens est peccatum veniale quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati I answere that that which man doth without the deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly because that which is the chiefe in man worketh nothing there wherefore it is not perfectly mans act and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of vertue or of sinne but some imperfect thing in this kinde Whereupon such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial sinne which is a certaine imperfect thing in the nature of sinne The fourth replie Concupiscence at the most is but a little venial sinne as S. Thomas Aquinas truely saith therefore it cannot bring a man to hell neither debarre him of heauen The answere I answere that euerie sin is mortall vndoubtedly as which is flatly against Gods holy commaundements For that the transgression of Gods commandements is a grieuous mortal sinne no man euer did or will denie Cursed is euery one saith the apostle that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them Againe in another place The reward or wage of sinne is death And S. Iames saith Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and yet faileth in one point he is guiltie of all Nowe that euerie sinne aswel great as small is against Gods holy lawe I prooue sundrie waies First because the Apostle saith that al our thoughts words and works ought to be referred to the glorie of God for most certaine it is that no sinne at al is referred to Gods glorie For no sin no not the least of al is referrible to god but is of it own nature repugnant to his glorie Secondly because wee must yeelde an account to God for euerie idle word as Christ himselfe telleth vs and yet as euerie child can perceiue God most merciful and most iust wil neuer lay that to our charge which is not against his holy law Thirdly because the apostle saith of sin generally that the punishment thereof is death Fourthly because sinne in generall is defined by the fathers to bee the transgression of Gods law which definition could not bee true if anie little sinne could stand with his commaundement Fiftly because famous popish writers as Ioannes Gerson Michael Baius Almayn and our owne Bishop of Rochester doe all freely graunt that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne nature and deserueth eternall death their words I haue alleaged in my booke of Motiues Sixtly because Durandus and Iosephus Angles to whom the Schooles of the papistes this day accord doe sharpely impugne Aquinas his doctrine in that he teacheth Venials not to be against Gods law The 7. conclusion Although good works do not iustifie yet are they pretious in Gods sight and neuer want their reward Christ himselfe prooueth this conclusion when he promiseth that not so much as a cup of colde water giuen in his name shall passe without reward And in another place hee saith That whosoeuer shall leaue house parents brethren wife or children for his sake shal receiue much more in this world and in the world to come life euerlasting And in another place Christ telleth vs that when the sonne of man commeth in his glory and al his holy angels with him then will he pronounce them blessed that haue done the works of charitie to their poore neighbours God saith S. Paul will reward euery man according to his workes The Lord rewarded me saith holy
non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem sed quod habitat in eis peccatum Behold howe they that walke in the waies of the Lord doe not sinne and yet are they not without sinne because now not they work iniquitie but the sinne that dwelleth in them I say thirdly that it is one thing to be blessed in the worke another thing to be blessed for the worke And so when the regenerate become not vaine hearers of Gods worde but bring forth the worthie fruites thereof in holy life they shall doubtlesse be blessed in so doing yet not for the worthinesse of their workes but of Gods meere mercie for his promise sake Thus doth S. Iames expound himselfe in the same chapter when hee saith Blessed is the man that endureth temptation for when he is tried he shall receiue the crowne of life which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him The 4. obiection S. Luke saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth were iust before God not only before men and that they walked in all the commandements of the Lord without reproofe The answere I say first that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept y e law exactly in all pointes then Christ needed not to haue died for them or to haue risen again for their iustification For the perfite fulling of the law giueth life to the doer thereof I say secondly that they were of that number of whom S. Iohn saith if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. And of whom S. Paule saith There is none righteous no not one they haue all gone out of the way there is none that doth good no not one And of whom the Psalmâ—graphe saith for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified And of whom S. Austen saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy mercie towards them I say thirdly that they were iust before God as were Dauid Peter Paul and others not for that they were perfitly iust and without sinne but because God reputed them so perfitly iust as if they had neuer sinned and of his great mercie thorough the merites of Christ Iesus did not impute the breach of his law vnto them according to this saying of the scripture Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sins are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne The fift obiection The regenerate liue without sinne and so may they iustly merite heauen For we reade that Noah was iust and perfite and vpright and walked with God Remember saith Dauid howe I haue walked before thee in trueth and with a perfite heart and haue done that which is good in thy sight Wee speake wisedome saith the apostle among them that are perfite and it is written of king Asa y t his heart was perfite all his daies In another place y e prophet saith that he hath not swarued from Gods lawe In another place hee requireth God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse The answere I say first that as the Prophet Dauid in one place required God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse so did he desire God in another place not to enter into iudgment with him because none liuing coulde be iustified in his â—â—ght So then his meaning is not to oppose his owne righteousnesse to the iust iugement of God at which hee euer trembled and neuer durst abide it as he saith in another place but only to shew his own innocent dealing in respect of the malicious and wicked practises of his enemies although the papistes to establish their pharisaical iustice would haue it to be vnderstood of Dauids own merites I say secondly that the perfitnesse which the scripture ascribeth to Gods children is not absolute but relatiue that is to say it is not perfite in respect of Gods law but by reason of imputation of Christes iustice vnto them who hath simply and perfitly answered the law or in respect of the weaker sort who want many degrees of their though imperfect iustice For S. Paule denied himselfe to be perfite Not as though I had alreadie attained to it saith he either were already perfit To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excelleÌ„tly in these words Nostra enim si qua est humilis iustitia recta forâ—itan sed non pura Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris For our base iustice if we haue any is perchance right but not pure or perfitâ— vnlesse perhaps we beleeue that we are better then our fathers were who spake as truly as humbly All our righteousnesse is as filthy clouts But Christ as the apostle saith is our iustice in him we are perfect and consummate I say thirdly that the regenerate are said to liue perfectly and without sin in that they striue against sin and do not suffer sin to raigne in them thogh they cannot be without it And this hath the same Bernard wel obserued and vttered in this maner Quomodo enim pura iustitia vbi adhuc non potest culpa dâ—esse recta proinde interim videri potest iustitiae hominum si tamen peccato non consentiant vt non regnet in eorum mortali corpore For how can their iustice be pure who cannot be without sinne yet may the iustice of men be right if they consent not to sinne nor suffer it to reigne in their mortall bodies In which respect S. Iohn saith that the faithfull sin not because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them The replie If the regenerate cannot fulfill and keepe the lawe exactly then is it giuen in vain and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof The answere I say first that Adam might haue kept the law perfitly and in him al his posteritie might haue done the same I say secondly that wee may yet keep the law in a certaine measure and therefore must we striue against sinne and studie to increase our sanctification from day to day I say thirdly that by the law we know our owne nakednesse sinnes and miserie and are thereby excited to seeke for remission of our sinnes and to be clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus The replie The apostle saith in one place that the iust are not vnder the law but vnder grace And in another place hee saith y t there is no law for the iust man but where there is no law there can be no transgression and consequently no sinne at all The answere I answere that the iust are free from the coaction curse and condemnation of the law as the apostle witnesseth in another place but yet are they
ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis solemnis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the single vow is able to contract matrimonie albeit he sinne in so contracting but the subiect of a solemne vow is inabled to matrimoniall contract the transgressions of the vowe single and solemne are of the same nature or kind albeit hee that maketh the solemne vow sinneth more grieuously the reason is because the specificall difference of acts resteth in the obiects and since there is one obiect of both the vowes to wit to keepe chastitie the acts shall bee of the same nature or kinde neuerthelesse the transgression of the solemne vow shall be greater by reason of the perfecter state Thus reasoneth Frier Ioseph after the opinion of other popish doctours and his discourse is euident because euerie specificall difference morall ariseth of the obiects and consequently since the obiect of vow single is one and the same with the vowe solemne the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall The sixt building All secular Priests are so free from the solemne vow annexed by the church of Rome to ecclesiasticall orders as their marriage is perfect and of force notwithstanding the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof I proue it first because Scotus Nauarre Iosephus Angles and others doe grant that this vow is onely annexed by the ordinance of the church as shall appeare more at large in the ende of this chapter I prooue it secondly because if the secular priests â—â—e votaries their vowe must either be by the worde spoken or by the deede done not the first because no such word can be proued neither the second because if the art it selfe in taking orders shoulde be the vowe annexed it would follow thereupon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become votaries as who doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer votaries as Gratianus Syluester and other popish doctours do affirme I proue it thirdly because when two things are essentially and really distinguished the grant of the one doth necessarily include the graunt of the other and yet is the solemne vow of chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred orders as I haue proued out of Iosephus in the fourth building and as is apparant by Nauarre in his Enchiridion Gratian their owne doctour maketh this case cleere see his assertion in the next chapter in the answere to the first obiection The seauenth building The solemne vowe of chastitie imposed onely by the power of man cannot alter the institution of God and take away the liberty by him granted vnto man For proofe hereof their own deare fryer Antoninus some time archbishoppe of Florence shall suffice who telleth our holy father the Pope that God is his superiour and that he therefore cannot alter any one iâ—te of his law these are his expresse words Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit sic verò quod ista possit mutare vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris Deus autem superior ad papam Concerning those things which are of the law of nature or law diuine iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it self so to wit that the pope can change these things or giue power obligatiue vnto them and the reason is because an inferiour cannot change the laws of his superior and God is superiour to the Pope Franciscus a Victoria and other learned Papists hold the same opinion but Antoninus his testimonie is sufficient The proofe of the proposition This foundation and these seauen buildings onely considered my proposition afore rehearsed will be cleare and manifest for first if single life be only imposed by the law of man as the seauenth building proueth secondly if secular priests can no way be proued votaries as in the sixt building is shewed thirdly if the vow single be of one and the selfe same nature with the solemne differing only accidentally from it as the fift building affirmeth fourthly if the solemne vow hath not force of it selfe to dissolue marriage as the fourth building teacheth fiftly if the popes dispensation can make marriage of force after the solemn vow as the third building conuinceth sixtly if marriage made after the single vow be of force as the first building declareth euidently which single vow for all that is of the same essence and nature with the solemne vow as is already said I conclude with this ineuitable illacion that the marriage not only of secular priests but euen of Monks Fryers and all religious votaries is sound perfect and of force An important obiection against the sixt proposition Refuse the youger widowes for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ they will marrie hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith This place of S. Paule sundrie of the fathers expound of the vow of chastitie neither can it possibly admit any other sence The answere I say first that though sundrie of the fathers thinke it sinne to marrie after the vow of chastitie and that by reason of this place yet doth the same fathers repute such marriages to be true and perfect matrimonie for saint Epiphanius writeth in this manner Melius est itaque vnum peccatum habere non plura melius est lapsum à cursu palam sibi vxorem sumere secundum legem à virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci velut qui mala operatus est velut lapsuâ— fractum obligatione opus habentem non quotidie occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitaete quae à Diabolo ipsi infertur It is better therfore to haue one sin not many it is better for one that is fallen from his course openly to marrie a wife according to the law and to repent a long time from his virginitie and so to be restored againe into the church as one tha hath done wickedly as one that is fallen and broken and hath need of binding vp and not to be daily wounded with the secret darts of that wickednes which the diuell putteth in him Thus writeth Epiphâ—nius shewing plainely to the reader that he condemneth not the marriage in vowed persons monkes or nunnes but the falling from their gudly purpose S. Cyprian hauing sharply inueyed against the licenâ—ious life of certaine deacons and vowed virgins exhorteth them at the length to marry that cannot or wil not
being free from sinne no need at all to suffer for her selfe The answere I say first that what the late churche of Rome beleeueth is not much materiall because it is become the whore of Babylon as I haue prooued copiously I say secondly that though the blessed virgin had great grace and sanctification bestowed on her as who was not onely the mother of man but of God also yet was she conceiued in originall sinne vndoubtedly For so the holy scripture doth conuince so the auncient fathers affirme so the best approoued popishe doctors graunt and so right reason doth euidently conclude As by one man saith the apostles sinne entered into the world and death by sinne and so death went ouer all men in whom all men haue sinned Againe as by the offence of one the fault came on all men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefite abounded towarde all men to the iustification of life And in another place there is none righteous no not one Againe in another place the scripture hath concluded al vnder sin y t the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ should be giuen to them that beleeue And the holy Psalmographe saith Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified All which textes and such like are generally spoken of all no one nor other is exempt S. Ambrose hath a long discourse in which he prooueth that none but onely Iesus Christ is void of sinne These among others are his wordes Omnes intra retia erant imò adhuc intra retia sumus quia nemo sine peccato nisi solus Iesus quem non cognoscentem peccatum peccatum pro nobis fecit pater Infra venit ad laqueos Iesus vt Adam solueret venit liberare quod perierat Omnes retibus tenebamur nullus alium eruere poterat cum seipsum non possit eruere All were in the nettes yea we are yet in the nets because none is without sinne but onely Iesus whom when hee knewe no sinne the father made him a sacrifice for sinne in our behalfe Iesus came to the snare that hee might loose Adam he came to deliuer that which was lost We were al taken in the net we could not deliuer one another when no man could deliuer himselfe S. Augustine teacheth the same veritie in many places of his workes but I wil content my selfe with one or two Thus therfore doth he write vpon the 34. Psalm sic ergo peccatum domini quod factum est de peccato quia inde carnem assumpsit de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato Etenim vt celerius dicam Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae Adam mortuus est propter peccatum caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata Euen so therefore is it called the sinne of the Lord which is made of sinne because hee tooke flesh from thence of that masse which had deserued death by reason of sin For to speake more brieflie Mary descending of Adam is dead by reason of Adams sinne Adam is dead for his owne sin and our Lords flesh of Mary is dead to put away sinne S. Augustine in another place hath these wordes Proinde corpus Christi quamuis ex carne foeminae assumptum est quae de illa carnis peccati propagine concepta fuerat tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est quomodo erat illa concepta nec ipsa erat caro peccati sed similitudo carnis peccati Therefore Christes body although it were assumpted of the flesh of a woman which was conceiued of the stocke of the flesh of sinne yet because it was not so conceiued in it as it was conceiued therefore was it not the flesh of sinne but only the similitude of the flesh of sinne The same S. Augustine in another place writeth in this maner Sine dubio caro Christi non est caro peccati sed similis carni peccati quid restat vt intelligamus nisi ea excepta omnem reliquam humanam carnem esse peccati hinc apparet illam concupiscentiam per quam Christus concipi noluit fecisse in genere humano propaginē mali quia Mariae corpus quamuis inde venerit tamen eam non traiecit in corpus quod non inde concepit Doubtlesse Christes flesh is not the flesh of sinne but only like to the flesh of sinne what therefore must wee vnderstande but that all other mens flesh besides it is the flesh of sinne And heereuppon it is cleare that that concupiscence by which Christ would not be conceiued dispersed sin throughout mankind because the body of Marie though it came from thence yet could it not conuey that into the bodie which was not conceiued thereupon but of the holy ghost These words of S. Austen and Saint Ambrose are so plaine and easie as they neede no declaration Thomas Aquinas albeit hee constantly defendeth that the blessed virgin was neither borne in sinne nor yet sinned actually after hir birth more or lesse graunteth for all that that shee was conceiued in originall sinne and hee prooueth it by two euident reasons whereof this is one Sanctificatio de qua loquimur non est nisi emundatio à peccato originali culpa autem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam cuius subiectum est sola creatura rationalis ideo ante infusionem animae rationalis B. virgo sanctificata non fuit Sanctification whereof we now speake saith the cheefest popish doctour is nothing else but a clensing from originall sinne but sinne cannot bee purged without grace whose subiect can be nothing but a reasonable creature and therefore the blessed virgin could not be sanctified from sin before a reasonable soule was infused into her bodie This argument of Aquinas is so inuincible in popish manner of proceeding as no Iesuite in the world though they all hold the contrarie can inuent a sufficient solution for the same Deuout and holy Bernarde whose authoritie is great with all Papists holdeth the same opinion with Aquinas For albeit hee sharply reproue the practise of the cathedrall church of Lions for keeping the festiuitie of the conception of the blessed virgin calling that practise the noueltie of presumption the mother of temeritie sister of superstition and the daughter of leuitie yet doth he hold that shee was borne without sinne and 〈◊〉 continued all her life All learned men that euer wrote before our seditious lately hatched Iesuites confesse the conception of the blessed virgin to haue beene polluted with sinne and I prooue it by an irrefragable demonstration First because the blessed virgin if she had euer beene free from sinne should haue needed no Sauiour nor had anie Sauior and so Christ should not haue bin her Iesus which to say is both against the scripture and against the honour of that holy virgin Bernardus
that whosoeuer will worship God truely must worship him neither in the mountaines neither in Hierusalem but in spirite and veritie I say thirdly y t as going on pilgrimage is commendable in some and tolerable in other some so is it necessary to saluation in none and very vnfit for many Which thing their own S. Bernard can tel them whose iudgment I am well assured no papist will refuse I say fourthly that popishe pilgrimage was not knowne in Christes church for the space of manie hundreth yeares after Christes sacred incarnation Neither shall the papistes euer be able to cite anie authenticall writer for the contrary The fift obiection S. Ambrose telleth great miracles done by the bodies of S. Geruasius and Protasius while they were touched lying on the coffin S Austen reciteth like miracles which were wrought by the reliques of S. Steuen S. Chrysostome Eusebius Palladius and diuers others make mention of the like miracles Yea the holy scripture it selfe telleth vs that myracles were done euen by touching the reliques of Elizaeus Why therefore may not the people this day resorte to suche places where such wonderfull miracles haue been done for to get helpe either of corporall diseases or spirituall is the cause of their going thither And for corporall helpes your selues this day go to S. Anne of Buxton and to other like places The answere I say first that the scripture telleth vs of the death of Saint Steuen of S. Ioseph of Moses and others as also of their funerals but not one word of inuocatioÌ„ or adoration done vnto their reliques I say secondly that y e fathers which tel vs of the miracles done by the reliques of saintes doe neither will vs to inuocate nor to adore them I say thirdly that miracles as S. Austen and S. Gregory doe truely write are for infidels and not for the faithfull For which respect they were frequent in the primitiue Church as rare as a white crowe or black swanne in latter daies I say fourthly that God wrought miracles by the reliques of his chosen seruantes aswel to prooue his owne diuine soueraigntie as their true faith in him But not that we should adore dumbe bones and dead ashes or seeke to merite by such pilgrimage I say fiftly that God confirmed the authoritie of Elizaeus by the myracle wrought at the contact of his dead bones that at the sight thereof the people might embrace his doctrine which they contemned in his life time or at least be thereby confounded to their greater condemnation And the same I say of other miracles done by other reliques I say sixtly y t if the good king Ezechias was highly coÌ„mended in the holy scripture because he pulled downe the brasen serpent set vp by Gods appointment so soone as the people committed idolatry by adoring the same worthily are those christian princes commended who prohibite their people from gadding on pilgrimage in popish idolatricall maner albeit y e originall therof was tolerable and a long time free from popish godles superstition I say seuenthly that waters haue natural curatiue qualities in sundrie places as haue also certain herbs stones and metals Which effects some ascribe to the water of Burton though my selfe haue long doubted thereof How soeuer that be to go thither for merite or in way of such satisfaction for our sinnes is flat idolatrie The sixt obiection S. Iustine who liued shortly after the apostles telleth of great honour done vnto reliques as that the bodies of martyrs defended men from the diuels cured many incurable diseases The answere I say first that Iustinus liued more then one hundreth and fiftie yeares after Christ and speaketh nothing at all of adoration Only this he saith that great myracles haue been done at the Sepulchres of martyrs which no learned man can or will denie I say secondly that the questions from whence your obiection came are counterfait and not S. Iustins indeed I prooue it because in the 82. and in the 86. questions I finde mention made of Origen who was borne long after the death of S. Iustinus So likewise in the 127. question mention is made of the Manichees who yet followed long after S. Iustines death CHAP. IX Of Christian righteousnesse or iustification THe Papistes doe not onely dishonour God while they seek to establish their owne righteousnesse but withall they slander good and true christians auouching them to be contemners of good workes but how blasphemous they be on the one side and howe malitious on the other shall sufficiently appeare by these briefe conclusions The first conclusion Man albeit hee was so created as hee might sinne and die which thing the euent it selfe declared yet was he so adorned and beautified with supernaturall giftes and graces aswel external as internal that he might haue liued eternally and haue eschewed all sinne world without end This conclusion I thus proue That man might haue liued euer if he had not sinned is euident by Gods owne wordes when he saith Thou shalt eate freely of euery tree of the garden but of the tree of knowledge of good and euill thou shalt not eate of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death And againe in another place after that he had pronounced the earth cursed for Adams sinne he vttered these words For out of it wast thou taken because thou art dust and to dust shalt thou returne By which wordes it appeareth that if hee had not transgressed he should not haue died S. Austen confirmeth the same in these wordes Quapropter fatendum est primos homines ita fuisse institutos vt si non peccassent nullum mortis experirentur genus Wherefore wee must confesse that our first parentes were so created that vnlesse they had sinned they shoulde haue felt no kinde of death neither of soule nor of body Death saith S. Bernard shoulde neuer haue followed if sinne had not gone before S. Chrysostome gathereth this conclusion out of the expresse text of Genesis These are his wordes Factus enim est mortalis propter praeuaricationem vt ex hoc mandato his quae sequuta sunt claret Sequitur itaque ante praeuaricationem immortales erant alioqui post cibum non hoc supâ—licij loco imposuisset For he became mortall by reason of transgression as is euident by this commandement and that which followeth after Therefore they were immortal before the transgression otherwise after the eating thereof this punishment should not haue been imposed vpon them He confirmeth the same in another place where he writeth thus Cum Adam peccasset corpus illius confestim mortale ac passibile factum est plurimosque recepit naturales defectus So soone as Adam had sinned his bodie forthwith became mortall and passible and receiued many natural defects That Adam might haue liued without al kind of sin is likewise manifest by y e scripture which saith that God made man
righteous or right His rectitude consisted in this that his reason was subiect to God his inferiour powers to his superiour his body to his soule There was no rebellion to be found in any part of the whole man For otherwise it would follow hereupon y t God were vniust which yet to auouch were y e greatest blasphemie in the world The reason is euident because if it had not been in Adams power to haue auoided al sin God should haue charged him with an impossibilitie and withall haue condemned him for not performing the same But our Lord is a iust iudge as witnesseth his apostle This whole processe S. Austen sheweth both pithily briefly in these right golden wordes Posteaquam praecepti facta est transgressio confestim gratia deserente diuina de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt Senserunt enim nouum motâ—m inobedientis carnis suae tanquam reciprocam poenam inobedientiae suae quia superiorem Dominum suo arbitrio deseruerat inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat non omnino habebat subditam carnem sicut semper habere potuisset si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset After that Gods lawe was transgressed Gods grace did incontinently forsake them and they beholding their owne nakednesse were confounded For they felt a new motion in their disobedient flesh a punishment correspondent to their disobedient heartes And because he voluntarily disobeied his superiour Lord hee coulde not haue his inferiour seruaunt subiect to his word Neither was his flesh in subiection as he might haue had it for euer if it had remained obedient to Gods lawes The condition of mans free will from the creation of the protoplaste Adam vntil our regeneration Christ himselfe seemeth to set down most liuely in that parable which he propounded to the lawyer A certaine man saith Christ went downe from Hierusalem to Iericho and fell among theeues who robbed him of his raiment and wounded him and departed leauing him halfe dead Which is to say allegorically as y e fathers write that mankinde went out from the paradise of peace to the mutabilitie of misery fell among the powers of darknes who robbed him of his supernatural gifts of innocency and immortalitie wounded him in his naturall giftes of will and reason and departed leauing him halfe dead that is dead in respect of Gods fauour though liuing to the eyes of the world Semiuiuus inquit Augustinus habet vitalem motum id est liberum arbitrium vulneratuÌ„ quod ad aeternam quam perdiderat vitam non sufficiebat Et ideo iacebat quia vires ei propriae ad surgendum non sufficiebant vt ad sanandum medicum .i. deum requireret In that he was halfe aliue saith S. Austen he had vitall motion that is free will so wounded as it could not returne to eternall life which it had lost And therefore did he lie because he wanted proper strength to seeke God the phisition that could cure his maladie Ludolphus alluding to mans creation setteth downe this matter verie finely in these wordes Fecerat Deus hominem ad imaginem suam secundum rationem ad similitudinem secundum dilectioneÌ„ vt per vtrumque Deo adhaereret in haerendo beatus esset Sed diabolus humanae beatitudini inuidens contra duo bona praedicta duo homini in originali intulit praecipua mala In eo namque quod factus erat ad imaginem Dei secundum rationem vulnerauit eum per ignorantiam boni in eo verò quod factus est ad similitudinem Dei secundum dilectionem vulnerauit eum per concupiscentiam mali God made man after his own image according to reason after his owne similitude according to loue that by them both hee might adhere to God and by adhering to him attaine eternall beatitude But the deuill enuying mans felicitie bestowed on him in steede of these two blessings the double mischiefe of originall sinne For in that man was made after Gods image in reason he wounded him with the ignorance of good and in that he was made after his similitude in loue he wounded him with the concupiscence of euill Al this is liuely comprehended in the essence nature and definition of free will which after Saint Austen is this Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis voluntatis qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente malum eâ desistente Free will is the facultie of reason and will by which good is chosen when grace is present and euill when grace is wanting For this cause saith the apostle that we are not able to think any good thought of our selues as of our selues neither yet to say that Iesus is the Lord but in the holy ghost For it is God saith he that worketh in vs both to do wel and to wil wel This verity was defined aboue a thousand and one hundred yeers ago by the ancient holy and learned councel of Aransica in these words Haeretico fallitur spiritu non intelligens vocem Dei dicentis in Euangelio Sine me nihil potestis facere whosoeuer saieth the holy synode thinketh he can do any act which pleaseth god or perteineth to eternal life by force of his free will that man is deceiued with an heretical spirit not vnderstanding the voice of god wheÌ„ he saith in his gospel Without me ye can do nothing that is good Out of this discourse two things are cleare euideÌ„t the one that our first parent Adam before his fal might by force of his free-wil holpen with supernaturall grace make free election aswel of good as of euil withal put that his free choise in execution thother that y e posterity of Adam hath free wil to nothing saue to sin only vntill the time of regeneration The first obiection There is no consultation as saith the Philosopher but of things which are in our owne power and yet doth euery one vse consultations in those things which he goeth about Againe there must be some immediate cause of euery act and that can not be God because God is not the cause of any euill Neither can the cause thereof be ascribed either to nature or to destinie or to fortune because humane actions are variable and with the intention of the doer Therefore the best course that can be taken with him that denieth mans freewill after the fall of Adam is this to wit to beate him like a stockfish vntill he confesse those that beate him to haue free will either still to beate him or to cease from beating For if one should deny the fire to be hote the best reason against him were to cast him into an hot ouen or burning furnace Thus reasoneth Veguerius The answere I say first that I willingly graunt both Papists and other reasonable creatures to haue free will in morall or ciuill acts neither do I thinke him vnworthy of strokes that will obstinately deny
the same I say secondly that mans will is so brought into bondage and thraldome of sinne by the fall of Adam as man before his regeneration can neither do nor once will any one act which is acceptable in Gods fight Note well the second obiection with the answere to the same The second obiection If free will after the fall of Adam can not make election as well of good as of euill then doeth free will vtterly lose it owne nature for where sinne must needes be chosen of necessitie there can be no true libertie The answere I answere that there be three kinds of libertie as S. Bernard proueth learnedly in a peculiar treatise of free will the first is called Libertas à coactione vi vel necessitate Libertie from coaction violence or necessitie for all these three are one the same with him as euery one that readeth him seriously will perceiue The second is called Libertas à peccato liberty from sinne The third is called Libertas à miseria libertie from miserie The two latter liberties from sin miserie can not be had in this life the first was froÌ„ the creation is at this present and shalbe in al Adams posteritie world without end For such is the essence nature formall reason of will that it cannot be coacted or inforced The reason is euident because it implieth contradictioÌ„ that Wil do any thing which it is coacted or enforced to do For when we do any thing violently we doe it against our wil not with our wil. If this were not so the angels in heauen should haue no free wil contrary to the vniform consent of all learned men For they haue no more freedome in heauen to sin then the vnregenerate haue freedome on earth to do wel Further then this it would follow hereupon that the angels in heauen should not be happy For what happines can it be to wil do by coaction that which they wil do and yet it is certain y t they haue freedom only to do wel if any wil hold the contrarie he must likewise hold that angels in heauen may sinne and consequently that they may be damned into hel fire The third obiection If there be no free-wil to do good before regeneration then must all the morall good deedes of infidels be sin which to hold is most absurd For to serue our soueraigne to die in the defence of our countrey to honour our parents to feede the hungrie to cloathe the naked and such like which the infidels do cannot but be good acts The answer I answer that albeit these like moral deeds be indifferent in their owne nature glorious in the eyes of the world and right profitable to others yet are they meere sins in the doers displeasant in Gods sight And I prooue it because that without faith God cannot be pleased as the apostle witnesseth Again the same apostle saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin and so euery act of the infidel must needs be sin because it is not of faith Neither wil it help to say that if the said acts of infidels be not good yet are they not euil For as their great popish canonist Nauarre their Romish cardinal Caietan auouch euery act in indiuiduo must perforce be good or euil the reason therof is euident For euery act must either be referred to some end or to no end at al if to no end then it is an idle act and wee must render an account for the same if it be referred to any other end then to God it is flat sin bicause as the apostle saith whatsoeuer we do we ought to do it for Gods glory S. Austen in his fâ—urth booke against Iulianus the Pelagian handleth this question so learnedly and in so ample and perspicuous maner as none that shal reade the booke with iudgement can stand any longer in doubt thereof I wil cite one onely periode for breuitie sake Thus doth he write Si gentilis inquis nudum operuerit numquid quod non est ex fide peccatum est prorsus in quantum non est ex fide peccatum est non quòd per se ipsum factum quod est nudum operire peccatum est sed de tali opere non in domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatuÌ„ If an infidell saist thou shall clothe the naked is such an act sinne because it is not of faith it is doubtlesse sinne in that it is not of faith not for that the worke it selfe is sinne of it owne nature for to clothe the naked of it owne selfe is not sin but to clothe the naked for any other end then for Gods glorie is sinne indeede And it is so manifest a sinne as none but the wicked can denie it to be sin Thus did Saint Austen answere the Pelagians then and thus do I answere the papists now telling them that they are become Semipelagians herein The replie If this be so indeed then may an infidel aswel rebel against his prince as truly serue his prince aswel betray his country as die in defence thereof as wel rob his neighbour as relieue him and so in the rest The answere I answer that it is farre otherwise because although they sin in so doing for want of faith in Christ Iesus yet shal their punishment bee so much more tolerable by how much their sinnes are the lesse Neither is this answere inuented of mine owne braine but long sithence framed by S. Augustine whose words are these Sed ad hoc eos in die iudicij cogitationes suae defendent vt tolerabilius puniantur quia naturaliter qua legis sunt vtcunque fecerunt scriptum habentes in cordibus opus legis hactenus vt alijs non facerent quod perpeti nollent Hoc tamen peccantes quòd homines sine fide non ad eum finem ista opera retulerunt ad quem referre debuerunt Minus enim Fabritius quam Catilina punietur non quia iste bonus sed quia ille magis malus minus impius quam Catilina Fabritius non veras virtutes habendo sed à veris virtutibus non plurimùm deuiando But in this their cogitations shall defend them in the day of iudgement that their punishment may be more tolerable because they haue done naturally in some sort those things that pertained to the law hauing the worke of the lawe so deepely written in their hearts that they did so to others as they wished to be doone vnto themselues Yet they committed this sinne that they beeing men without faith did not referre these workes to that end to which they should haue done For Fabritius shal be more gently punished then Catiline not because he is good but for that hee is not so bad as Catiline neither because he hath true vertues but for that he is not so farre from true vertues as Catiline The fourth obiection It is cleare by the
testimonie of Moses that Cain had free will aswell to good as to euill and that both after the fall of Adam and before his regeneration for there is it expresly saide that he shal rule ouer his sinne Therefore though freewil were wounded by y e fal of Adam yet did it abide stil in his posterity The answer I say first that the text in the originall speaketh of that rule which Cain had ouer his brother not ouer sinne For these are the words in the Hebrew text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt beare rule ouer him not ouer sin for in the Hebrew the word sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the feminine gender and the pronounes which should be answerable therunto are the masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say secondly that their famous linguist Arias Montpunc translateth it in eum not in illud ouer him not ouer it because the varietie of the gender in the Hebrew would not beare it I say thirdly that S. Chrysostome interpreteth this portion of scripture not of freewil but of that dominion which Cain being the elder brother and first begotten had ouer his yonger brother Abel in respect of his birthright these are his wordes Nam hoc de fratris subiectione accipiendum est Infra Mihi enim videtur de fratre esse dictum For this must be vnderstoode of the subiection of his brother for I iudge it to be spoken of his brother I say fourthly that howsoeuer this place of scripture be vnderstoode it will no way make for the papists For first the wicked haue free-will from coaction Secondly they haue free-wil in morall and ciuill acts Thirdly among many sinnes they may make free choise of one only this freedome wanteth that they can neuer make election of good vntill they be regenerate by Gods holy spirit The fift obiection If we haue not free-will to do well then do we sinne of necessitie and consequently God is vniust who punisheth vs for that which we cannot auoide The answer I say first that God is not vniust though he punish vs for that which we cannot auoide for infants cannot auoide original sinne and yet may they iustly be damned for the same No Papist can or will this denie I say secondly with saint Austen that euerie sinne which is not poena peccati is so voluntarie as if it be not voluntarie it is no sinne at all I say thirdly that it is our owne fault and not Gods that we can doe no good but sinne And because the necessitie of sinning câ—me by our selues who all sinned voluntarily in our first parent Adam we are iustly punished in him and for his disobedience for he receiued grace vpon this condition that if he kept it and sinned not we should all be partakers thereof but if he lost it by disobedience al his posteritie should loose it with him and be iustly punished for the same The reply If this be so our will may rather be called bond-will then free-wil because al the freedome we haue is to go to the deuil The answer I say first that our will before our regeneration may rightly be termed the wil of bondage and not the wil of freedom I say secondly that it is stil free in sundry respects that I wil not contend for the name so the trueth be granted in the thing The second conclusion There is nothing in man by which hee may bee iustified or which can any way further his iustificatioÌ„ The ancient council of Aransica proueth this conclusion effectually These are the wordes Natura humana etiamsi in illa integritate in qua est condita permaneret nullo modo seipsam creatore suo non adiuuante seruaret Vnde cùm sine gratia Dei salutem non possit custodâ—re quam accepit quomodo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare quod perdidit Man although he had continued in that integrity in which he was created yet could he not haue attained saluation without the help of his creator Wherefore since man without grace could not retaine that felicity which he had once receiued how can he without grace repaire that which hee hath lost In these words we see cleerely that this holy council condemnes morall preparatiues merites de congruo to which y e papists trust so much The whole scope of the councill is nothing else but onely and soly to perswade man that he cannot so much as to thinke one good thought much lesse do any good act which may any way further his iustification And in the 7. canon it doeth precisely condemne that actiue concurrence of freewil which our papists in the late council of Trent require of necessitie to mans iustification S. Austen as in al other things so in this matter vseth a large lerned discourse in his epistle against Vitalis in which among many other excellent sentences I finde these finely contriued words Quapropter vt in DeuÌ„ credamus piè viuamê° noÌ„ voleÌ„tis neque currentis sed miserentis est Dei non quia velle non debemus currere sed quia ipse in nobis velle operatur currere Vnde ipse D. Iesus credentes à non credentibus .i. ab irae vasis vasa misericordiae discerneÌ„s nemo inquit venit ad me nisi ei datum fuerit à patre meo Wherfore that we beleeue in him and liue godly it is neither in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in god that sheweth mercie not because we are not bound to will run but because he worketh in vs both to wil to run Whereupon our Lord Iesus seuering beleeuers from infidels that is the vessels of mercy froÌ„ y e vessels of wrath saith that none can come to him but he to whom it is giuen of his father Christ himself telles vs that we are vnprofitable seruaÌ„ts euen when we haue done the best we can And yet doubtles wee should be right profitable if we could yeeld anie helpe at all to our iustification And holy Moses saith that the imaginations of our hearts are euill continually But sinne and corruption can be no meane to worke mans iustification Wisely therefore saith the Apostle that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede euen of his good pleasure not for any merite or dispositioÌ„ which he findeth in our selues Again in another place not that we are sufficient of our selues to think any thing as of our selues but our sufficiency is of God Again the natural man perceiueth not y e things of y e spirit of God for they are foolishnes vnto him neither can he know them bicause they are spiritually discerned Again the wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God for it is not subiect to the law of God neither indeed can be And Christ himself saith No man can come to me except my father draw him
reprobate and not of the elect and godly sort but after he had pondered the text deeply he altered his opinion This is confirmed in these words of the selfe same chapter but I see another law in my meÌ„bers rebelling against the law of my mind leading me captiue vnto the law of sin which is in my members By these words of Paul it is euident that albeit he were the childe of God yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight but rather in rigor of iustice prouoke his heauy displeasure against him For where or what could be his merite who was prisoner to the law of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. Thus saiâ—h saint Paul and doubtlesse since hee did the euill which he would not he sinned though he were regenerate and because he sinned he was worthie of condemnation for that death is the stipend of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For the law is spirituall but I am carnal sould vnder sinne Thus saith S. Paul of himselfe and yet is it true that one vnder sin can merit nothing saue hel fire and eternal paine Againe it is confirmed in these words Nowe if I do that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee Thus saith Saint Paul of himselfe and yet because sin abode in him and did that that was offensiue in gods sight he could neither merite grace nor eternal life as is already proued Further then this no man liueth without sinne as the papists grant and yet is euerie sinne mortall as I haue prooued elsewhere The first obiection Saint Paul speaketh of originall concupiscence which remaineth euen in the regenerate after baptisme but is no sinne at all For he onely calleth it sinne because it prouoketh a man to sin as a mans writing is called his hand for that it is written with his hand which exposition S. Austen approueth in sundrie places of his works The answere I say first that to say against the flat text of scripture without scripture is no reason at all I say secondly that S. Paul doth not onely call concupiscence sin but he proueth it by many reasons For first it striueth against the law of the minde Againe it leadeth one captiue into the law of sinne thirdly it doth that which is not good but euil I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth vndoubtedly iudge it to be sin neither shal any papist in the world euer be able to proue the contrarie howsoeuer they bare the world in hand I wil onely alleage a few places out of S. Austen make effectuall application of the same to which when anie either Rhemist or Romist shall answere sufficiently I promise to become his bondman The first place of Austen Concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccata est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis The concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit striueth is sinne because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind and it is the punishmeÌ„t of sin bicause it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient Adam and it is the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth or by the contagion of the child that is borne Thus saith S. Austen In which words he expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the paine or punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sin it selfe which three he doth not only distinguish but withall hee yeeldeth seueral reasons for the same And therfore most impudent are the papists who auouch with open mouthes that saint Austen onely calleth it sin because it is the cause of sinne The second place of Saint Austen Neque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus tur piter seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiamsi vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour parts stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile Thus saith S. Austen whose words are so plaine as the papists can not possibly inuent any euasion at all For hee saith in expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne euen when it is resisted and cannot preuaile at which time and in which respect the papists wil haue it to be merite and no sinne at all The third place of Saint Austen Virtus est charitas qua id quod diligendum est diligitur haec in alijs maior in alijs minor in alijs nulla est plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui faciat bonum non peccet Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis viuens Propter quod vitium si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus nosmetipsos seducimus veretas in nobis non est Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profecerimus necessarium est nobis dicere dimitte nobis debita nostra cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta facta cogitata dimissa sint Charitie is a vertue with which we loue that that ought to be loued This in some is more in other lesse in others none at all but the perfect charitie which can not bee increased while a man here liueth is found in none so long as it can be increased that doubtlesse which is lesse then it shoulde bee proceedeth of sinne by reason of which sin there is not one iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight by reason of which vice if we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs by reason of which sin how much soeuer we profit yet must we say of necessitie Forgiue vs our trespasses euen after that al our thoughts words and works are forgiuen in baptisme Thus saith saint Austen Out of whose most golden words I note sundrie things to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists For first Saint Austen saith that no man can haue charity in that perfite degree which the law requireth Secondly that the want thereof proceedeth of this concupiscence Thirdly that by reason of this concupiscence euerie man is a sinner Fourthly that by reason therof none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight