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
burthen which notwithstanding being recouered and fully cured he can beare with ease so it is not possible for vs so long as we are compassed about with corruption and frailtie to obserue and keep the law and righteousnesse thereof which yet being deliuered from all bondage of corruption and sinne we shall easily attaine vnto His second shift is as absurd as the former that though we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet we may fulfill the law because it is not broken but by mortall sinnes But the law it selfe saith e Gal. 3.10 Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them Therefore concerning all sinnes the sentence of the Apostle must stand good that f Rom. 6.23 the wages of sinne is death So our Sauiour Christ testifieth g Mat. 5.19 He that breaketh one of the least of these commandements and teacheth men so he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen that is saith S. Austin h August in Ioan. tract 122. Consequens est vt qui minimus est in regno coelâ—rum non intrâ—t in regnum coelâ—rum he shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen But we will demand of M. Bishop are those veniall sinnes forbidden by the law or not If they be not forbidden then they are no sinnes for i Rom. 4 15. where there is no law there is no trespasse and k Aug. de pece mer. rem lib. 2 cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit si quid erit si non diuiuitùs â—ubeatur vt non sit sinne shall be no sinne if God do not forbid the being of it But if they be forbidden how doth he say that to do them is no transgression of the law for what is it but a transgression of the law to do that which the law forbiddeth to be done The Apostle saith that l Rom. 3.20 by the law cometh the knowledge of sinne Veniall sinnes then by the law are knowne to be sinnes how are they knowne to be sinnes by the law but that they violate the reason and purport of the law But let S. Iohn here stop M. Bishops mouth m 1. Ioh. 3.4 Whosoeuer committeth sinne transgresseth also the law for sinne is the transgression of the law Veniall sinne as he tearmeth it is sinne therefore veniall sinne is the transgression of the law he therefore that committeth onely those which he calleth veniall sinnes cannot be said to fulfill the lawe 42. W. BISHOP Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is streight and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth vnpossible to be kept by flesh and bloud but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God which made Saint Paule to say Phil. 4. Psal 118. I can do all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me and the Prophet Dauid After thou O Lord hadst dilated my heart and with thy grace set it at liberty I did runne the wayes of thy commandements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our heart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop maketh the commandements of God not only possible but possible and easie too But I answer him againe as Hierome did the Pelagian hereticke a Hier. ad Ctefiphont Facilia dicis Dei esse mandata tamen nullum proferre potes qui vniuersa compleuerit Responde mihi facilia sunt an difficilia si facilia profer quis impleuerit cur Dominus in Euangelio Intrate inquit per angustam portam sin autem difficilia cur ausus es dicere facilia esse Dei mandata quae nullus impleuerit Thou sayest the commandements of God are easie but yet thou bringest foorth no man that hath fulfilled them all Tell me saith he are they easie or are they hard to be done If they be easie shew vs who hath fulfilled them and why our Sauiour saith in the Gospell Enter in at the straite gate But if they be hard why doest thou dare to say that the commaundements of God are easie which no man hath fulfilled Thus Hierome plainly excepteth against his answer to those words of Christ for they to whom Christ speaketh those words were and are men endued with the grace of God and yet he giueth them to vnderstand that the gate of life shall be strait and narrow vnto them Therefore S. Austine saith that b Aug. de praedest grat ca. 9 Arduum est virtutis iter quanquaÌ„ adiuuaÌ„te gratia Dei non sine labore gradiendum the way of vertue is hard and though the grace of God do helpe yet is not to be traueled without labour and paines Now if it be so hard a matter and so full of trauaile and paines to compasse that c Jdem cont 2. epist Pelag lib. 3. ca. 7. Ista parua iustitia Et epist 200. Iustitia nondum coÌ„summata small and vnperfect righteousnesse which here we haue is it an easie matter with M. Bishop to atchieue that absolute and perfect righteousnesse that is described in the law Some helpe he thinketh to haue in that the Apostle saith d Phil. 4.13 I am able to do all things in Christ or by the helpe of Christ that strengtheneth me But the Apostle himselfe excludeth him from that helpe in that he so plainly testifieth of himselfe that he could not finde how to performe the good that he would as we haue seene before yea telleth vs that though the spirit be in vs lusting against the flesh yet by reason of the e Gal. 5.17 flesh lusting against the spirit we cannot do the things that we would He that could do all things yet could not repell the f 2. Cor. 12.7 buffeting Angell of Satan by whom he was greeuously afflicted nor was thought able to withstand the temptations of pride and vaine glory vpon the abundance of his reuelations as appeareth in that this sting of Satan was occasioned to bridle him therefrom The place it selfe plainly sheweth the meaning of it selfe that he was enabled to all things that is to the enduring of all things that coÌ„cerned him in the seruice that he had in hand that neither abounding nor wanting neither fulnesse nor hunger should hinder him froÌ„ going on therein for the preaching testifying of the Gospel for enlarging coÌ„firming of the Church of Christ accordingly as elsewhere he saith g 2. Tim. 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake But the restraint that Bernard vseth is not to be omitted h Bernard de dilig Deo In illo omma potest quae tamen possâ— prosit He is able to do all things that is all which it is behoouefull that he be able to do Now what is behoouefull it is not for
do forbeare to impute the vices or defaults of humane passions and affections Whereupon he himselfe saith Å¿ Ibid. Confitetur etiam peccata iustorum magis eos asserens in Dei misericordia spem ponere quà m de iustitia sua fidere He confesseth the sinnes euen of iust men affirming that they rather trust to the mercie of God then haue any confidence of their owne righteousnesse It is not therefore the merit of righteousnesse that we can rest vpon but onely the pardon of Gods mercie by which as we haue obtained the gift of righteousnesse so we expect also the reward and crowne thereof that it may be verified which the Prophet saith t Psal 103 4. He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion and that of the Apostle that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now to these collections M. Bishop addeth a caueat that this iustice though perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet in comparison of the state of iustice in heauen may be called vnperfect Which is as much as if he should say that it is perfect in it selfe so farre as it may be perfect there where it cannot be perfect For there is not in this life any capacitie of perfect righteousnesse as wherein we continue still with the Apostle u Rom. 7.14.19 carnall sold vnder sinne not doing the good that we would by reason of x Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit y Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the minde leading vs captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members so as that to auoide the entisements of the world and to keepe our selues in our course entierly to God is as S. Ambrose saith z Ambros de suga seculi cap. 1. Res voti magis quà m effectus a matter that we do more wish and desire then we can effect and do and when we haue laboured much for it cannot but condemne our selues for being so farre from it But against this deuice of his we must note what hath bene said that our perfection here is not without some filth and that it leaueth vs still euill and therefore is not perfect in it selfe Yea and S. Hierome againe against the Pelagians distinguishing a Hieron adis Pelag lib. 1. Perspicuum est duas in scripturis sanctis esse perfectiones duasque iustitias Primam perfectionem incomparabilem veritatem perfectamque iustitiam Dei virtutibus coaptandam secundam autem quae competit nostrae fragilitati â—uxta illud quod dicitur Non iustificabitur c. ad eam iustitiam quae non comparatione sed Dei sceintia dicitur esse perfecta two sorts of perfection and righteousnesse the one to be compared to the righteousnesse of God the other belonging to the frailty of man denieth our perfection in this latter kinde and saith that in this sort it is true that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight which he affirmeth to be spoken as touching a righteousnesse called perfect not by comparison but in respect of the knowledge of God The knowledge of God then which knoweth all things according to truth yet knoweth no iustice or perfection in vs whereby we are able to stand iust and perfect before him Therefore Gregory saith that b Grego Moral lib. 5. cap. 8. Ipsa nostra perfectio culpa non caret nisi haâ—c seuerus iudex in subtili lince examinis misericorditèr peâ—set our very perfection is not without fault vnlesse the seuere Iudge do with mercy weigh it in the precise ballance of his examination Neither is it to be omitted which S. Austine saith that c Aug. de Temp. ser 49. In coÌ„paratione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota ista vita quâ—m gerimus Vnusquisque metiatur se quid est modò quid erit tunc inueniet in comparatione illius ista damna esse stercora all the life which we liue here that is all the righteousnesse of this life is but dung in comparison of the resurrection that if a man measure himselfe what he is now and what he shall be then he shall finde that that which now is is but losse and doung in comparison of that Which how can it be true if that that is in this life be perfect in it selfe so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe yea as that it meriteth and deserueth the righteousnesse of heauen Can that that in comparison is but drosse and doung be truly said to deserue the righteousnesse of heauen But concerning the same he addeth further that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law So then thereby a man shall be free from all formall sinne and shall haue no formall trespasse for which to say forgiue vs our trespasses and of formall transgression it shall not be true which S. Iohn saith d 1. Iohn 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues or which S. Iames saith e Iam. 3 2. In many things we offend all Is not this a formall foolery of a man that would be taken to be wise These are drunken fancies fit for no other but drunken men that neither know themselues nor others and therefore we can take M. Bishop for no other but a vile hypocrite who contrary to his owne conscience and knowledge pleadeth in this sort for the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But to fill vp the measure of his lewd dealing he falsifieth another place of Austine making him to say that it belongeth to the lesser iustice that is the iustice of this life not to sinne Wherein he goeth about to make S. Austine a promoter and vpholder of that heresie which with all his might he oppugned in the Pelagians who defended as M. Bishop here doth a righteousnesse in this life wherby a man may be free from sin And indeed the words which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Austine are the aduersaries obiection not the assertion of Austine himselfe He bringeth them in by way of supposition what may be said namely that f Aug de sp lit ca. 36 Sed dici potest quadam iustitia minor huic vitae competens qua iustus ex fide viuit c Non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinere ne peccet there is a lesser righteousnes belonging to this life wherein the iust liueth by faith to which righteousnes it pertaineth not to sinne Which obiection hauing prosecuted more at large and alledged what may be said for the maintenance thereof he at length setteth down answer whereof a part is contained in these words g Ibid. Tales iusti ex fide viuentes non opus habent Deo dicere Dimitte nobis c. Falsumque esse conuincunt quod sâ—riptuÌ„ est Non iustificabitur c. Sed quia haec falsa esse non possunt
Austin verie rightly argueth thereof l August de peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 7. Qui de die in dieÌ„ reneuâ—â—ur nondum totus est renouatus inquantum nonduÌ„ est renouatus intantum adhuâ— in vetustate est that he that is renewed from day to day is not yet all renewed and therefore in part he is old stil Now from what is he renewed but from vice and whereto is he renewed but to vertue If then the will be not yet wholy renewed to vertue then vice as yet in part remaineth with vertue in the will from whence as yet in part the will remaineth to be renewed Therfore our wil carieth vs still contrarie wayes m Idem in Ioan. tract 81. Alâ—ud volumus quia sumus in Câ—risto aliud volumus quia sumus adhuc in hoc seculo One way we will because we are in Christ another way we will because we are still in the world Therfore the Apostle calling the Corinthians Saints yet anone after telleth them that they are carnall and walke like men Therefore our Sauiour saith to his Disciples one where n Iohn 15 3. Ye are cleane by the word that I haue spoken vnto you Another where he saith o Math. 7 11. You being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children Yet againe Can the soule be truly conuerted to God saith he and as truly auerted from him at one time No M. Bishop but yet in the soule conuerted to God remaineth a part of that infection whereby p Gen. 19.26 Lots wife being gone out of Sodome looked backe to the place from whence she came so that q August Enchirid cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei excitantur tanquaÌ„ filij Dei profâ—tiuÌ„â— ad DeuÌ„ vt etiam Spiritu suo maximè aggrauante corruptibili corpore taÌ„quam siâ—â— hominum quibusdam moribus â—umanis deficiant ad seipsoâ— ideb pecceÌ„t the children of God albeit they be moued by the spirit of God and as the children of God do go forward towards God yet by their owne spirit as the children of men through some humane motions they fall backe to themselues and thereby commit sinne Therefore they of whom we cannot doubt but that they were conuerted vnto God yet found somewhat in themselues for which they saw that they had cause stil to pray r Psal 85.4 Lament 5.21 to be conuerted Againe Is Christ saith he agreed to dwell with Belial We answer him No Å¿ 2. Cor. 6.15 there is no agreement betwixt Christ and Belial and therefore doth Christ come to dwell in vs that Belial may be dispossessed driuen out And therfore t Bernard in Cantic Serm. 6. Vbi peccatum remittitur ibi proculdubio diabolus de corde peccatoru expellitur Et Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 8. Expulsio daemoniorum est remissio peccatorum c. where there is by Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes the diuel without doubt is expulsed out of the heart of the sinner But yet there remaine still the venimous feedes of his planting u August de nat grat cap. 66. Certamen est aduersus tentatorem de ipsa coÌ„tra nos necessitate pugnantem a necessitie of sinne by the aduantage whereof this tempter fighteth against vs x Bernard in Cantic Ser. 58. Velu nolu intra fines tuos habitat Ieâ—usaeus subiugari potest sed non exterminariâ— will we nill we this Iebusite for the time dwelleth within our borders he may be subdued but he cannot vtterly be destroyed Last of all Is the holy Ghost saith he content to dwell in a bodie subiect to sinne Againe we answer him No for y Rom. 6.12 sinne doth not reigne in the bodies of the faithfull that they should be subiects vnto it in obeying the lusts thereof z August in Ioan tract 41. Quamdus viuit necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris iuis For so long as they liue sinne must needs haue a being in them it is tempting it is entising it neuer ceasseth vrging and prouoking froÌ„ day to day but yet a Rom. 8.2 the kingdome thereof is abolished because the law of the spirit of life hath freed them from the law that is the kingdome and power of sinne and of death But if he meane subiect to sinne of the hauing of sinne then the Apostle telleth him b Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne c Vers 23. a captiue vnto the law of sinne that is in my members so that d 1. Ioh. 1.8 if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. So then some of his collections we denie not being consequents of our doctrine but his owne vaine and idle amplifications the rest that are direct to the point we affirme as I haue declared and whatsoeuer his naturall sconce conceiueth thereof the Scripture iustifieth that the fault and deformitie of sinne though not in former degree remaineth in a man renewed and endued with Gods grace And what doth he thinke of himselfe I maruell is he a man renewed and endued with Gods grace What and no fault no deformitie of sinne remaining in him no spot no wrinkle We wonder that a troupe of Angels cometh not from heauen to applaud him and to conuey him as a great iewell out of the world But had he grace to know himselfe he would soone perceiue that this fault of sinne is not penned vp in an odde corner of him but possesseth all his corners and spreadeth it selfe as an infection ouer the whole man And surely he that well considereth this booke of his will be of opinion that doubtlesse there is some deformed matter in him that could yeeld so much absurditie and vntruth as he hath contained therein As for his Remember he telleth vs that we shall meete with it againe and therefore I will referre it to his due place 3. W. BISHOP Let vs now come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach that Originall sinne is so far foorth taken away by Baptisme that it ceasseth to be a sinne properly the effects of it remaining are an imperfection and weakenesse both in our vnderstanding and will and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason as was and would haue bene in Originall iustice which make the soule apt and readie to fall into sinne like vnto tinder which although it be not fire of it selfe yet is fit to take fire yet say they that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly vnlesse a man do yeeld his consent vnto those euill motions Maister Perkins teacheth otherwise That albeit Originall sinne be taken away in the regenerate in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after Baptisme not onely as a want and weakenesse but as a sinne and that properly as may be proued by these reasons 1. Rom. 7. S. Paul saith directly It is no more
one poore circumstance to that purpose I would haue him to examine these First that by the law the Apostle saith he knew concupiscence to be sinne For it is sinne properly whatsoeuer by the law is conuicted to be sinne Secondly that it wrought death vnto him and nothing but sinne could make him to find himselfe thereby in case of death Thirdly that he saith sinne that it might appeare sinne wrought death in me thereby affirming that by working death it did appeare to be that indeed which in name it is called as Oecumenius expresseth those words q Oecumen in Rom. cap 7. vt quod est totum in toto fiat manifestum that all in all it might be made manifest to be that that it is Fourthly he saith that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this sinne was exceedingly a sinner by the commandement for so the words are according to the originall and so saith Irenaeus by allusion to that place that Å¿ Iren. lib. 3. cap. 20. Lex testificans de peccato quoniam peccator est the law did testifie of sinne that it was a sinner Now sinne is not a person in it selfe that it should be sayd to be a sinner but hereby is signified what man is by this sinne namely of concupiscence and that is exceedingly a sinner But a man cannot be a sinner but by that that is properly sinne therefore concupiscence making a man a sinner by the first motions thereof euen without consent is properly a sinne And thus much for circumstances of the place 4. W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these Ergo. The Maior which as the learned know should consist of three words containes foure seuerall points and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God the which is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remaine in the regenerate neither doth that which remaineth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath bene proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constraine him to it as M. Perkins also himselfe before confessed Now to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne how doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne if all the guiltinesse of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne Now to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subiect to his heauie displeasure that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue bene exempted had it not bene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word â— Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fewest wordly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument R. ABBOT M. Perkins his proposition consisteth of foure points M. Bishop saith that of those foure points there is not one true Which if it be so it was M. Perkins good hap to light vpon such an aduersarie as of foure seuerall points all as he saith vntrue is not able to disproue one The first point is that Concupiscence was once properly sinne which M. Perkins presumed as agreed and granted because the question betwixt vs and them is of Concupiscence after baptisme as if in the vnbaptised there were no question but that concupiscence is sinne But M. Bishop here altereth the state of the question telling vs that Concupiscence was neuer properly sinne and thereby shewing that he doth but colorably alledge and meerely abuse S. Austin who before Baptisme in no sence denieth but that Concupiscence is truly sinne and continually affirmeth it to be so And thus he maketh the Apostle wholy to dally in naming sinne sinne where there is no sinne indeed neither after Baptisme nor before But that which hath bene sayd both of the nature of sinne and of the circumstances of the Apostles text to proue that Concupiscence after Baptisme is sinne doth much more proue that the same is sinne before Baptisme and it shall yet further appeare if God will in that that followeth In the meane time here we are to obserue how M. Bishop falsly charging M. Perkins with foure vntruths in his argument in declaring the first of those foure doth himselfe deliuer foure vntruths indeed Concupiscence saith he was neuer properly sinne but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God Where first he erreth in that he maketh Originall iustice to consist onely in the integritie of the will and the forme of sinne to stand onely in the auersion of the will from God by the losse of the same Originall iustice whereas Originall iustice was in truth the integritie of all the parts of man not subiecting the flesh to the mind and the mind to God but the whole man to God the image whereof is set forth vnto vs in the commandement a Mat. 12.30 Luk. 10 27. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy mind with all thy soule with all thy thought and strength The forme of sinne therefore is not onely in the auersion of the will but in the auersion of any part or power or facultie of the soule if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God it is the sinne of man Now because b August de perfect iustis Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcoÌ„tinendo fraenâ—tur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet bridled and restrained God cannot be loued with all the
deliuered from the body of death For i De nat et grat ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat sed contracta exillo vitia cohaeâ—ent quibus iusta poena debetur the death of the body separateth the wicked from the body when yet the vices and sins thereby gathered do sticke fast to which iust punishment remaineth due Therfore when he praieth to be deliuered from this body of death k Ibid. De vitijs corporis dicit he meaneth it of the vitious affections of the body l De Temp. ser 45. Per concupiscentiam dictuÌ„ est hoc nostrum mortis corpus By concupiscence is it that this our body of death is so called So Oecumenius saith that the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from m Oecumen in Ro. ca. 7. Ex corporalibus actio nibus spiritualem mortem inducentibus à concupiscentijs quae in corpore sunt quaeque mors nobis sunt the concupiscences which are in the body and which are death vnto vs and do cause a spirituall death n Origen ibid. Corpus mortis appellatur in quo habitat peccatuÌ„ quod mortis est causa It is a body of death saith Origen wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death Ambrose saith that the Apostle calleth his body a body of death o Ambros apud Aug. cont IuliaÌ„ lib. 2. Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est c. Ideò Pauli caero corpus mortis erat c. because we all are borne vnder sinne and our very beginning is in trespasse acknowledging as touching the corruption of sin that what it was in the beginning the same in part it continueth still Epiphanius or rather Methodius saith that the Apostle here meaneth p Method apud Epiphan haer 64. Non corpus hoc mortem sed peccatum inhabitans per concupiscentiam in corpore dicit c. sinne dwelling by concupiscence in the body from the bad imaginations thoughts whereof he wished to be deliuered accounting the same death and destruction it selfe Bernard saith that it was q Bernard in Cant. ser 56. Jpsa est carnis concupiscentia c. Hoc sanè vnointeriecto pariete non longè peregrinabatur à Domino Vnde optabas clamans Quis me liberabit c. the law of sinne euen concupiscence standing as a wall betwixt God and him that made him crie out who shall deliuer me from the body of this death In concupiscence then standeth this body of death and because by this body of death it is that the Apostle calleth himselfe miserable it is concupiscence that maketh him miserable which therfore S. Austin calleth r August de Tempore ser 45. miseram legem the miserable law of sin not as being it self capable of misery but per metonymiam because it maketh vs miserable or because we are miserable by it Thus therfore the Apostle acknowledgeth himselfe miserable in himself not as holding himselfe to be in disgrace with God but as finding in himself that for which he deserueth so to be and should be but that God in Christ is mercifull vnto him not to impute the same And what is it but a miserie to haue as it were a filthy carion tied fast to him still breathing out noysome stinke to be continually troubled with an importunat enemy giuing him no rest wearying his soule from day to day nay to cary about with him Å¿ Idem cont Iulian Pelag. lib. 2. Exercitum queÌ„dam variarum cupiditatum intra semetipsum debellabat euen an army of diuerse and sundry lusts drawing one this way and another that way fighting against him on the right hand and on the left bereauing him of his ioy whilest in most earnest meditations they cary him away whether he will or not from that wherin his delight is If outward crosses do make a man miserable much more this inward destraction affliction which galleth the strings of the hart vexeth the very spirit and soule more then the bitternesse of death it selfe If M. Bishop knew this affliction he would thinke there were cause enough therein to make him crie out Miserable man that I am c. But his benummed heart feeleth it not and therefore he speaketh of these matters but as a Philosopher in the schooles without any conscience or sence of that he saith and to a formall argument as he calleth it giueth these mis-shapen and deformed answers 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second Infants Baptized die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion but there is not in them any other cause of death besides Originall sinne for they haue no actuall sinne and death is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom 5. Rom. 5. death entred into the world by sinne Ans The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God who freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happie exchange of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bene both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therefore is it sayd most truly of S. Paul Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Death entred into the world by sinne But the other place The wages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidely the wages whereof if they had not repented them had bene hell fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Original sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of actuall sinne is either to shew great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it R. ABBOT The example of infants dying after Baptisme before they come to yeares of discretion is rightly alledged to proue that sinne remaineth after Baptisme because where there is no sin there can be no death To this M. Bishop sendeth vs a most pitifull and miserable answer that the cause of the death of infants is not sin but either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence Thus he would maintain a priuiledge to infants against the words of S. Iohn a 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues that they may say we say we haue
was sayd calling it a defilement a contagion a blot a pestilent poyson c. and saying thereof What can there be found in man cleaue from this blot free from this contagion thereby plainly conuincing that it is sin because as hath bin before said nothing defileth blotteth infecteth the soule but onely sinne S. Austin S. Cirill he saith haue bin cited alreadie I hope he hath had a full answer to those citations As for Hierome and Gregorie when we heare what it is that he will oppose out of them he shall haue our further answer but neither they nor Caluins confession do proue at all that approued antiquitie is wholly for them as he fondly presumeth without cause But now forsooth to hit the naile on the head If any saith he desire to know the founder of our aduersaries doctrine in this point let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius And what shall he reade there Forsooth he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him which saith he is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Now he that had stood by him when he read this matter in Epiphanius might very well haue sayd to him Animus est in patinis your mind is on your mustard-pot ye reade ye know not what For that which he alledgeth of Proclus was not deliuered by Proclus but by Epiphanius is recorded out of a speech of Methodius a Catholike and godly Bishop against Proclus Yet this he thought a fit matter wherewith to delude his liege and soueraigne Lord hauing before mentioned it in his Epistle dedicatorie to the kings most excellent Maiestie in the answer whereof I haue set downe the words of Methodius at large and the heretical fancie of Proclus against which they were directed Now because the words to which he alludeth are the words of Methodius and approued by Epiphanius let it be remembred that Methodius and Epiphanius two ancient and holy Bishops haue taught that sinne is not taken away in Baptisme but is onely couered that is that sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed vnto him and so as M. Bishop himselfe confesseth haue taught iust the same that M. Perkins and the Protestants do now teach 10. W. BISHOP Now let vs come vnto the arguments which the Church of Rome as M. Perkins speakes alledgeth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate not to be sinne properly 1. Obiect In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne Which being pardoned is taken quite away and therefore after Baptisme ceaseth to be sinne M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answer is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent in confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feete Iohn 13. for he is wholy cleane Take with this the exposition of Saint Gregorie the great our Apostle Lib. 9. Ep. 3â— He cannot saith he be called wholy cleane in whom any part or parcell of sinnes remaineth But let no man resist the voyce of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him whom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to he wholy cleane The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are we iustified and sanctified Epist ad Ocâ—â—num Psal 50. if any sin be left remaining in vs Againe if holy Dauid say Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter then snow how can the blacknesse of hell still remaine in his soule briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious bloud of our Sauiour to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost-through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence Rom. 5. so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie albeit other defects and infirmities do 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 and so our first Argument stands insoluble Now to the second R. ABBOT This argument as it was long ago vrged by the Pelagians so in them long ago hath receiued a full answer It was rightly sayd by S. Austin to them a August cont 2. epist Pelag. li. 3. ca. 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus corrumpit fidem quisquâ— autem tam nunc tribuit quod quidem per ipsuÌ„ sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem Whosoeuer doth derogate or detract from Baptisme that which now we receiue by it corrupteth Christian faith but he that euen now attributeth to it that which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receiue cutteth of Christian hope We confesse that Baptisme doth seale vnto vs the full remission and forgiuenesse of all our sinnes that thereby we are engraffed into Christ to become members of his body and to be made partakers of his spirit that by the sanctification of the same spirit sinne may be destroyed and decayed in vs from day to day that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death perfect righteousnesse may thenceforth take place for euer at the resurrection of the dead But this doth not satisfie M. Bishop he will haue it that Originall sinne is not onely forgiuen in Baptisme but also quite taken away and therefore reiecteth M. Perkins answer that it is abolished as touching imputation but that otherwise it remaineth still Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin that b Cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Maliâ— quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo not it selfe but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptisme that c Ibid lib 6. ca. 8. Manet actu praeterijt reatu it remaineth as touching the actuall being but is taken away as touching the guilt Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poore one that thus directly crosseth S. Austins assertion and hath no further warrant but his owne bare word We haue examined
two wiues one before he was baptized another after and was therupon questioned whether he might be Bishop or not because the Apostle saith that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife He disputeth at large that if Baptisme take away sins much more it should take away the imputation of that that is no sin but neither hath the words which M. Bishop alledgeth nor any other that can serue M. Bishops turne It is further alledged that Dauid saith p Psal 51. â— Thou shalt wash me and I shal be whiter then snow how then saith he can the blacknesse of hell remaine in his soule But let me aske him if Originall sinne be taken quite away in the regenerate how then commeth it to passe that Dauid hauing receiued the effect of Baptisme in the Sacrament of Circumcision and now a long time continued in the state of grace doth yet complaine of Originall sinne and doth mention it as the fountain of those enormous sins which in that Psalme he bewaileth and bemoneth vnto God q Ver. 5. Behold saith he I was borne in iniquitie and in sin hath my mother conceiued me Why doth he thus r Ambros Apoleg Dauid ca. 12. Peccatorum specialium atque communiem colluuium confitetur confesse as Ambrose saith the filth both of speciall and also of common that is to say Originall sinnes if there were now no Originall sin in him to be confessed And as for that which M. Bishop vrgeth the same Ambrose telleth vs therof Å¿ Ibid. Suprae niuem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur that he is made whiter then snow to whom the fault is pardoned who yet affirmeth the continuing of Originall sinne in him that is pardoned as we haue seene before He was therfore whiter then snow as touching imputation and guilt when the fault was pardoned according to the saying of Austin that t Aug. Retract li. 1. c 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur quaÌ„do quicquid non fit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned that is not done But yet when he had heard it deliuered vnto him by the Prophet Nathan that u 1. Sam. 12.13 the Lord had taken away his sinne he prayed notwithstanding x Psal 51.7.10 Create in me a cleane heart renew in me a right spirit wash me and I shal be whiter then snow thereby acknowledging an vncleannesse in himselfe from which he had still need to be renewed and washed from which when he should be washed he should be whiter then snow but from which no man is so fully washed in this life but that he hath need still to pray to be washed and cleansed more and more For what is it by washing to be made whiter then snow but to be made y Eph. 5.27 without spot or wrinkle or any such thing But to be made without spot or wrinkle z August de nu coâ—â— pâ—â— lâ—b â— cap 34 Vt eâ—de a eam seâ— non in â—sto e culost in â—uâ—uco non habâ—â—ae maâ—â— tâ—t c. befalleth to no man in this life as S Austin well obserueth Therfore no man in this life becommeth whiter then snow by being free from all internall blot of vncleannesse and sinne And therefore to take away from M. Bishop all matter of cauill Basil plainly saith that a Bast in Esa cap. 1. lib vsâ— quâ— ideo siâ—â—â—tiâ—ns perâ—et tregâ—neran vto lati tirum vt totum proâ—â—cutat ad alâ—â—tem muâ—s adâ—â—a â— sed op ri reqâ—rutur n c perfâ—scterâ— aut quaâ— cunquc d li â—â—tâ—a est opus adhoc vt lauâ—rum quidem sit â—ffâ—ctitium pucit etit expuâ—gationis a sor lib a c Et quem admodum in tincturis quod repetitis vicibus at multo cum labore in tinctum est tincturam excipit pressiùs inhaerescentem c. Ad eundem se habet modum anima sante peccatorum suppurata in habitudine constiâ—nta malâ—â—iae Ista e nim mâ—th assuetudo vix ac multo negotio potest eâ—us c. the washing of Baptisme sufficeth not to bring a man to the whitenesse of snow but that there needeth also great labour and diligence and that as to make a perfect and abiding colour there needeth often dipping much paines so it is also in the soule corrupted with the filth of sinne and being in a habite of euill that hardly and with much ado it can be wâ—shed and cleansed from it But saith M. Bishop it is a notorious wrong to the precious bloud of our Sauiour Christ to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. And what doth he say therein more then we also say We acknowledge as much and not onely so but we say further as he saith that we recouer more by Christs grace then we haue lost by Adams fault according to the words of the Apostle which he citeth to that purpose What inferreth he now hereof If then saith he we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sin left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie But this conclusion followeth not For although we recouer more in Christ then we lost in Adam yet we do not presently receiue the same God hath b Eph 1.3 blessed vs in Christ with all manner spirituall blessings in heauenly things but we haue not as yet the fruition thereof Christ hath recouered for vs immortalitie and incorruption yet mortalitie and corruption hitherto continue still The grace of Christ doth not onely yeeld vs the state which Adam had Posse non peccare to haue power not to sinne but also a higher perfection c Aug. de correp grat cap. 11. non posse peccare to be without possibility of sinne and yet who seeth not that we haue not attained to this perfection God hath d Eph. 1.6 raised vs vp together with Christ and made vs sit together in heauenly places e Aug. de bapt lib. 1. cap. 4. Nondum in re sed in spe not yet indeed but in hope saith S. Austin Thus haue we receiued more in Christ then we haue lost in Adam not yet actually and indeed but in assurance of hope f Tertul. de resurrect carnis Contemplatio est spei tu hoc spatio per sidem noÌ„ praeseâ—tatio nec possessio sed expectatio Our state here saith Tertullian is a contemplation of hope through faith not a presenting of things to vs it is not possession but expectation And this the Apostle confirmeth saying that g Rom. 8.24 we walke by faith and not by sight that we are saued in hope but hope which is scene is no hope that h Vers 23. we waite for the adoption euen the redemption of our bodies i Eph. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
euill not without the euill it selfe And thus much in infinite places he giueth to vnderstand So farre therefore as sinne implieth guilt he denieth concupiscence in the regenerate to whom it is forgiuen to be any longer sinne because they are not thereby holden guilty and in this we gainsay him not because it is but as if he should say that though in it selfe it be sinne yet to the faithfull it is as if it were no sinne because it is not imputed for sinne whereto willingly we accord But the question is whether in it owne nature it be not such as that it should make guiltie saue onely that it is pardoned and that did S. Austine neuer deny as before hath bene proued he confesseth it to be c Ibid. vt suprae such an euill as should draw vs vnto euerlasting death onely for being in vs but that the guilt thereof is remitted Now this cannot be affirmed of any thing but that that is properly and truly sinne and therefore it cannot be doubted but that S. Austine did take concupiscence to be sinne according to the true and proper vnderstanding of the name of sinne This true and proper nature of sinne is before shewed to consist in a defect obliquity or swaruing from the law of God For the law of God is the true image and description and perfect rule of righteousnes and euery declining from the rule of righteousnesse is vnrighteousnesse and d 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne therefore euery declining from the law of God is sinne And this is so true as that e Pigh de peccat origin cont 1. PropriaÌ„ veramque peccati rationem Ioannes explicat peccatum est iniquitas c. id est obliquatio à rectitudine quae nobis lege praescribitur aut legu transgressio Pighius in his time a maine pillar of the church of Rome doth fully approoue it and maintaineth it with all his might that it is a true and perfect definition of sinne which S. Iohn hath set downe that sinne is the transgression of the law Now because the law requireth not onely outward actions but also the inward fixed disposition and quality of righteousnesse not onely workes of charity but also the inward habite of charity whence all such workes are to proceed it followeth that if there be a contrary quality or habite the same is sinne because it is a declining from the law Seeing therefore concupiscence not onely in the first acts motions of it but euen habitually is f August cont Julian lib. 2. defectus à iustitia a defecting or declining froÌ„ righteousnesse as S. Austine calleth it seeing it is a very habituall g Rom. 7.23 et 8.7 enmity and rebellion against the law of God all M. Bishops learning cannot auoid it but that it must necessarily be concluded to be sinne But yet to giue some shew of auoiding it he sendeth vs to Thomas Aquinas to learne of him now in the end of the world another forme and definition of sinne which is the deordination of the will so that howsoeuer other faculties and powers be distorted and corrupted yet we must thinke there is no sinne so long as there is an integrity and right disposition of the wil. Which position is absurdly false because the loue of God requireth h Deut. 6.5 Luc 10.27 all the heart all the mind all the soule all the thought and strength i August de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 22. Nullum ase riuulum duci extra patitur cuius deriuatione minuatur It endureth not that any streame should be drawen from it by the deriuing whereof it should any way be diminished But the will of man is not the whole man and therefore albeit there be supposed a rectitude and integrity of the will yet is not sinne hereby excluded if there be a defect or failing in any other part Yet that being graunted to M. Bishop he is no whit the neerer to his purpose hereby For if the deordination of the will be sinne then concupiscence is sinne because concupiscence is the deordination of the will For it hath bene before declared that k Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Jpsa capiditas nihil est aliud quam voluÌ„tas vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne and therefore the remainder of concupiscence in the regenerate is nothing else but a remainder of the corruption of the will and according to that remainder a seruing of the law of sinne Whereas then he affirmeth that in baptisme the deordination of the will is taken quite away it appeareth hereby that he is wholly deceiued because so long as concupiscence remaineth so long still there remaineth in part a deordination of the will And indeed that rectifying of the will which he affirmeth is but an Idea a meere fantasticall speculation contrary to the common sight and experience of all men The defendour thereof sheweth a will naughtily resolued against conscience and truth All men find all men see and feele in themselues and others a great distortion a crosnesse a crookednesse and vntowardlinesse of will And if there be that cure and healing of the will of which he speaketh what hindereth that there is not perfect righteousnesse For l De spir eâ— lit cap. 35. Fieret perfecta iustitia si tanta adâ—ib retur voluntas quanta sufficii â—â—aerâ— there should be perfect righteousnesse saith S. Austine if there were so great will as sufficeth for so great a matter And that the will is lesse hereto then it ought to be m Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of n De lib arbit lib. 3 ca. 14. Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Quod perfectioni naturae deesse perspexeris id vocas vitium a corruption an imperfection whereby there is somewhat wanting to the perfection of it And if there be still a corruption and a want of perfection in the will then the will is not yet fully rectified and because the will is not yet fullie rectified sinne remaineth still for sinne saith M. Bishop is the deordination of the will But it is further to be obserued that to the perfect rectifying of the will belong cleare light of vnderstanding and perfect delight of loue For o De peccat mer. et remiss lib. 2. cap 17. Nolunt homines facere quod iustum est siue quia latetan iustum sit siue quia no delectat TaÌ„to enim quodque vehementius volumus quantò certuis quà m bonum sit nouimus eoque delectamur ardentius Ignorantia igitur infirmitas vitia sunt quae impediunt vsluntatemne moueatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel ab opere malo abstinendum therefore haue men no will to that that is iust either because they know it not to be iust or because they delight not in it For so much the more earnestly do
priorum debito vniuersos posteros obligante the debt or trespasse of our first parents did binde all their posteritie after them Adam then bare the person of all mankinde either standing to stand for all or falling to fall for all being to beget children according to his owne image either wherein he should continue if he did continue or whereto he should fall if he did fall Therefore h Ibid. vt supra when he sinned we all being in his loines as Bellarmine saith sinned in him and by him and his sin by imputation lieth vpon vs all But saith M. Bishop euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his own personal iniquity sticking in him which is commonly called Originall sinne In which words he somewhat toucheth the reputation of his scholership in that he hath not learned to put difference betwixt personall and Originall sinne which writers commonly distinguish one from another For personall sinne is that which groweth from the person whose sinne it is and is taken to be that which we call actuall sinne but originall sinne is that which being actuall and personall to the first man is deriued by propagation and thereby becommeth naturall to all the rest Thus Cyprian mentioneth them as diuers when speaking of the Patriarches and Prophets and other iust and holy men he saith i Cyprian de ieiunio tentat Christi Nec originals nec personali caruere delicto they neither wanted originall nor personall sinne So Bellarmine M. Bishops good Maister seuereth them in saying that k Bellarm. vt supra Originale peccatum noÌ„ minus verè propriè peccatuÌ„ est quà m personale In Adamo actuale personale in nobis originale dicitur Originall sinne is no lesse truly and properly sinne then personall and that Adams sinne in him is called actuall and personall but in vs originall It is wonder that so great a man as M. Bishop should be ignorant in this point But now what will he make of this originall sinne Marry saith he we receiue the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation Indeede we receiue the nature of man polluted with infection but doth your learning serue you no better but to make infection the whole matter of originall sinne You should know that originall sinne conteineth l Bellarm. de Amiss grat statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 10. reatum maculam first a guilt of actuall transgression and consequently a blot of infection For of this infection or pollution of nature S. Austine in infinite places doth rightly obserue that it is m August Retract li. â— ca. 15. Peccatum tale vt idem sit paena peccati so a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne Now a punishment presupposeth a guilt of that sinne whereof it is a punishment For n Idem cont Iulian lib. 2. Non erat iustum sine crimine transire supplicium it is no iustice as Austine saith that the punishment should passe without the sinne Seeing therefore the punishment of the sinne of Adam is lying vpon vs it must necessarily follow that there is lying vpon vs an imputation of the sinne And so the same S. Austine saith that o Idem Retract li. 1. cap. 15. Dicimus eos reatu eius implicatos ob hoc poenae â—bnoxiâ—â— denneri we are holden enwrapped in the guilt therof and thereby are holden subiect to the punishment M. Bishop theÌ„ we hope wil learn henceforth to see that it ariseth of imputation that we receiue the nature of man polluted really with infection But by this meanes he is now become in a pitifull case hauing no way left to auoid the argument but that it standeth firme and sure that as from Adam we are first sinners by imputation and consequently sinfull by corruption so from Christ we are first iustified by imputation consequently renewed to inherent iustice by sanctification In moment of time both these concurre together but in order of nature there is first righteousnesse by imputation and thereby is way made to inward regeneration At this argument they are all faine to hoodwinke themselues because they cannot truly describe the state of originall sinne according to their owne grounds but they giue it way ineuitably to proceede against them They will haue it as M. Bishop here telleth vs out of p Bellarm de grat lib. arb li. 1. ca. 4. Bellarmine that the Apostles meaning is that we are made sinners by inherent corruption But we tell them and they can by no meanes auoid it that the condition of being sinners by inherent corruption because it is a punishment of sinne must presuppose vs to be formerly sinners otherwise and that is onely by imputation As therefore we are first sinners by imputation from Adam so are we first iustified by imputation from Christ regeneration to inherent righteousnesse following of the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ euen as inherent corruption followeth of the imputation of Adams sinne as before was said And hereof S. Bernard speaketh most notably q Bernard epist 190. Cur no aliundè iustitiae cùm aliuna è reatus Alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui iustificat a peccato alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non iustitia in Christi sanguine sed iustitia inquiet si cuius est quid ad te Esto sed sit etiam culpa cuius est quid ad me An iustâ—tia iusti super eum erit impietas impij no erit super euÌ„ Non conueniâ— filium portare iniquitatem patris fraterna fieri exortem iustitiae Why should not righteousnesse be of another seeing guilt is of another It is another that maketh me a sinner it is another that iustifieth from sinne the one in his seede the other in his bloud Is there sinne in the seede of a sinner and is there not righteousnesse in the bloud of Christ But thou wilt say If there be a righteousnesse of any ones what is that to thee Be it so but then let the fault also be whose it is what is that to me shall the righteousnesse of the righteous be vpon himselfe and shall not the wickednesse of the wicked be vpon himselfe It is not meete that the sonne should beare the iniquitie of the Father and be denied to be partaker of the righteousnesse of his brother In which words we see that most clearely he affirmeth both the imputation of Adams sinne to condemnation and the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ accordingly to iustification I will conclude this point with the words of Chrysostome r Chrysost in Rom. hom 10. Si tibi Iudaeus dixerit Quo pacto vno rectè agente Christo vniuersuâ— orbis saluus factuâ— est possit illi respondere Quo pacto vno non obediente Adam vniuersus orbis condemnatus est If a Iew shall say
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ— minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperâ—â—it To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel â—ugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ„ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌ„geth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ„ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
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
they do not fulfil all and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth that they did fulfill all The Pelagians alledged amongst others Zacharie and Elizabeth as M. Bishop doth because it is said of theÌ„ h Luk. 1.6 Both were iust before God and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe S. Austin answereth them i Aug. contra Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantuÌ„ mihi videtur secundum quandaÌ„ inter homines conuersationem probabilem atque laudabilem quaÌ„ nullus hominum iustè posset in accusationis criminationis querelam vocare Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habuâ—sse referuntur quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant sed vt apparebant homi nibus ita noti erant oculis Dei It is spoken as seemeth to me as touching a commendable and prayse-worthy conuersation amongst men which no man could iustly caâ— into quarrell of accusation or crime Which therefore they are said to haue had before God because they therein did not deceiue men by any dissimulation but as they appeared to men so they were knowne to the eyes of God Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them no more but that which the Apostle saith of himselfe k Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousnesse of the law I was vnrebukable when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ l Aug. de pecca mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictuÌ„ est quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est c. What commendable thing is spoken of theÌ„ saith he which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himselfe when as yet he had not beleeued in Christ that according to the righteousnesse that is in the law he was without reproofe m Oros Apolog de arbit libert Sine crimine dici quenquam sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium sed conuersationis ezemplum In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproofe saith Orosius is not imported a testimonie of perfection but an example of conuersation It is manifest therefore that that which is written concerning them is not to be drawne to the auouching of that fulfilling of the lawe which M. Bishop here defendeth for iustification before God Yea and it is further to be noted that Zachary was a Priest and the Priests manner was n Heb. 7.27 first to offer sacrifice for his owne sinnes then for the peoples Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his owne sins But o 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law if Zachary then were a transgressor of the lawe it is false that Master Bishop saith that he fulfilled the whole lawe Still therefore it standeth good against all subuerters of truth as touching the morall lawe that in respect of iustificatioÌ„ it is a yoke which neither Iosue nor Dauid nor Iosias nor Zachary and Elizabeth nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth haue bene able to beare and therefore we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified in him 40. W. BISHOP Rom. 7. To will is in me but I find not how to performe If S. Paule could not performe that which he would how can others Answer He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them The like answer we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods his wife or seruants which as they say is vnpossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commandement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue ill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man Lib. 10. conf cap. 7. euen when he is asleepe and testifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments but he hath very ill hap in answering of them S. Paule would willingly haue auoyded all euill motions saith he but he could not Therefore say we he could not fulfill the lawe He could subdue those prouocations to sinne saith he and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandements For what is it whereof the Apostle saith as is alledged a Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me but I find not how to performe that that is good It is euen the commaundement whereof he hath said before b Ver. 12. The commandement is holy and iust and good for instance whereof and clearer euidence he setteth downe the commandement c Ver. 7. Thou shalt no lust which he still prosecuteth vnder the name of good Paul then confesseth that though he had a will to keepe and fulfill the law and namely the commandement Thou shalt not lust yet he could not find meanes to attain to that perfection and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him the keeping of all the commandements so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them d August de nupt concup lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult vt concupiscam quae dicit Non concupisces ego nolo coÌ„cupiscere Concupiscere nolebat tamen concupiscebat The law would haue him not to lust in that it saith Thou shalt not lust and he was willing not to lust but yet he did lust how then should we say that he did fulfill the law If the law forbid euil motions and prouocations and it is not possible for vs to auoid them or to free our selues from them it must follow that it is not possible for vs to fulfill the law But we forsooth do not vnderstand the commandement rightly which M. Bishop telleth vs doth not prohibit euill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but onely consent vnto them So then the law saith Thou shalt not lust but M. Bishop saith Yes thou maist lust without any sinne but thou maist not consent vnto thy lust But farre otherwise S. Austin saith that e Idem Epist 200. In iustitia nondum consummata perseueranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus vbi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda sed nulla sit Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo Non coÌ„cupisces the law in saying Thou shalt not lust doth set downe that there shall be no
M. Bishop to presume but for God himselfe to determine who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come The words of Dauid are as little helpfull vnto him i Psal 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements when thou hast set my heart at liberty So farre as we are at liberty so farre we runne and so fast we runne But we attaine not to that liberty yet but that being k Rom. 7.23 holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members we haue still cause to cry l 24. Who shall deliuer vs or set vs at liberty from this body of death m 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty We haue receiued as yet onely n Rom. 8.23 the first fruites of the spirit We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1 that presseth downe and sinne hanging fast on so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls and the p Mat. 26.41 willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh 43. W. BISHOP Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plainly for it saying That which was impossible to the law in that is weakened by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle And his commaundements be not heauie Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words My yoke is sweet Math. 11. and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailty they be very heauie yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost then loe do we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charity is the fulnesse of the law Rom. 13. And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the law Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charity we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it so that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimonie of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly Serm. in illud Attende tibi to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That we must beleeue firmely De nat gra cap. 69. that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant and no true lawmaker to commaâ—â—d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe for those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to bind them vp to most assured perdition Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican as an article of faith in these words 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued with the helpe and cooperation of Christ can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commaundements If thou wilt enter into life Math. 1â— keepe the commaundements This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see that he hath babled much and said as good as nothing and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part But now leauing his confutation he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before a Rom. 8.3 That that was vnpossible to the law inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Now of this place he saith that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh But he is still so full of formality that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh to which the Apostle saith it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth and because it is but his owne we make very small account or reckoning of it The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing then our fulfilling of the law That the Apostle noteth first in saying that Christ condemned sinne comparing it thereby to a prisoner a robber or murtherer brought to the barre and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for
vs by purchasing for vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes whereby b Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes because as S. Austine saith c Aug. Retraâ—t lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei mandaâ—a facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the commaundements of God are reputed to be done when that that is not done is pardoned Now when all the commaundements of God are reputed to be done the iustification of the law is fulfilled in vs. For what is the iustification of the law but the iustification which the law might seeme to intend and propound vnto it selfe that we might be acquitted of sinne and accepted vnto life Thus the auncient Fathers expound it for d Theophylact. in Rom. ca. 8. Iustificatio laegis id est exitus ipse destinatio the scope the end the thing destinated by the law which when the law could not attaine vnto Christ performed it vnto vs by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes e Theodoret. ibid. Nostrum debitum exoluit legis scopum perfecit He paid our debt saith Theodoret and performed that which was the scope of the law f Oecumen ibid. Quis est finis legu Vt non essemuâ— maledictioâ—â— obnoxij Per Christum quideÌ„ in effectuÌ„ deductus est in nobis legis scopus What was the end of the law saith Oecumius That we should not be subiect to the curse By Christ then that which was the scope of the law was brought to effect in vs. So Chrysostome g Chrysost ibid. hom 13. Quae legis erat â—ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium id tibi perfecit Christus That which was the iustification of the law not to be subiect to the curse Christ hath effected vnto vs. Last of all Ambrose saith h Ambros ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis iustificatio nisi cuÌ„ datur remissio omnium peccatorum How is the iustification of the law fulfilled in vs but when there is giuen vnto vs forgiuenesse of all our sinnes The Apostle therefore by the iustification of the law vnderstandeth not inherent righteousnesse but signifieth that that iustification which the law intended but through our default could not make good vnto vs by inherent righteousnesse Christ hath performed in purchasing for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes by which we are reputed iust and blamelesse in Gods sight and accepted to be inheritours of euerlasting life Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth i Ibid. Vt sublatis peccatis iustificatus appareat mente seruiens legi Deâ— That a man being iustified by the taking away of his sinnes may appeare in his minde seruing the law of God whereby he noteth that to iustification by forgiuenesse of sinnes is adioined regeneration to inherent righteousnesse which he calleth afterwards k Ibid. SignuÌ„ iustificationâ— hoc est in homine vt per id quod inhabitat in eo iustificatus appareat esse filius Dei a signe of iustification And this we denie not but do alwaies most religiously teach the same onely we denie that this is that wherein consisteth our iustification before God but it is a sequell and signe thereof and we neuer attaine to the perfection of it whilest we liue here And if we will either directly or vndirectly vnderstand it in these words we must take thereof that which S. Austine saith that l Aug. de sp lit ca. 36. Sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus vt tameÌ„ sit quod peteÌ„tibus largitèr adâ—ciat et quod coÌ„fitentibus clemeÌ„ter ignoscat God so worketh in his Saints labouring in the temptation of this life as that there is yet for him largely to adde vnto them asking or crauing of him and mercifully to pardon them when they confesse it vnto him yea so as the same S. Austine elsewhere saith m Idem de ciu Dei li. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum as that our righteousnesse in this life rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Now therefore though the place be vnderstood of inherent righteousnesse yet it maketh not for M. Bishops turne because it prooueth onely that Christ shall restore vs to the perfect righteousnes of the law which we affirme that he beginneth in this life and shall fully accomplish in the life to come but it prooueth not that which he desireth that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the law To the other places that he alledgeth that the commaundements of God are not heauie that the yoke of Christ is easie and his burden light he himselfe in effect setteth downe the answer To our corrupt frailty saith he they be very heauie True and therefore so long and so farre as this corrupt frailty continueth so long and so farre the commaundements of God are still heauie vnto vs which must needs be till that which n 1. Cor. 15.42 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakenesse shall be raised againe in incorruption and power When the vertue of charity saith he is powred into our soules then we do with delight fulfill them True so farre forth as charity is powred into our soules But so long as there is carnall concupiscence there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God because o Aug. cont Iuliâ—n lib 4. cap. 2. InquaÌ„â—m inest nocet aâ— minuendam spiritualeÌ„ deleâ—â—ationem sanctaruÌ„ mâ—ntium illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei c. carnall coÌ„cupiscence euen by very being in vs as S. Austine saith doth abridge or diminish that spirituall delight of holy minds of which the Apostle saith I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man p Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena iustitia quaÌ„do plena sanitas tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est Then shall be perfect righteousnesse saith he againe that is perfect keeping of the commaundements of God when there shall be perfect health then perfect health when perfect charity then perfect charity when we shall see him as he is In the meane time loue keepeth the commaundements of God but yet vnperfectly because it selfe is but vnperfect euen as a lame man goeth but yet halteth â—n his going To be short the same S. Austine well obserueth that q IdeÌ„ de nat grat cap. 69. CoÌ„sideret noÌ„ potuisse diuinitus dici grauia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui grauiae non sunt God could not haue said that his commaundements are not heauie but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heauie Therefore r
his argument must be this Whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne But euery man is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table therefore euery man is bound to sinne His Prosyllogisme for the proofe of his maior proposition out of his owne words must arise thus Whosoeuer necessarily sinneth in doing the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne but whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table necessarily sinneth in the doing therof therefore whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne Here his maior proposition is apparently absurd for though a man by reason of infirmity cannot but sinne in doing his duty yet it is the duty onely that he is bound to and not to the sinne because the sinne is not implyed in the dutie but ariseth by casuall and accidentall necessitie from the condition of the man Now therefore a man may doubt whether is greater in this man his malice or his ignorance In respect of his malice we may vse to him the words of the Prophet Dauid c Psal 52.3.5 Thy tongue imagineth wickednes and with lies thou cuttest like a sharpe razor Thou hast loued to speake all words that may do hurt O thou false tongue In respect of his ignorance we may iustly scorne him as a presumptuous and sawcie companion who being of so base qualitie and not knowing how to frame an argument aright would take vpon him to encounter a whole armie of learned men and so insolently dedicate his vnlearned fooleries to the King 47. W. BISHOP First they alledge these words Enter not O Lord Psal 141. into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their workes are iust in his sight Answer There are two common expositions of this place among the ancient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The former is S. Augustines S. Ieromes De perf iustic Epist ad Ctâ—s S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place who say that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life or else afterward in Purgatory Wherefore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God not to deale with them according vnto their deserts for if he should so do they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults or else indure Gods iudgements for them before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deedes The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best Writers vpon the Psalmes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Arnobius S. Euthimius and others which is also S. Augustins S. Gregories All these say Lib. ad Croâ—ia cap. 10. lib. 9. moral cap. 1. that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God will seeme to be no iustice at all and so take these words No creature neither man nor Angell shall be iustified in thy sight that is if his iustice appeare before thine and be compared to it For as the stars be bright in themselues shine also goodly in a cleare night yet in the presence of the glittering Sun beams they appeare not at all euen so mans iustice although considered by it selfe it be great perfect in his kind yet set in the sight presence of Gods iustice it vanisheth away and is not to be seene This exposition is taken out of Iob where he saith I know truly it is euen so that no man compared to God Iob 9. shal be iustified Take the words of the Psalme in whether sence you list that either we haue many veniall faults for which we cannot be iustified in Gods sight or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice ours will not appeare at all and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sinne and consequently the place is not to purpose R. ABBOT I would wish thee gentle Reader well to obserue M. Bishops twofold answer to this place The more cleare these words of Scripture are against the inherent righteousnesse of man the more notably his singular impudencie appeareth in seeking to shift them off Dauid saith it a Prophet saith it a man after Gods owne heart saith it a Psal 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for no man liuing shall be iustified or found iust in thy sight Now M. Bishop answâ—reth that this is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes without which no creature liueth and for which a man may in iustice be punished sharpely either in this life or in Purgatorie Where it is to be obserued that he hath told vs in the Section last saue one that veniall sinne is no formall transgression of Gods law by reason whereof they hold that b Rhem. Testim 1. Ioh. 1.8 veniall sinnes consist with true iustice and hinder it not So saith Andradius c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 5. Iustitiam euertere nullo pacto possunt neque perfectam ab solutam legis obedientiam quoquo modo impedire They can no way ouerthrow iustice nor in any sort hinder the perfect and absolute obedience of the law So then Dauids prayer must be this Enter not into iudgement with me for veniall sinnes for by reason of veniall sinnes which hinder not but that a man is iust no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Which exposition being apparently lewd and shamelesse yet he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine to countenance it with the names of them who neuer thought any such thing He alledgeth Austin who in the place by him cited hath not a word to tâ—at effect which maketh him to set none downe because indeed there are none But in the place mentioned the same Austin rightly saith d Aug. de perfe iustit Superexalâ—at misericordia iudiâ—io Quod si noÌ„ esset quae spes esseâ— Quando quidem cùm rex iustâ—s federit in throâ—o quis glo ritbitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabitur se esse immuâ—em à peccato Were it not that mercy reioyceth ouer iudgement what hope should there be For when the iust King shall sit vpon his throne who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or reioyce that he is free from sinne If no man shall be able then to challenge to himselfe a cleane heart where is that perfect iustice of workes which Master Bishop dreameth of which cannot come but from a cleane heart He citeth in the second place the reuerend Father Saint Hierome who beside that he saith nothing for him speaketh expresly and directly against him e Hieron ad Câ—esiphont Quando â—icit In coÌ„spectu tuo hoc intelligi
we offend in one commaundement we are guiltie of the whole Law but no man can fulfill the whole Law ergo Answer I denie the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite as by all the properties of merite may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merite set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good father Luc. â—5 Do on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bene proued at large in a seuerall question To that of Saint Iames although it belong not to this matter I answer that he who offendeth in one is made guiltie of all that is hee shall be as surely condemned as if he had broken all See Saint Augustine Epist 29. ad Hieron R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith that he that will merite must fulfill the whole Law M. Bishop denieth that and saith that one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite Now happie men are they with whom one good worke is of so great worth But what doth a man merite by that one worke Surely if it be a merite of heauen I doubt not but M. Bishop for his part in that meriting facultie wherein he liueth hath in his opinion by many merits deuoured a number of the heauens of Democritus his innumerable worlds But I pray you tell vs M. Bishop if he be a Gal. 3.10 cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law how should any man merite by performing onely one thing If life be tied onely to the doing of all why do you make so many merites of that which by the sentence of the Law can yeeld onely one Nay S. Iames plainely telleth vs as M. Perkins alledgeth that b Iam. 2.10 he that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guiltie of all that is he is in generall guiltie of breaking the Law and therefore lieth vnder the curse that is pronounced by the Law But this place M. Bishop saith belongeth not to this matter and why but because he knew not what to say vnto it for that that he doth say doth fully make against himselfe For how should one worke done with his due circumstances bring forth merite when notwithstanding the doing of many workes with their due circumstances a man for offending in any one is as surely to be condemned as if he had broken all Marry saith he a man may merite and after by falling into any mortall sinne he loseth his merite But that cannot be for the Law as hath bene said maketh no promise but to him that fulfilleth all and therefore till a man haue fulfilled all he can merite nothing and therefore hath merited nothing by any former act or acts if afterward he fall into any trespasse of the Law Now therefore there can be no rising againe to former merit where there is no merite at all and the place which he citeth in that sort as he citeth it may import a renewing to the former estate but as touching merit it importeth nothing at all But whether those words of S. Iames belong to this matter or not let S. Ierom tel him who thereupon infers thus c Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 2. Quis nostruÌ„ aliquando non peccauit Si autem peccauit quod negari nou potest per vnum peccatum omnium est reui peccatorum non suis viribus sed Dei misericordia saluatur Which of vs hath not sometime sinned And if he haue sinned which cannot be denied and by one sinne be guiltie of all sinnes then is he not saued by his owne power but by Gods mercie The place then by his iudgement taketh away from man all power of being saued by any thing in himselfe and leaueth him to be saued onely by the mercie of God To the other proposition of M. Perkins argument he answereth also by deniall and saith that in a seuerall question he hath proued that a man may fulfill the whole law but by that he hath read the disproofe of his proofe it will appeare to him I hope that he hath proued nothing Now it is to be obserued how silly he omitteth the place of S. Iohn alledged by M. Perkins d 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. which inuincibly proueth that no man fulfilleth the whole law because there is no man without sin and euery sinne is e Cap. 3.4 the transgression of the law 12. W. BISHOP His fift reason We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our dayly bread where we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God much more must we confesse heauen to be Answ M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomly that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerly the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Pauls rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not eate Yet because our trauels are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God dayly to giue vs our nouriture either by sending or preseruing the fruites of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stirring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse termes R. ABBOT It well appeareth that M. Perkins better vnderstood the Lords prayer then that he had any need to learne of any such slender master as M. Bishop is The argument which he vseth is very effectuall and strong If we cannot merit the food of this life but must craue it of gift much lesse can we merite euerlasting life But saith M. Bishop our dayly bread is not so meerly the gift of God but that we must either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must labour for our lining c.
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
purpose but expecteth our will to make good that grace to our selues he confesseth that God stirreth and helpeth forward our will but cannot endure to say that it is God that worketh in vs to will He answereth yet further that the whole may be attributed to God because the habits of grace infused be froÌ„ him as sole efficient of theÌ„ our actioÌ„s endued also with grace being onely dispositions no efficient cause of those habits But herein he absurdly trifleth by altering the state of the questioÌ„ For the controuersie is not of the efficient cause of infused grace but of the efficient cause of our receiuing that grace We say that the holy Ghost worketh the same immediatly in our will they say that the grace of God and the Free will of man make h Andrad Orth. explicat li. 4 Ex gratia libero arbitrio vnica causa conflatur nostrae ad iustiuaÌ„ applicationis one efficient cause of the receiuing thereof They say that God offereth his grace with condition if we wil but we say that God without putting vs to condition of our wil worketh in vs to will and where he expresseth a condition doth himself performe the same i Aug. Confess lib. 10. ca. 29. Da quod â—ubes giuing what he commandeth and k De Praedest sanct cap. 11. Deus facit vt illa faciamus himselfe making vs to do what he requireth to be done The words of the Apostle are plain for vs and as plaine against theÌ„ But I take it to be but a point of M. Bishops cunning thus to speake yet his learning will gaine but small credit thereby 9. W. BISHOP One other obiection may be collected out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words When we were dead in sinnes Ad Ephes 2.2 If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Answ Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giues his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuil actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting As for example a Crab-tree stocke hath no ability of it selfe to bring foorth apples therfore may be tearmed dead in that kind of good fruite yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it and it will beare apples euen so albeit our soure corrupt nature of it selfe be vnable to fructifie to life euerlasting yet hauing receiued into it the heauenly graft of Gods grace it is enabled to produce the sweete fruite of good workes to which alludeth S. Iames Cap. 1. Receiue the ingraffed word which can saue our soules Againe what more dead then the earth and yet it being tilled and sowed doth bring foorth and beare goodly corne now the word and grace of God is compared by our Sauiour himselfe vnto seed Mat. 13. and our hearts vnto the earth that receiued it what maruel then if we otherwise dead yet reuiued by this liuely feed do yeeld plenty of pleasing fruite R. ABBOT This obiection M. Bishop saith he collecteth out of M. Perkins third reason against Free will whereas it is indeed the whole matter of that third reason He wold haue kept due order and haue answered the rest as well as this but that he doubted he should haue answered the rest as badly as he hath done this He propoundeth the obiection at his owne liking and cutteth off what he list If man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne For this the words of the Apostle are alledged by M. Perkins a Ephes 2.1 When we were dead in sinnes M. Bishop answereth sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickened and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent Which answer who is so blind as that he cannot see how absurdly it crosseth it selfe Man must giue his free consent to grace that he may be quickened thereby and yet man cannot consent or concur with God before he be quickened by grace If man cannot consent or concurre with God before he be quickened then the consent of of his owne Free will cannot be the efficient cause of his quickening because that that cometh after cannot be the cause of that that necessarily goeth before and the effect is neuer the cause of it owne cause And this is indeed the very truth iustified by M. Bishops owne words against his will But his whole discourse driueth the other way that a man not yet quickened must by Free will giue consent to grace and concurre with God that he may be quickened because though grace be offered yet it taketh no effect vntill our Free will do make way for it and do adde it owne indeauour and helpe to the worke thereof Which is all one as to require of a dead bodie to giue consent and to put to it owne helpe for the restoring of it selfe to life againe Yet he thinketh to cleare the matter of all impossibilitie for asking the question againe How can that be namely that man should giue his free consent to grace if he were then dead he answereth Marry you must remember what hath bene said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath Free will in naturall and ciuill actions But what is this to the purpose seeing that spiritually he still continueth a dead man Yea but this will of his being fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good works necessary to life euerlasting Where he doth but runne in a ring and in other words repeateth the same answer still sticking fast in the briars wherein he was tangled before For how is this will to be fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection He hath told vs before by grace and that to grace man must giue his free consent So then he telleth vs that Free will cannot concurre and worke with grace except by grace it be first fortified and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection and yet it cannot be fortified by grace and lifted vp to a higher degree of perfection except it first concurre with grace I may here againe iustly returne vpon him his owne words See how vncertaine the steppes are of men that walke in darknesse c. Now the Reader will obserue that the obiection is
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
the Papists not willing in any thing to swarue from the Pelagian heresie do very religiously obserue For the prouing of Free will they obiect vnto vs that man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice c. and therefore can will these things without the helpe of grace M. Bishop saith they vse this argument to proue libertie of will in ciuill and morall matters But therefore very lewdly do they b Coster Enchirid cap. 5. vse it against vs and exclaime that we by deniall of Free will make lawes and exhortations and instructions of no effect when as we deny not libertie and freedome of will in morall and ciuill actions Yet of such workes we say that although in morall and ciuill life they stand for good yet spiritually and with God they are not good workes but euill because howsoeuer there is the outward matter and substance yet there wanteth the inward forme and life whereby they should haue the condition of good workes Hereof M. Perkins saith that the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart a good conscience and a faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glorie of God But saith M. Bishop it faileth neither in the one nor in the other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good Where I wonder whether he did well aduise of that he saith For if naturall compassion be a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good then because bruit beasts haue true naturall compassion and true naturall affections we must needs attribute to them vertuous and morall actions But S. Austin was not of M. Bishops mind when he sayd c Aug in Psal 31. Crede in cum qui iustificat impium vt possint opera tua esse opera bona nam nec bona illa appellauerim quaÌ„que non deradice bona procedunt Beleeue in him that iustifieth the vngodly that thy workes may be good workes For I will not call them good workes so long as they proceed not from a good roote Faith then by S. Austins iudgement is the good roote whence good workes must grow and if they grow not from this roote they cannot be called good And this he learned of the Apostle teaching vs that d Heb 11.6 without faith it is vnpossible to please God and that e Rom. 14.23 whatsoeuer is not of faith it is sinne And therefore of naturall compassion he saith that f Aug contra Iulian li 4 ca 3. Etsi misericordia ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonam etiam isto bono malè vâ—â—tur qui infideliter vâ—â—â—m hoc bonum malè facit qui infideliter facit Qui auteÌ„ inâ—sâ— pacit aliquid prefecto pec cat Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quaeâ— faciunt infiâ—eâ—es non ipserum esse sedillius qui benè vâ—â—tur malis ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus bona malè faciunt quia ea non fideli sed â—â—fideli hoc est stulâ—a noxta faciunt voluntate although in it selfe it be a good worke yet he vseth this good worke amisse that vseth it vnbeleeuingly and doth it amisse that doth it vnbeleeuingly Now he that doth any thing amisse saith he sinneth therein and therefore the good workes which vnbeleeuers do are Gods who vseth to good purpose them that are euill but to them that do them they are sinnes in that they do good things amisse because they do them with an vnbeleeuing that is with a foolish and corrupt will Wherin he accordeth with the Apostle saying that g Tit. 1.15 to vnbeleeuers all things are vncleane because euen their mind and conscience is defiled And thereto Prosper alluding saith that h Prosp de lib. arbit Patet in impiorum animis nullam habitare virtutem sed omnia opera eorum immunda esse atque polluta c. dum ea ipsa quae non haberent nisi dante Deo subduntur ei qui primus recessit à Deo Et post Multa laudabilia reperiuntur etiam in ingenijs â—â—â—orum quae ex naâ—â—a â—uidem prodeunt sed quoniam ab eo quâ—â—aturam condidit recesserunt virtutes esse non possuâ—t in the minds of the vngodly albeit there be found many commendable things yet there dwelleth no vertue but all their workes are polluted and vncleane whilest therein they are subiect to him who did first fall by apostasie from God Therefore M. Bishops distinction of good workes and meritorious worke is an idle and vaine presumption there being no workes meritorious at all nor any workes good but onely such as are done in the faith of Christ The other circumstance required by M. Perkins in good workes is the end whereto they are referred For Austin rightly saith i Aug. cont Julian lib 4 cap. 3. Noueris non officijs sed finibâ—s a vitijs dâ—sâ—eâ—nendas esse virtutes c. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid vbi peccare non videtur si non propter hoc facit propter quod facere debet peccare conuincitur that workes are not esteemed by the actions but by the ends so that when a man doth a thing wherein he seemeth not to sinne if he do it not for that end for which he should do it that which he doth becommeth thereby sinne Now the true and proper end of all good workes and which maketh them good is the glorie of God of which the Apostle saith k 1. Cor. 10.31 Whether ye eate or drinke or whatsoeuer ye do do all to the glorie of God and of which Prosper telleth vs that l Prospâ—r de vocat gent. lib. 1. cap. 2. etiamsi in bonis moribus agat malè adhuc viuit si non in gloriam Dei viuit albeit a man liue in good behauiour yet he liueth still an euill life if he liue not to the glorie of God But hereto belongeth the knowledge of God which is m Arnob. cont gent. lib. 2. Cognitio Dei fermeÌ„tum quoddam est vitae as it were the leauen that seasoneth the whole life of man And this knowledge of God must be by the word of God so that n Clem. Alexand in Protrepi Qui absque verbo veritatis operantur aliquid vel loquuntur sunt similes ijs qui conantur in gredi absque pedibus they who without the word of truth do worke or speake any thing are as they that striue to go without feete And it must breed the loue of God because o Jdem Stromat lib. 3. Nec castitas est bonuÌ„ ex virtute nisi fiat propter delectionem in Deum chastitie and so the like are not vertues except they be done or obserued for the loue of God And in the loue of God consisteth the
shepheards vpon the dounes sing these things Do not poets vpon the stages act them Do not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them Do not maisters in their schooles and Prelats in their pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the whole world confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not chuse but do Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest companie of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this strange light of the new Gospell R. ABBOT As touching ciuill and outward actions we doubt not as before is sayd but that God hath left a libertie and power to the will of man and therefore iustly are they punished who runne wilfully into enormous actions from which it is in them to forbeare And this addeth much to the iust condemnation of man that euen in those things wherein he hath power to do otherwise yet he carieth himselfe frowardly and rebelliously against God And yet of outward actions in some degree Hierome rightly obserueth a Hieron cont Pelag. li. 3. Dicimus posse hominem non peccare si ve lit pro tempore pro loco pro imbecillitate corporea quamdus intentus est animus c. Quòd si se paululum remiserit c. discit fragilitateÌ„ suam multa se non posse cognoscit that a man can forbeare to sinne if he will at a time or in some place or by some let of bodily weaknesse or so long as the mind is intent and heedie but he soone findeth that wholy not to sinne it is not possible To speake then indefinitely of sinne it is true that man left in the power of his owne Free will cannot chuse but sinne For how can he chuse but sinne who of himselfe is nothing but sinne Yea we know that the corruption of sinne lieth as a punishment vpon the whole nature of man and therefore is sayd to haue befallen b August de nat grat ca. 34. by the iust reuenge of God and is called c Idem de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Poenalis vitiositas a poenall vitiousnesse or subiection to sinne Now if it be as it were a prison or punishment it is not in our choise to be rid thereof because a man cannot rid himselfe of a prison or punishment which he hath drawne vpon himselfe And therefore doth Saint Austin affirme it to be d De nat grat cap. 67. ex lib. 3. de lib. arbit cap. 18. Approbare falsa pro veris vt erret inuitus resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculà non posse à libidinosis operibus teÌ„perare non est natura instituti hominis sed poenâ— damnati the punishment of man by condemnation to approue falshood for truth so as to erre against his will and being vexed with the griefe of the bond of the flesh yet not to be able to temper himselfe from libidinous actions Thus haue we heard him before to auouch e Sect. 3. a necessitie of sinning and this necessitie he acknowledgeth in some part to continue still in the state of grace f De nat grat cap. 66. alledging thereof the words of the Prophet Dauid g Psal 24.18 De necessitatibus meis educ me deliuer me from all my necessities And therefore vainely doth M. Bishop except that by the helpe of God a sinner may call for grace and repent him and chuse whether he will sinne or no. For in men conuerted it is true that they cannot chuse but sinne in repentant men it is still true that they cannot chuse but sinne For the forbearing of this or that action doth not put a man in case to chuse to sinne but though he arise one way yet the law of sinne holdeth him still vnder a necessitie to fall another way vntill h August de nat grat cap. 66. Opitulante gratia c. mala necessitas remouebitur libertas plena tribuetur this euill necessitie be taken away and full libertie granted which shall i Idem in Ioan. tract 41 Quando plena atque perfecta libertas trit Quando nullae inimicitiae quaÌ„do nouissimae inimica destructur mors then be when we shall see him face to face Or if M. Bishop will say otherwise let him bring vs foorth the man that can chuse to sinne the man that can do more then euer Patriarch or Prophet or Apostle or Euangelist could do For if they could chuse to sinne why did they sinne or if they did not sinne why did they say Forgiue vs our trespasses If he will needs follow the Pelagian deuice that k Hieron epist ad Cresiph Licet alius non fuerit tamen potest esse qui esse voluerit though no man be indeed without sinne yet a man may be so if he will I will answer him with Hieromes words l Ibid. Quae est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit c. dare cui libet quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis nequâ—as approbare What a reason is this that that may be that neuer was and that he should yeeld that to I know not whom which in the Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles he cannot proue Repentance therefore and conuersion so altereth the course of a mans life in the maine as that euen in the way of righteousnesse it still leaueth in him a necessitie of sinne Neither doth this conuersion stand indifferent to all as he dreameth nor doth God affoord to all sinners grace sufficient to bring them to repentance He noteth for his purpose the place of Peter that God would not haue any to perish c. but let him take the whole words and they will cleere themselues m 2. Pet. 3 9. He is patient TOVVARDS VS not willing that any namely of vs should perish but that all of vs should come to repentance He speaketh of Gods elect of them whom he hath chosen to make vp the body of his Church of whom our Sauior Christ saith n Iohn 6.39 This is the will of the Father that hath sent me that of all that he hath giuen me I should loose nothing but should raise it vp at the last day Of these he will haue none to perish but doth patiently beare till he haue accomplished the nuÌ„ber that he hath decreed for himselfe So did God say by the Prophet o Ezech. 33.11 As I liue saith the Lord I desire not the death of a sinner but rather that he be conuerted liue but he said it
I that do this but sinne that dwelleth in me that is Originall sinne The Papists answer That it is called there sinne improperly because it cometh of sinne and is an occasion of sinne I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Augustine who saith expresly Lib. 1 contr duas Epist Pelag. c. 10 Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet it is not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne as writing is called the hand because it is made by the hand Lib. 1. de nuptijs Concup c. 23. And in another place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sin as cold is called slouthful because it makes a man slouthfull so that the most profound Doctor S. Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins and shall be as well coursed for it by the plaine circumstances of the place For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hated How proues this that sinne there must he taken properly it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him 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 But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby was so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercoming that euill As witnesseth Saint Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence Lib. 2. de Goâ—â— cont Maniâ—â— cap. 14. which being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned The first circumstance then alledged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him then for him R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledging the words of S. Paul a Rom. 7.17 It is no more I that do it but sinne that dwelleth in me thereby to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate still retaineth the nature of sinne saith that the Papistes answer that it is called sinne there improperly because it cometh of sinne and is an occasion of sinne M Bishop saith that he approueth this interpretation as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist S. Austin and addeth that the most profound Doctor S. Austin is by M. Perkins stiled a formall Papist But he speaketh this out of a weake head and shallow wit that cannot vnderstand so profound a Doctor as S. Austin is What S. Austins opinion was as touching this point we shall examine hereafter in the ninth section where occasion is more fully offred to speake thereof in the meane time that S. Austin was no Papist is plainly shewed in the b Aphrican CoÌ„cil cap. 101. 105. Affricane Councell where were assembled two hundred and seuenteene Bishops of those parts and Austin one of them to whom Boniface the first then Bishop of Rome sent his Legates desirous to haue an oare in their boate and chalenging to himselfe a supremacie ouer their Churches But they all with one consent let him remember that Austin was one of them resisted this proud attempt and whereas the Bishop of Rome alledged shewed the Nicene Canons yeelding him that supremacie they smelling his fraud and perceiuing that he had falsified and corrupted the Canons sent as to others so namely to the Patriarches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople for the certain vndoubted copies therof VpoÌ„ the sight whereof this peece of knauery being discouered they wrote backe first to Boniface and after to Celestinus that they would not admit any such iurisdiction that they would end their causes within theÌ„selues that they wold allow of no appeales to the bishop of Rome and wished him that he would thencefoorth forbeare to trouble them any more with his Legates Wherein they crossed a speciall point of Poperie which is the maine prop of all the rest and this act of theirs was held to be so preiudiciall to the Sea of Rome and authoritie of the Pope as that c Bonifac. 2. Epi. ad Eulal Concil tom 2. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Celestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Boniface the second affirmed that in pride they did that which they did against the Church of Rome by the instigation of the diuell It appeareth then hereby that S. Austin was no Papist neither was he so as shall appeare in that point which we haue here in hand In the meane time against the answer of the Papists that sinne is improperly taken by the Apostle when he calleth concupiscence by the name of sinne M. Perkins alledgeth the circumstance of the place as first that S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him do the euill which he hated Where to proceed orderly and to giue light to his whole disputation it is first to be resolued what concupiscence is and what sinne is for verie vncertainly shall we argue that concupiscence is sinne vnlesse by definition of both we make it appeare how they accord in one By concupiscence therefore we vnderstand the remainder of the originall corruption of nature after baptisme in the state of regeneration and new birth For man by nature is wholy vncleane and sinfull there is nothing in him but that that is euill nothing but d Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God Whence it is that Chrysostome saith that e Chrysost op imperfect in Mat. hom 3â— Omnis homo naturaliter non solùm peccator est sed etiam totum peccatum Idem habet ex varijs in Mat. locis homil 23. man naturally is not onely a sinner but also wholly sinne and f Jbid. op imperf homil 24. Homo omnia mala haebet in se hath in him all manner of euil Now this corruption which naturally ouerfloweth and drowneth the whole man by the spirit of regeneration is abated and the strength thereof broken but so as that still there remaineth a grieuous infection of it which continually crosseth and resisteth the worke of the holy Ghost and g 1. Pet. 2.11 fighteth against the soule by soliciting enticing it vnto sinne In this remnant of corruption which we call by the name of concupiscence or lust we are to consider both the habite which is the confirmed euill qualitie and also the immediate actions and affections and motions thereof For h August contr Julian Pelag. lib 6. cap. 8. Praeter istum motum inest â—omiâ—i malum vnde surgit hic motus beside the euill motion as S. Austin saith there is within an euill from whence this motion doth arise And this euill continueth when there is no act or motion thereof as when a man is asleepe and the mind thought no
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
effecta ex eo quòd corporis passionibus se subdit c. caro dicitur effecta inde nomen trahit in quo plut studij vel propositi gerit the soule being become of more grosse disposition by yeelding it selfe to the passions of the bodie is said to be become flesh and taketh the name of that on which it bestoweth it most desire And againe f Jdem in Psal 38. hom 2. Animas nostras incarnauimus We haue turned our soules into flesh So saith Austine that g August de ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 2. Saepe ipsum hominem id est naturam hominis carnem nuncupat Et post In operibus carnis inuenimus illa quibus animi vitia significantur à voluptate carnis aliena the Scripture calleth man himselfe that is the nature of man by the name of flesh and calleth those the workes of the flesh which yet are the proper vices of the mind and belong not to that which we properly call the flesh And so doth God himselfe say of man wholy that h Genes 6.3 he is flesh and our Sauiour in the Gospell opposing flesh to the spirit i Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh is flesh and that that is borne of the spirit is spirit giueth to vnderstand that all goeth vnder the name of flesh that is not borne againe and renewed by the spirit Now therefore as touching concupiscence Saint Austine telleth vs that k Aug. de perf Iustit Rat. 17 contr Julian lib. 5. cap. 5. Quia carnaliter anima concupiscit it is said that the flesh lusteth because that the soule lusteth according to the flesh Yea Cyprian doubted not to say l Cyprian in Prolog de cardinal Christi operibus Quód caro aduers spiritum spiritus aduersus carnem contendere dicitur repugnare impropriè dictum arbitror quia solius animae lis ista est qua secum rixatur c Et paulo prius Corpore sic vtitur anima sicut Faber malleo vel incude in qua format omnium turpitudinum idola fabricatur quaelibet quarumcunque voluptatum simulachra Non est caro dictatrix peccati nec inuentrix malitiae nec cogitatus format nec disponit agenda sed officina est spiritus qui mea per eam quaecunque affectauerit peragit consummat that he held it to be vnproperly said that the flesh lusteth against the spirit because it is the soule onely that is at strife with it selfe For the flesh is no directer of sinne no deuiser of wickednesse it frameth not the thought nor disposeth what shal be done but is as the shop or workhouse of the soule which in it and by it performeth whatsoeuer it desireth vsing the body as the Smith doth his hammer or anuile framing therupon the idols of vncleanesse and pleasure Seeing therefore as here it is plaine concupiscence is seated in the soule which for the corruption thereof is called by the name of flesh so that the Apostle by flesh in himself meaneth nothing but the soule according to the remainder of original infection which still did sticke fast vnto him M. Bishop by his second circumstance proueth nothing but that concupiscence is truly properly affirmed to be sin Which had bene very readily to haue bene perceiued by any man if he had framed his argument as he shold haue done Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but concupiscence is not seated in the soule for this euery man would haue presently seene to be absurd But he to blind his Reader chose rather to say Concupiscence is seated in the flesh wheras notwithstanding the flesh as it is the seate of concupiscence cannot haue any reasonable vnderstanding but of the soule But now the third circuÌ„stance I trow will do the deed That he taketh out of the first verse of the eight Chapter Now there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that walke not after the flesh Whence saith he I argue thus There is no condeÌ„nation to them that haue sinne dwelling in them if they walk not according to the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly for the wages of sinne is death that is eternall damnation As if he should say God for Christs sake doth not impute this sinne therefore it is no sinne God to them that are in Christ doth pardon this sinne ergo it is not properly sinne And so he might likewise argue of Dauids adulterie Peters denying abiuring of his maister Pauls persecuting of the Church that none of these were properly sins because to theÌ„ being in Christ there is no condematioÌ„ for any of these things Such drunken sophistrie are we troubled with and drawne by the importunity of ignorant buzzards to spend time in the refuting of such arguments as rather deserue to be chastened with a whip then to be graced with an answer The matter is plaine to theÌ„ that are willing to vnderstand There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus it is true and yet who is there of them that are in Christ Iesus but confesseth vnto God that there is that in him for which he might iustly be condemned To them that are in Christ for Christs sake it is forgiuen and pardoned it is not imputed vnto them but it is still such as if it were imputed it should be sufficient to condemne them to euerlasting death Therfore the Apostle saith of concupiscence not for his consenting to it which he disclaimeth but for the hauing of it dwelling in him that m Rom 7.11 it slue him that n Vers 13. by the commaundement it wrought death in him that by it he had o Vers 24. a body of death How so but that knowing that the wages of sinne is death he knew himselfe thereby in case of death if God should deale with him for it as in extremitie and yet in iustice he might do Therefore doth S. Austin say that euen in the regenerate p August cont Iulian. lib 6 cap. 5 Tale ac tam magnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non teneret in morte pertraheret in vltimam morteÌ„ nisi vinculum eius in ea quae est in Baptismo peccatorum omnium remissione soluâ—retur concupiscence is such and so great an euill as that onely because it is in them it should hold them in death and draw them to euerlasting death but that the bond of the guilt thereof is loosed in Baptisme by the forgiuenesse of all our sinnes It is therefore such in it selfe to which death is due but yet to them that are in Christ it proueth not vnto death because it is forgiuen vnto them for Christs sake Thus we haue seene an end of M. Bishops circumstances and nothing yet to proue but that concupiscence by the Apostle is properly called sinne And to proue that it is so because he saith there is not
we vse al the good helpes thereto that may be vsed the other is so familiar to vs as that without any teacher without any example to instruct vs we can learne it of our selues Why doth he vtter these absurd paradoxes so contrarie to the common sence and experience of all men It is true that in Baptisme there is a medicine applied for the curing of this Originall maladie which medicine taketh effect according to the purpose of the grace of God It doth not by and by worke in all it worketh in some sooner in some later as he thinketh good to giue it effect by whom it was first applied Sometimes after many yeares he maketh the same workefull by his effectuall calling which from infancie hath lien as it were fruitlesse as if it neuer had bene done But when it doth worke it worketh not all at once it worketh but by degrees it hath still somewhat Å¿ 2. Cor. 4.16 to renew from day to day and neuer effecteth a full and perfect cure so long as we liue here This followeth afterward to be proued at large and therefore I will but briefly propound it in this place Now all these fancies hath M. Bishop vttered in answering the first point of M. Perkins his argument Let vs now come to the second point M. Perkins saith that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne M. Bishop saith it doth not make a man to sinne vnlesse he consent vnto it But the Apostle telleth vs that concupiscence doth make a man to do euill and it hath bene shewed that that euill is sinne euen before there be giuen any consent vnto it This euill consisteth in euill motions and thoughts t Ephiphan haer 64 Origen Obrepunt circa cor nostrum etiaÌ„ non volentibus nobis c. which arise in vs whether we will or not neither u Ambr. de fuga seculi lib. 1 ca. 1. Non in potestate nostra est cor nostruÌ„ â—ostrae cogitationes quae improuitò offusae mentem animuÌ„que confundunt atque aliò trahunt quà m tis proposueris c. Ipso in tempore quo cleuare mentem paramus insertis inanibus cogitationibus ad terrena plerunque deijcimur Et paulo prius vt quod studeas vi tare hoc cogites animoque voluâ—s are our harts and thoughts in our owne power for the auoiding therof but that euen vnawares they ouercast the mind and throw it downe to the earth whilest it is tending towards heauen and that runneth in the fancie which we make speciall labour to put out Yea oftentimes they grow to that absurditie and wickednesse as that we could not beleeue but vpon our owne experience that there were in vs so corrupt a spring as to yeeld so lothsome and filthie streames which make the true faithfull man ashamed of himselfe and to condemne himselfe in the sight of God howsoeuer nothing thereof appeare to the eyes of men But with M. Bishop these things are nothing he will neuer crie God mercie for any such because he hath therein done him no trespasse yea the Trent Councell telleth vs that herein is x Concil Trident Sess 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus nihil eos ab ingressu coeli ramoratur nothing that God hateth nothing that hindereth vs from entring into heauen Which seeing God requireth all the thought to be bestowed in his loue and thereby denounceth it to be a sinne to haue any of our thoughts wandering away from him these men would neuer thus affirme and teach but that y Rom. 11.8 a spirit of slumber hath closed their eyes that they see not that truth against which they haue resolued to bend themselues The third point of M. Perkins argument is that concupiscence intangleth a man in the punishment of sinne This M. Bishop saith is contrarie to that that he had sayd before that the guilt of Originall sinne is taken away in the regenerate But here is no contrarietie because in the continuall rebellion of concupiscence a mans conscience seeth punishment thereby due vnto him if God should require the same but yet by faith comforteth himselfe that it is remitted vnto him for Christs sake And that which M. Perkins spake he spake it out of the Apostles words who of concupiscence saith that z Rom. 7.13 it wrought death in him that is made him in himselfe guiltie of death and thus intangled him in the punishment of sinne although in Christ he saw deliuerance because a Cap. 8.1 there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Let M. Bishop therefore discharge M. Perkins of the lie and take the whetstone to himselfe as being farre more iustly due vnto him The last point of the argument is that concupiscence maketh a man miserable taken out of the words of the Apostle b Rom. 7.24 Wretched man or miserable man that I am who shall deliuer me from the bodie of this death or from this body of death M. Bishop hereto answereth that miserable is vnderstood two maner of waies either by being in disgrace with God or by reason of the danger of sinne and the miseries of this world But of the danger of sinne the Apostle acquitteth himselfe c 2. Tim. 4.18 The Lord will deliuer me from euerie euill worke and will preserue me vnto his heauenly kingdome and d Rom. 8.39 neither things present nor things to come shall separate vs from the loue of God As for the miseries of this world they are here drawne in by head and shoulders there being here no shew of any matter that should moue the Apostle thus to complaine in respect thereof But the thing is plaine that he calleth himselfe miserable as S. Austin plainely teacheth by reason of e Agust con Iulian lib 6. cap. 7. Noâ—nèâ—â—oncedâ—s hominem miseruÌ„ quicunque ille fuerit aduersus talem clamasse qu theatem velle adiacet mihi c. qua voluntas bona aut non ibi sit aut valere nihil possit an inward euill qualitie whereby the will being good could not auaile to do the good that he would He calleth himselfe miserable by reason of that from which he desired to be deliuered which is the body of death Now the body of death is that which before he hath called f Rom. 6.6 the body of sinne and elsewhere g Col. 2.11 the body of the sinnes of the flesh By the body of sinne is vnderstood concupiscence which is as a body consisting of many members and parts which are the diuerse lusts of diuerse sinnes and thereby is a body of sinnes euen consisting of all maner of sinnes For we may not here vnderstand the body properly as of the body which dieth as if the Apostle had desired a dissolution and end of life because h August de perfect iustit Rat. 17. De corpere mortis huius non omnis liberatur qui finit hanc vitam euery one that dieth is not thereby
no sinne and we do not therein deceiue our selues and though we die yet it is not by reason of sin that we die but either by the disteÌ„perature of our bodies or externall violence But if M. Perkins had sayd as he might haue sayd Infants after Baptisme are subiect to distemperature of body and externall violence and death following all which are the proper effects of sinne therefore they are not without sinne in what a wofull case had M. Bishop bene and how had he bene put to his shifts to deuise an answer Surely S. Austin saith that b Auâ—ust in Psal 37. Non aliquid patimur in ista vita n si ex illa morte quaÌ„ mâ—ruimus primo peccato we suffer not any thing in this life but by reason of that death which we deserued by the first sinne And so saith Origen verie rightly that c Origen in Leuit hom 3. Nobis hominiâ—us vel mors velreliqua omnis fragilitas in carne ex piccati conditione superducta est death and all other frailtie in the flesh was brought vpon vs by the condition or state of sin Therfore distemperature and weaknesse and sicknes and suffering of externall violence are no lesse arguments of sinne then death it selfe and how then doth he make these the causes of death without sinne when they are no otherwise the causes of death but by reason of sinne But he addeth further that God who freely bestowed their liues on them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them But yet if there be no sin and if it be as the Trent Councell saith that there is nothing in them that God hateth nothing that hindereth them from entring into heauen why then doth God without cause take away their life and not rather without death receiue them vnto himselfe why doth he not immediatly d 2. Cor. 5 4. cloth them vpon that mortality may be swallowed vp of life This is a mysterie to M. Bishop he cannot tel what to say therof But the dying of baptized infants sheweth that there is still in theÌ„ a corruption of flesh and bloud by which the sentence of the Apostle taketh hold of them e 1. Cor. 15.50 flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God neither shall corruption inherite incorruption The cause of their death is the putting off of this corruptioÌ„ the dissolution full mortification of the body of sin that this slough being cast off and mortalitie changed into immortalitie corruption into incorruption they may be fit for the inheritance of the kingdome of God Thus Epiphanius bringeth in Methodius disputing against Proclus the Origenist that f Epiphan haer 64. ex Methodiâ— In auxiliaris medicamenti moduÌ„ ab auxiliatore nostro verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumptae est mors c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis mortem Deus benè inuenit quo sic omnino inculpabiles innoxij inueniamur c. videtur velut siquis summus opifex statuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia à se constructam rursus conflet mutilatam repentè conspicatus à pessimo quodam homine c. God as the true Physition hath appointed death for a medicinable purgation for the vtter rooting out and putting away of sinne that we may be made faultlesse and innocent and that as a goodly golden image sightly and seemely in all parts if it be broken and defaced by any meanes must be new cast and framed againe for the taking away of the blemishes and disgraces of it euen so man the image of God being maimed and disgraced by sinne for the putting away of those disgraces and the repairing of his ruines and decayes must by death be dissolued into the earth thence to be raised vp againe perfect and without default Now if M. Bishop will not learne it of vs yet let him learne it of these ancient Fathers that sin is the cause of death euen in them to whom notwithstanding it is forgiuen pardoned for Christs sake But he goeth further True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but both haue bene long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the kingdome of heauen But since they haue sinned what Marry it is most truly said by S. Paul Death entred into the world by sinne Well then if it entred by sin into the world doth it continue in the world by any other thing then by which it first entred Nay as it entred by sinne so sinne is the onely cause of the continuing of it and without sinne there is no death in the failing of the cause must needs be a surceasing of the effect Now to shew that death is the proper effect of sin M. Perkins alledgeth the words of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death But M. Bishop saith that this place is foully abused by him And why so Forsooth the Apostle here by death meaneth eternall damnation And what then Doth he therfore not meane bodily death also Surely the Apostle alludeth to that that God sayd to our father Adam in the beginning g Gen. 2.17 In the day that thou shalt eate of that forbidden tree thou shalt die the death thereby threatning vnto him both the first and second death And in that meaning hath the Apostle spoken of death in the chapter going before that by sinne came death c. Therefore M. Bishops great maister Thomas Aquinas telleth him that when the Apostle immediatly before saith the end of those things is death he meaneth by death h Tho Aquin. in Rom. cap 6. Peccata â—e se nata sunt inâ—iucere mâ—â—tem teÌ„poralem eternaâ—â— Et â—o â—arg finis peccati mori tam temporalis quà m aeterna both temporall and eternall death Another exception is that sinne is here taken onely for Actuall sinne which is a fiction meerly absurd and vaine For it is a proposition vniuersall concerning all sinne and so vsed vniuersally by all writers and if it be true of Actuall sinne that the wages of sinne is death much more is it true of Originall sinne which is the filthie and corrupt fountaine whence all actuall sins do spring And that we may know that M. Bishop himselfe is of no other mind he himselfe hath vsed it in the section next saue one before this concerning Originall sinne arguing that if Originall sinne were properly sinne in the regenerate then it should cause death vnto them because the wages of sinne is death Whereby it appeareth that he speaketh but at all aduenture and to serue the present turne without any conscience or regard of that he speaketh whether it be true or false He hath bene brought vp in Bellarmines schoole and of him hath learned to care no further but onely to say somewhat though it be starke naught Now for conclusion of this
point he saith Let not this be forgotten that he himselfe aknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate True and what then How then saith he doth he say here that he doth die the death for it But he saith not so neither is it so for if he should die the death for Originall sinne he should die also the eternall death which notwithstanding by Christ is taken away This death therefore to the regenerate is not in the nature of a punishment but rather of a medicine as hath bene alreadie sayd for the vtter dissoluing and mortifying and destroying of the body of sinne that onely righteousnesse may liue in them It followeth as a wages of sinne according to the words of the Apostle in it owne nature due vnto it though now payed for other end then it was before 6. W. BISHOP M. Perkins third reason That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate is such Ergo Answ The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had bene by nature sinne and euerie thing in this world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. Iohn 1. Epi. 2. All that is in the world is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing which allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as wide is it from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text which M. Perkins bringeth to perswade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite contrary God tempteth no man Iacob 1. but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is allured after when concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking of our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedily as we ought to do the suggestion of such an enemie the which that most deepe Doctor S. Augustine sifteth out very profoundly in these words When the Apostle S. Iames saith Lib. 6. in Jul. cap. 5. euery man is tempted being drawne away and allured by his Concupiscence and afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that which bringeth it forth The dam is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sin forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sinne of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it draw vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our will to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sin which followeth after Lib. 4. in Iohan. cap. 15. vnlesse we resist manfully may be seene in S. Ciril so that by the iudgement of the most learned ancient Fathers that text of S. Iames cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sin disputeth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I answer that not concupiscence but the will of man is the Tree which bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is only an intiser vnto bad R. ABBOT Against M. Perkins first proposition M. Bishop saith that not euery thing that entiseth vs to sinne is sinne But therein he saith vntruly if he meane as he should do of that that is in man himselfe It is generally true that there is nothing that tempteth or entiseth to sinne which hath not it selfe the nature of sinne either as the subiect or as the thing it selfe so that concupiscence because it cannot be said to be the subiect must necessarily be holden to be sin it selfe His exceptions to the contrarie are very fond First that then the apple that allured Eue to sinne had bene by nature sinne and secondly that euery thing in the world one way or another tempteth vs to sinne But where hath he euer read that the apple if it were an apple tempted or intised Eue Did the apple any thing more then it did before or was it any other then it was before Surely there was no change in the apple but the change was in her selfe and therfore as it did not tempt her before so neither could it be sayd to tempt her in that temptation And what is this but to make God the tempter who was the maker of the apple contrary to the words of S. Iames that a Iam. 1.13 God tempteth no man to euill Which we must likewise say of all other things in the world if it be true that M. Bishop saith that they tempt vs to sinne For though God himselfe immediatly do not tempt vs yet if the creatures of the world do tempt vs the accusation redoundeth to him because in the creatures there is nothing but his worke They are faire beautifull they are pleasant to sight and vse but do they therfore tempt to sinne Did the Sun tempt the heathen idolaters to worship it Did b 2. Sam. 13.2 Thamar tempt Ammon to filthines or c Dan. 13.8 Susanna the wicked elders Nay as S. Iames telleth vs it is our own sinful lust that tempteth vs to abuse the good creatures of God which thēselues tēpt vs not but rather as S. Paul teacheth vs d Rom. 8.22 they grone and trauaile in pain because e Vers 20. they are subiect to our vanity and therfore f Vers 19.21 wait when the sons of God shal be reuealed that they may be deliuered from the bondage of our corruption into the glorious liberty of the sonnes of God But he alledgeth to his purpose the words of S. Iohn All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and pride of life Where if we consider the Apostles words as they lie we shall see how iustly it may be returned to himselfe which a little before he said of M. Perkins that either he sheweth great want of iudgement or else very strangely peruerteth the words of holy Scripture The thing that he hath to proue is that euery thing in this world tempteth vs to sin The words of S. Iohn are g Iohn 2.16 All that is in the world
the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes the pride of life is not of the Father but of the world He speaketh of the things of the world which are of the Father because they are his creatures S. Iohn speaketh of the things of the world which are not of the Father He speaketh of the world which is the creature and frame of heauen and earth all things therein S. Iohn speaketh h August cont Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 13. Nouimus Ioannem non mundum istum id est coelum terram omnia quae in eo substātialiter sunt reprehendisse cum diceret Omnia quae in mundo sunt c. not of the world in that meaning but of the world of mākind corrupted defiled with sinne according to which the vnregenerate are called i Luk. 16.8 the children of this world and as our Sauiour Christ saith that k Iohn 7.7 the world hated him because he testified of it that the workes thereof are euill And doth he not then thinke you bring vs a good proofe that euery thing in the world tempteth vs to sinne The meaning of S. Iohn is plaine that in the world that is to say in the men of this world there is nothing but corruption the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes the pride of life and the following of all these all which are not of the Father nor haue accord with him but are of men themselues perish together with themselues What is this then but profanely and lewdly to abuse the word of God thus to cite it to proue a falshood when it hath not so much as any shew of that for which it is cited If it be grosse to say that whatsoeuer allureth to sinne is sinne I am sure it is much more grosse that he hath sayd for the disprouing of it He addeth further that it is as wide from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins But we iudge not of these things by morall wisedome which is the wisedome of this world because l 1. Cor. 1.21 the world by it owne wisdome knoweth not God in the wisdome of God we esteeme hereof as God by the foolishnesse of the Apostles preaching hath taught vs to beleeue And out of their preaching we haue learned to say as S. Austin did that m August cont Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 2 Ipsa per se ipsā libido rectissimè omnino suis ipsis motibus accusatur quibus ne excedat obsistitur lust it selfe by it selfe is very iustly accused or blamed in the very motions of it wherein it is resisted that it exceed not and that n Ibid. li 5. ca. 5. Quantumlibet in isto conflictu superiores simus c. tamen ipsis certè nostrae cogitationis motibus affectibus si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus c. howsoeuer in this conflict of the spirit against the flesh we get the better yet if in the very motions and affections of our thought we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. But saith he heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices But what is it to vs what heathen Philosophers haue distinguished seeing Christian Philosophers haue taught vs to cal these passions o See after Sect. 9. vices inward vices vitiousnesse vitious affections vitious concupiscences or lusts Let M. Bishop follow Philosophers if he please as for vs we say in these questions of Diuinitie as Tertullian sayd that p Tertul de praescript adu haeret philosophia temeraria interpret diuinae naturae dispositionis philosophie is but a sawcie interpreter of Gods nature and disposition that Philosophers are q Idem cont Hermogen Haereticorum patriarchae philosophi the patriarches of heretikes We take our instructions out of Solomons porch not out of the porch of Zeno from Hierusalem not from Athens and there we haue learned to call it sinne whatsoeuer swarueth from the law of God as before hath bene declared Yea but M. Bishop will proue out of that very text which M. Perkins alledgeth that concupiscence is not sinne r Iam. 1.14 Euery man saith S. Iames is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is allured afterward concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Marke well the words saith he First concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue But how doth he proue that by any argument out of S. Iames his words What is it not sin because S. Iames doth not expresly call it sin Why then neither shall the consent be sin because S. Iames expresseth the consent first and afterwards inferreth the bringing forth of sinne But though S. Iames do not call it expresly sinne yet S. Paul doth For what S. Iames speaketh of concupiscence stirring vp euill motions and thereby tempting and entising the very same S. Paul expresseth in these words ſ Rom. 7.8 Sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Which is the same as if he should haue said that concupiscence which is the habite of sin did stir vp in him all maner of euill motions and affections to tempt him thereby The same Apostle saith t Cap. 6.12 Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof calling it by the name of sin where it raigneth not nor is obeyed in the lusts of it He distinctly noteth sinne and the lusts of it and the obeying that is consenting to those lusts and so plainely sheweth that in the roote and from the beginning it is sinne Thus the faithfull elsewhere are warned to take heed not to be hardened u Heb. 2.13 by the seducing or deceitfulnesse of sinne where it is also plaine that it is sinne which seduceth and enticeth euen as the Apostle saith x Rom 7.11 Sinne seduced me or deceiued me and thereby slue me giuing to vnderstand that these seducings and enticings that is the first motions of concupiscence are so farre sin as that thereby he felt himselfe in himselfe to be but a dead man Thus the Apostle S. Paule thwarteth all that M. Bishop gathereth out of S. Iames his words but yet the most deepe Doctor S. Austin sifteth out the matter very profoundly for him And indeed he sifteth well but leaueth to M. Bishop nothing but the very branne y Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Profectò in his verbis partus à pariente distinguitur Pariens est cōcupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit Nec concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetrādum obtinuerit volētis assensum In these words saith he the birth is distinguished from that that bringeth foorth That that bringeth foorth is concupiscence the birth is sinne But concupiscence bringeth
blindnesse of heart is properly sinne therfore concupiscence is so also Rebellion against the law of the mind wherby is meant the law of God is properly sinne as before is shewed But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne saith it is therefore called sinne because it is the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne but otherwise also sinne and therefore properly and truly sinne But M. Bishop telleth vs that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne as anone shall appeare He saith further that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne we say is the proper taking of it and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne But the motions and enticements to sinne being the same with concupiscence we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne as sinne is taken largely so as to comprehend concupiscence A learned note But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught he should haue giuen vs here a better reason why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood when concupiscence is called sinne He telleth vs that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill and indeed it is true that very often he so calleth it but yet such an euill as maketh a man euill so that by reason thereof a Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis quamuis Propheta quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though a man be a Prophet a Patriarch an Apostle yet saith Hierome it is said vnto them by our Sauiour If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill but that which is properly sinne Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin But of this shall be spoken more at large anone Onely here it is to be obserued how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill because it prouoketh vs to euill So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill then it is called sinne It is sinne because it prouoketh to sinne and so euill because it prouoketh to euill and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill as shall appeare To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason and giueth to it a very vnproper answer b August in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris tuâ—s So long as thou liuest saith Austin of necessitie sinne must be in thy members sinne is there also taken vnproperly saith M. Bishop And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn c 1. Iob. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs alledging the one and concluding the other by occasioÌ„ of the words of our Sauior Christ d Ioh. 8.34 He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne and the seruant abideth not in the house for euer For hereupon he asketh the question What hope then haue we who are not without sinne and answereth at large that sinne though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne make our selues seruants vnto it because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation is the seruant of sinne that is to say of inward corruption Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith that if sinne be properly taken it may be truly said of some men that they are without sinne because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken that so long as a man liueth it must needs be in him as S. Austin speaketh Now he will proue that sinne is there vnproperly taken because S. Austin placeth it in the members For according to S. Austin and all the learned the subiect of sinne properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance Why M. Bishop is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie but onely by the soule Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse but that he knew that e Aug. contra Julian lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit the flesh is said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh which S. Austine confirmeth and saith that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem rursuâ— motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum ideò dicitur â—are concupiscere aduersus spiritum c. it is the soule it selfe which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to to the flesh and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to the spirit and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit and the spirit contrarie to the flesh Who knoweth not this saith he to Iulian which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs And what doth not M. Bishop know it that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome Let me tell him once againe that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence which the bodie is not of it selfe but onely by the soule and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie but that S. Austin by sinne in the members doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne to say nothing of that I haue before declared that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe thrall and subiect vnto sin For conclusion of this point he
addeth that S. Austin in the same passage signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinne and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate onely an infirmitie and weaknesse But it is his singular impudencie to alledge S. Austin so directly contrarie to his whole drift and purpose in that place which is as before was said to shew that sinne is in vs whilest we liue onely that it may not hurt vs we must haue care that we make not our selues the seruants of it Whereas he saith that iniquitie is taken away he meaneth it of the guilt thereof which ceasseth in the regenerate by the forgiuenesse of their sinnes but otherwise he himselfe affirmeth and approueth Ambrose affirming the same that g Contra Julian lib. 2 lib. 9. cap. 8. Neque enim nulla est tui quitas cùm 〈◊〉 vno homine vel inferiora superioribus contumacitès reluctantur etiamsi vincere non sinantur it is an iniquitie in vs that the flesh lusteth against the spirit albeit it be not suffered to ouercome He saith that the iniquitie being taken away there remaineth an infirmitie but not taking infirmitie in that sence as M. Bishop doth for a meere weaknesse but for that that he himselfe elsewhere expoundeth it when he saith that h De peccatâ—â—eris remis li. 2. cap. 17. Ignorantia infirmitas vitia sunt quae impediunt voluntatem nemoueatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel abopere malo abstinendum ignorance and infirmitie are the vices which do hinder the will that it moueth not to do good or to abstaine from euill which he calleth elsewhere i De nat grae cap. 67. Omni peccati animae duo ista poenaliae ignorantia difficuâ—tas the penalties of euery soule of man Whereby it appeareth that by infirmitie he meaneth that vitiousnesse and corruption of mans nature which ensued of the first sinne whereby it is disabled to the doing of good and forbearing of euill which in part is cured in regeneration but yet in part he saith is remaining still Thus M. Bishop we see maketh the best shift he can with words because in matter he can light vpon nothing to serue his turne 8. W. BISHOP Aug. Epist 29. M. Perkins 4. reason is taken from the record of the ancient Church Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as a man liues vpon earth as long as it may be increased that which is lesse then it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not c. For which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our worst deeds thoughts be alreadie forgiuen in Baptisme Answer That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but onely that the best men for want of perfect Charitie do often sinne venially which we graunt R. ABBOT S. Austin saith that a August Epist 29. Plenissima charitas quae iam non possit augeri quamdiu hic homo vttâ—â— est in nemâ—neâ— quamdiu autem augeri potest quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est perfect charitie which can now no further be increased is in no man so long as he liueth here And so long as it may be increased saith he surely that that it is lesse then it shold be EX VITIO EST is by reason of some vice corruption default M. Bishop answereth that here is neuer a word of concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme But if he had meant honestly he should haue told vs what is meant by that vitium call it vice or blemish or staine or corruption or default or all these If it be not vnderstood of concupiscence and the continuing blot and staine of Originall sinne he should haue told vs what we are otherwise to vnderstand by it But he could deuise nothing else whereof to vnderstand it and therefore is content with a very homely and beggarly shift to passe it ouer that forsooth there is nothing said of concupiscence when yet that that is said cannot be meant of any thing else And that it is so meant S. Austin himselfe plainely confirmeth vnto vs by the like sentence in another place b De na gra cap. 38. Si in Abeltusio charitas Dei adhuc erat quo posset deberet augeri quicquid minus erat ex vitioerat If in Abel saith he there were wherein the loue of God might and ought to be increased that that was too little ex vitio erat was by reason of some vice or corruption And this he sheweth to be the same that the Apostle speaketh of when he saith Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies c. This sinne he tearmeth vitium and saith c Ex hoc vitio mittitur oculus quonon oportet By this vice or corruption the eye is cast whither it ought not to be and if it go forward and preuaile adulterie is committed Againe he addeth Hoc peccatum id est hunc vitiosae affectionis appetitum qui magna ex parte frenarunt c. This sinne that is to say this lust of vitious affection they who haue for the most part bridled haue deserued to be called iust And thus very often he calleth concupiscence a vice and the motions thereof vices as before was said Now in the place cited S. Austin addeth as touching the effect of this vice d Epist 29. Ex quo vitio non est nisius super terram c. Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur c. By reason of which vice there is not a iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not By reason of which vice no man liuing shall be iustified or found iust in the sight of God By reason of which vice if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. Which two latter clauses M. Bishop very trecherously and falsly hath left out because he saw them wholy contrarie to all that he saith For if by reason of this vice of concupiscence we cannot say that we haue no sinne then it must needes follow that concupiscence is truly sin If by reason of this vice no man liuing shall be found iust in the sight of God then this vice that is to say concupiscence is sin because nothing hindreth a man from being iust in the sight of God but onely sinne And this taketh away the other part of his answer that S. Austine onely saith that the best men for want of perfect charitie do often sinne venially For by their doctrine veniall sinnes hinder not a man from being iust in the sight of God whereas the vice of which S. Austin speaketh is
2. ex Hilar. in Psal 118. Gimel Nos in hoc terreni morti câ—â— corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse that we cannot be cleane in the tabernacle of this earthly and carion body x Jbid. ex homil quadam de lib. sancti Iob. Memores conscuÌ„ illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omniuÌ„ esse materiem pro quae polluti sordidi ni il in nebis munâ—uÌ„ nihil innotens obâ—inemus that our bodies are the matter of all vices by reason whereof being polluted and defiled we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane not as to condemne the substance of the bodie die but y Ibid. pugnandi necistias contra malum non sub stantiam sed sub stantie vitium vitium substantiae the vitious quality of the substance and to signifie that therewith we still continue in part stained and defiled so long as we continue vpoÌ„ the earth Now there is nothing wherby we are vncleane polluted defiled but onely sinne Seeing therfore by the remainder of Original sinne that is by concupiscence we continue after baptisme vncleane polluted defiled it followeth necessarily that co câ—piscence after baptisme is properly and truly sinne And if concupiscence be not sinne without consent then by S. Austines iudgement the Apostles must be said to liue without sinne For he affirmeth of them that they were z Contr. duas Epist Pelag. lib. 1. cap 11. Apostolos dicimus à prauorum libidinum consensione liberos c. free from any consent to euil lusts meaning it after they had receiued that great measure of the holy Ghost And so much he affirmeth particularly of the Apostle a Ju Joan. tract 41. Faciebat vt concupiscentia non consentiret Vide Bernard in Cantic Ser. 56. Paul But to affirme that the Apostles were free from sinne is b De nat grat cap 36. Omnes sancti si interrogari potuissent vna voce clamassent si dixerimus quia peccatum non habeâ—â—â—â— c. contrary to the doctrine of S. Austine Concupiscence therfore by S. Austines iudgement must necessarily be sinne And hereto agree also the iudgements of the rest of the Fathers Cyprian calleth it in the regenerate c Cypri de rat circumcis Huius contagio corruptelae Babyloniae fornax domesticum malum de quo â—ruhescent quicunque mundè corde regere in decore suo videre desiderant insaniens bestia corrupti anhelitus catenis ferreis in vltimis animae recessibus alliganda a corruption the fornace of Babylon a domesticall euill of which they will be ashamed who desire with pure heart to see the king in his beautie a raging beast of stinking breath to be tied vp with iron chaines in the furthest passages of the soule He saith againe of the d Idem de teiun et tentat Christi Nec originali nec personali nec personalicaeruere delicto holy Prophets and Priests that they wanted neither Originall nor personall sinne and thereby confesseth that in holy men Originall sinne continueth still Ambrose calleth concupiscence euen in the regenerate e Ambros de Apol. Dauid ca. 11. Deplorauit in se Dauid inquinamenta naturae Et ibid. cap. 13. Iniquitas operatrix cuâ—pae delicti radix seminarium peccatorum mala radix affectus erroris a defilement of nature iniquitie the worker of default and trespasse the seed-plot of sinnes an euill roote an affection of errour Bernard in the like sort calleth it f Bern. de sex tribulat Quod in homine pimum ab hac macula immune ab hoc contagio poterit inueniri Tribulatio dum resistirur contaminationi concupisceÌ„tiae repugnatur De corde exit pestiferum virus Huic multisariae pesti resistere Fomes totius nequitiae Fornax ambitionis c omnium denique vittorum affectibus vehementer acceâ—sa a contamination a blot a contagion a pestilent poyson a manifold pestilence the cherishment of all naughtinesse a fornace strongly burning with the affections of ambition auarice enuie wilfulnesse lewdnesse and all vices He againe maketh it euen by it selfe g Bernar in Cant. ser 56. Pauli animae ab aspecta complexu dilecti vnus tantummodo paries obsistebat videlices lex peccati Ipsa est carnis concupescentia c. paries primus concupiscentia secundus consâ—nsus c. a wall which so long as it is in vs excludeth and shutteth vs out from God as of Paul for example he saith that this one wall hindered his soule from the sight and embracing of his beloued Sauiour By all which the Reader may esteeme what consciences they had in the Councell of Trent that set it downe to the world as an article to be beleeued that concupiscence is h Concil Triden Sess 5. In renatis nihil quod odit Deus nihil ab ingressu coeli remoratur not a thing that God hateth that it is not a thing that hindereth from entring into heauen These speeches cannot be thus applied to any thing but sinne We haue no cause to be ashamed of any thing before God but onely sinne God cannot but hate all spirituall corruption all filthinesse all iniquitie all contagion and vncleannesse of the soule and seeing concupiscence is a wall that shutteth vs out from God it must needs be sinne because nothing can diuide vs from God but onely sinne Now therefore as touching the two places which M. Bishop citeth in the second section wherein S. Austin denieth concupiscence to be sinne the answer is plaine by Austin himselfe i De nupt Concupis lib. 2. cap. 34. Quia remissa est in remissione peccatorum non iam regeneratis in peccatum reputatur because it is forgiuen to the regenerate by remission of sinnes it is not now reputed to them for sinne It is sinne in it owne nature but because the guilt thereof is pardoned therefore and in that respect onely it is not accounted sinne And hereby the answer is plaine to that other cauill which they borrow also from S. Austin that k Epist 200. Si nocti eorum adhiberemus assensum non esset vnde diceremus patri nostro qui in coelis est Dimitte nobis c. for concupiscence or the desires and motions thereof we do not say forgiue vs our trespasses so long as we giue no consent vnto them For the reason that S. Austin giueth of that assertion is l Cont. 2. epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsam cuius iam reatus lauaecro regenerationis absumptus est dicunt in oratione Baptizati Dimitte nobis c. Et cont lit Petil. lib. 2. ca. 103. Neque de his peccatis hoc petimus quae nobis in Baptismo taem dimissa sunt because the guilt thereof is alreadie taken away in Baptisme because the same are alreadie forgiuen and pardoned in Baptisme thereby insinuating that concupiscence and the motions thereof in themselues are such as for which we should say forgiue
shalt be saued This whether spoken publikly or priuatly the conscience of the hearer apprehendeth this he beleeueth and therein beleeueth not the minister but the word of Christ and because he beleeueth in Iesus Christ and by the word of Christ beleeueth that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued therefore he beleeueth concerning himselfe that he shall be saued Thus much is implied though not expressed in M. Perkins answer now let vs heare what M. Bishop saith to the contrarie and there we shall heare not one wise word Good Sir saith he seeing euery man is a lyer as M. Bishop namely for example and may both deceiue and be deceiued and the minister telling may erre how doth he know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect I answer him Good Sir M. Perkins no where telleth you that the minister taketh vpon him to know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect but doth onely assure him that if he beleeue in Christ he shall be saued and therein the minister knoweth and the man to whom he speaketh knoweth that be mistaketh not when vnder this condition he assureth him of saluation because he assureth him not vpon any deceiueable word or warrant of his owne but vpon the vndeceiueable word and warrant of Christ that n Rom. 9.33 whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not be confounded He goeth on To affirme as you do that the Minister is to be beleeued as well as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie I answer him againe To talke as you do you know not what is the part of a brabling Sophister not of a learned diuine For M. Perkins doth not affirme that the minister is to be beleeued as well as Christ himselfe but that the word of the Gospell preached by the minister is to be beleeued as if Christ himselfe did here personally speake because it is the word of Christ himselfe who when he saith whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued doth therein say Cornelius beleeue and thou shalt be saued Peter beleeue and thou shalt he saued or if he meane not so cannot truly say whosoeuer beleeueth shall be saued And for this he hath the warrant of Gods word and commission from Christ because being for Christ a minister of the Gospell his office is to preach the Gospell and it is the word of the Gospell that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life Therefore this is not to say that the ministers word counteruailes Gods word or to make euery pelting minister Gods mate as the paltry shaueling prateth but it is to challenge assent and credit to the word of God to the Gospell of Christ vpon which onely and not vpon the minister the faithfull beleeuer doth rely himselfe But to quit M. Bishop with a question we will aske him Good Sir may Iohn a Stile beleeue that you haue authorie from Christ to giue him absolution of all his sinnes You will vndoubtedly tell him Yes that he must so in any case But Iohn a Stile asketh againe I pray Sir where doth Christ speake of you or of me For I do not find in the Gospell that euer Christ made mention of either of vs. M. Bishop will tell him that Christ said to the Apostles to all Priests their successors o Iohn 20.23 Whose soeuer sinnes ye remit they are remitted and because he is a Priest therefore this authoritie belongeth to him So then because Christ hath sayd to all Priests whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted though he sayd it to farre other purpose then M. Bishop practiseth it therefore Iohn a Stile must beleeue that M. Bishop hath authoritie from Christ to absolue him from all his sinnes Now will not M. Bishop be so fauourable to vs as that from a generall we may inferre a particular as well as he Surely if when Christ sayd Whose sinne sye remit they are remitted he spake in effect of M. Bishop and Iohn a Stile we see no reason why we should not be permitted the like construction that when Christ saith Whosoeuer beleeueth in me shall not perish but haue euerlasting life he saith and by the minister may be reported to say in effect to this man or that man Beleeue thou in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt haue eternal life This matter need not so many words but that we haue to do with impudent wranglers who being blinded with malice are as farre from common discretion as they are from truth Whereupon it is that in the next words he cauilleth againe as if M. Perkins had sayd that the minister knowes who is predestinate or did say to Peter for example Thou art one of the elect whereas he hath not a letter or syllable to giue any shew hereof but onely expresseth a conditionall assurance by the word of the Gospell to this man or that man or whomsoeuer that if he repent and beleeue the Gospell he shall be saued the minister not taking vpon him to know that any man truly repenteth or beleeueth which God onely can know but leauing the man to apprehend the promise vpon conscience of his owne repentance and faith in Christ Therefore all this idle talke of M. Bishops is but for want of matter as his alledging of the words of the Apostle to proue that whereof there is no question made that the Lord onely knoweth who are his and none else but only as it is reuealed from him He goeth on and telleth vs that M. Perkins flieth from the assurance of the minister and leaues him to speake at randon as the blind man casts his club Bur M. Perkins flieth from nothing that he had before sayd but still leaueth the word of Christ onely preached by the minister in Christs name to be the onely assurance for the faithfull to build vpon Neither doth the minister speake at randon but certainly and definitely he affirmeth by the same word to him that repenteth and beleeueth that he shall be saued though he know not who it is that shall repent or beleeue and so be saued and therefore in that respect if M. Bishop will needs haue it so speakes at randon euen as the blind man casts his club not knowing whom he shall strike as the fisherman casts his net not knowing what fish he shall catch no otherwise then the Apostles did at whose preaching some beleeued other some blasphemed and beleeued not according to that which S. Austin saith p August de praedest sanct cap. 6. Many heare the word of truth some of them beleeue it some contradict and speake against it So therfore the minister as touching the effect of preaching speaketh vncertatnly not knowing where the seed shall grow but yet certainly deliuering that wheresoeuer it shall bring forth the fruit of faith it shall also bring forth eternall life Which assurance he giueth by the word of Christ and the faith of the hearer thence apprehendeth and thereof concludeth assurance
to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers with the sinne of vnbeleefe this is for a man being in the house of faith to be without faith So that by Cyprians iudgement to haue faith is for a man to beleeue his owne Saluation and not to beleeue his owne Saluation is to be without faith But Saint Bernard handleth this point most pregnantly of all other p Bernard in Annunciat ser 1. Necesse est primo omnium credere quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possis nisi per indulgentiam Dei c postremò quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes operibus promereri nisi gratis detur illa c. Verum haec non omnino sufficiunt sed magis initium quoddam velut fundamentum fidei sunt habenda Ideeque sicredis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti benefacis sed adde adhuc vt hoc credas quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur Hoc est testimonium quod perhibit in corde nostro Spi. sanctus dicens Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus gratis iustificari hominem per fidem Sic de vita aeterna habeas necesse est testimonium spiritus quòd ad eam sis diuino munere peruenturus It is necessarie for thee to beleeue that thou canst not haue forgiuenesse of sinnes but by the mercie of God and that by no works thou canst obtaine eternall life vnlesse it also be giuen thee But these things are not sufficient nay they are to be accounted but the beginning and as it were the foundation of faith Therefore if thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be put away but by him to whom onely thou hast sinned thou doest well but adde hereto to beleeue THAT BY HIM THY SINNES ARE FORGIVEN THEE This is the testimony that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee for thus doth the Apostle define that a man is freely iustified by faith So also as touching eternall life it is needfull that thou haue the testimony or witnesse of the spirit THAT THOV SHALT COME VNTO IT BY THE GIFT OF GOD. Here then it is plaine that without any thirteenth article of the Creed the faith wherby the Apostle saith a man is iustified is such a faith as whereby I beleeue mine owne Saluation whereby I beleeue that my sinnes are forgiuen me and that I shall attaine by the very gift of God vnto euerlasting life But saith M. Bishop I beleeue and trust in God Yet not being sure of my loue towards him I am not assured of Saluation Where he plainly sheweth that he hath no loue towards God because where loue is it cannot but be certainly felt and knowne and if he loued God he could not but assure himselfe thereof Now therefore it is no maruell that he hath no assurance of Saluation when there wanteth in him the certaine and infallible effect of that faith whereby he should be assured of Saluation For true faith is the fountaine of our loue towards God whilest beleeuing God to be such and so mercifull vnto vs it swaloweth vp our affections and draweth our loue and deuotion vnto him Which is not vnfelt in vs but by the feeling thereof in our selues we gather a further confirmation and assurance to our selues that we are beloued of God Both which S. Bernard well declareth saying of the faithfull man q Bernard epist 107. Vermis vilissimus odio dignissimus sempiterno tamen confi lit amari quia se sentit amare immo quia se amari praesentit non redarâ—are confunditur A vile worme and worthy to be hated euerlastingly yet assureth himselfe that he is beloued because he feeleth himselfe to loue nay because he first feeleth himselfe to be beloued therefore he is ashamed not to loue againe So againe he saith that r Jdem in Cant. ser 69. Amor Dei amorem animae parit c. Ex eo quod se diligere sentit eti am diligi non ambigit the loue of God breedeth in the soule loue towards God and by feeling it selfe to loue it is also out of doubt that it selfe is beloued Now what a miserable case is M. Bishop in that neither is sure of his loue towards God nor dare assure himselfe of Gods loue towards him If he had not a senselesse and dead heart he could not but much grieue and lament at his owne estate And yet forsooth he telleth vs that he doth beleeue and trust in God but therein he lieth vnto God For Å¿ Cyprian de duplici martyr Non credit in deuÌ„ qui non tu cosolo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam he doth not beleeue in God that doth not place the confidence of his felicity in God onely which he doth not place in God onely but partly in God and partly in himselfe He doth not trust in God that doth not rely wholly vpon Gods mercy and thereby looke for that at his hands for which he trusteth in him so as to account himselfe deceiued by him if he faile thereof which neuer hath befallen to any not shall befall that doth put his trust in God M. Bishop diuideth this trust betwixt God and himselfe and so trusteth in God as that he maketh that for which he professeth to trust in God to hang chiefely vpon himselfe and therefore no maruell if he haue no assurance of Saluation because he incurreth rather the curse denounced by the Prophet t Ierem. 1â— 5 Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme For what doth he else when he leaueth the whole worke of God as we haue heard before to be confirmed and made good by his own free wil Now as touching that other article of beleeuing in Christ to haue by his merits remission of sinnes S. Austine teacheth vs that u August in Ioan tract 29. de verb. dom ser 61. Credendo in cum ire membru â—ius incorporari c. Quoquo modo vnitur in eum menibrum in corpore â—ius efficitur to beleeue in Christ is to be vnited vnto Christ to be made one with him to be incorporated to be members of his body He expoundeth it to be all one with that which Christ saith in the Gospell of x Idem in Ioan. tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum eating his flesh drinking his bloud which whosoeuer doth y Iohn 6.54.56 dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him he hath eternall life and Christ will raise him vp at the last day Thus the Gospell of Christ instructeth vs and he that beleeueth in Christ because he beleeueth the Gospell must beleeue that he is a member of Christ one with Christ and Christ with him that he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him that Christ hath giuen vnto him eternall life and will raise him vp at the
knowne of the partie that hath it but true repentance cannot But how must we conceiue of faith when it is rightly taken Forsooth he telleth vs that it is a light of vnderstanding and so being like a lampe may be easily scene But true faith is not onely a matter of vnderstanding but a mixt action of the vnderstanding and will and consisteth not onely in knowing but in seeking and desiring and embracing the thing that we vnderstand Therefore Oecumenius obserueth that the faith recommended by S. Paul beside stedfast assent importeth a Oâ—cumen in epist Iac. cap. 2. Consecutionem ex affectu procedentem cum firmo assensu no mine fidei vocamus a further matter prooceeding out of the affection So we saw before that Bernard maketh it to be such as whereby a man beleeueth that his sinnes are forgiuen him Which M. Bishop might haue learned also of Ferus one of their owne Prophets though a more faithfull Prophet then commonly theirs are who faith that b Ferus in Mat. cap 27. Credere est confidere DeuÌ„ per Chrâ—stum peccata non imputaturum to beleeue is to trust that God for Christs sake wil not impute our sinnes But that we may see the spirit of giddinesse wherewith this man is caried vp and downe he himselfe but a little before hath told vs that godly and deuout submission of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith is a necessarie condition of faith properly so called Faith then is not only a light of vnderstanding but implieth godlinesse deuotion and submitting of the vnderstanding to the obedience of faith which because it cannot be without repentance hope and charitie it necessarily followeth that if a man knoweth that he hath faith he knoweth also that he hath godlinesse deuotion obedience repentance hope charitie and so M. Bishops replie euen by himselfe is vtterly ouerthrowne And to this purpose S. Austin telleth vs that c August de verb. Dom ser 61 Qui fidem habet sine spe dileâ—â—ane Christum essâ— credâ— non in Christum credit a man cannot beleeue in Christ without hope and loue and S. Bernard that d Berâ—ard in Cant serm 24. Mors fiâ—es separatio esi charitatis the separation of charitie is the death of faith and Origen that e Oriâ—enan Ro. ca 4 Scieâ—s fidei speâ— insenâ— ibiater conarere hope cleaueth inseparably vnto faith Then if a man know that he hath faith he cannot be ignorant that he hath also hope and charitie without which there is no true faith It is therefore a meere fiction of M. Bishop that a man may know that he hath faith but he cannot know that he hath true repentance because repentance requireth hope and charitie which forsooth are seated in the darke corners of the will and cannot certainly be discerned What a fond toy is this that a man hopeth and knoweth not that he hopeth that he repenteth and knoweth not that he repenteth that he loueth and knoweth not that he loueth Surely where these things are they are knowne and if they be not known it is because they are not For f 2. Cor 2.11 the spirit of man knoweth the things that are in man he discerneth what is in himselfe though not alwayes the measure and quantitie thereof Otherwise how doth S. Iohn say q 1 Ioh. 3.14 By this we know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren How shall we know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren if we cannot know that we loue the brethren h August iâ— Ioan. epist tract 5. Attendat in cor vidcat si habeat charitatem tunc dicat natus sum ex Deo Let a man looke into his heart and see if he haue charitie and then let him say I am borne of God saith S. Austin but to what end if a man cannot see and know whether he haue charitie or not The same S. Austin saith i De ver Apost ser 6. Si quis spiritum Christi non habet non se fellat hic non est eius Ecce adiuuâ—nâ—e ipsius misericordia spirâ—tum Christi habemus ex ipsa dilectione iustitiae integra fide catholica fide spiritum Dei nobis inesse cognoscimus If a man haue not the spirit of Christ let him not deceiue himselfe he is none of Christs Behold saith he by the helpe of Gods mercie we haue the spirit of Christ By the loue of righteousnesse and true faith the Catholike faith we know that there is in vs the spirit of God How shall we know by the loue of righteousnesse that the spirit of God is in vs if we cannot know that there is in vs the loue of righteousnes But to infringe that idle deuice M. Perkins alledgeth the words of S. Paul k 2. Cor. 13.5 Proue your selues whether you are in the faith For to what end is this spoken if we cannot know whether we are in the faith or not But M. Bishop saith that they accord that it may be tried whether a man haue faith or not importing therefore that the place is nothing against them But he may not so auoide for the being in the faith whereof the Apostle speaketh signifieth more then he intendeth thereby Which appeareth plainely by the words which the Apostle addeth Knovv ye not that Christ is in you except yee be reprobates thereby shewing that to proue a mans selfe vvhether he be in the faith is to proue whether Christ be in him because the faith of which he speaketh is that l Bernard in ocâ—aua Pasch ser 1 Eacommendatur fides per quaÌ„ Christus in cordibus nostris habitat liuely faith vvhereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts And m Rom. 8.10 if Christ be in you saith the same Apostle the bodie is dead as touching sinne but the spirit is life for righteousnesse sake which cannot be without repentance hope charitie and such other vertues wherewith the spirit of Christ endueth them in whom Christ doth dwell He therefore that knoweth himselfe to be in the faith as the Apostle meaneth it knoweth Christ to be in himselfe he knoweth himselfe to be dead to sinne and aliue to righteousnesse and that he is not without repentance hope charitie and other vertues wrought in him by the spirit of Christ As for that other meaning of the place which M. Bishop speaketh of if he had set it downe I doubt not but we should haue taken him tardie therein as well as we do in all the rest To the other place of the same Apostle 1 Cor. 2.12 that we haue receiued not the spirit of this world but the spirit which is in God that we may know the things that are giuen vnto vs of God he answereth that the Apostle meaneth it of those things whereof he there speaketh The things which neither eye hath seene nor eare hath heard c. God hath
heart that he followed Christ but onely to make a commodity to himselfe Of Simon Magus S Luke saith indeed that x Act. 8.13 he beleeued but so as that Peter perceiueth amidst his beleeuing that y Ver. 21.23 his heart was not right in the sight of God that he was in the gall of bitternesse and in the bond of iniquitie whereby it appeareth that his beleeuing was no more but z Occumen in epist Iacob cap. 2. Et de simplici assensu fidem dicere solemus a bare assenting as Occumenius calleth it to the doctrine of faith and not that true and effectuall beleeuing whereof we speake Such members of Christ doth he make doing wrong to Iesus Christ onely to hide his owne shame that he might not be thought to maintaine a wrong The like he affirmeth of all Arch-heretikes the first they were of the faithfull expresly contrary to that which S. Iohn saith a 1. Iohn 2.19 They went out from vs but THEY VVERE NOT OF VS for if they had bene OF VS they would haue continued with vs. Which being so plainly affirmed by the Apostle we may maruell that M. Bishop should say the contrary but that he hath harnessed his face and his conscience that it may be no blush nor scruple to him to auouch one lie for the vpholding of another What his exception is to that place of Iohn we shal see in the next section but one where he hath taken vpon him the answer of it 9. W. BISHOP But what need we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosengerman if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome Heres 82. lib. 2. cons. Iouin and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sinne and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slip at once a brace of other heresies these be his words And if by sinne one were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall errour of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedie left in Gods Church for their recouerie but must be left to God so saith M. Perkins for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurditie being graunted a thousand follow after But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet wherewith they begin their Common praier What houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ R. ABBOT We may here take knowledge of the absurd folly of this prater who hauing before chalenged M. Perkins for affirming that sinne is alwaies in the regenerate corrupting all his works goeth about here to lay vpon him an imputation of maintaining that the regenerate cannot sinne Surely both these cannot stand together and if M. Perkins hold the one he must needs be a stranger to the other But thus he bableth without feare or wit neuer regarding how one part of his speech hath coherence with the other As touching Iouinian if he simply taught that which Hierome and Austine affirme that the regenerate cannot sinne he erred greatly therein and we ioine with Austine and Hierome in the condemning of that opinion But if they did misunderstand his opinion and that he held onely this as in likelihood he did that the regenerate cannot finally and vtterly fall away by sinne or sinne that sinne which is vnto death a 1 Iohn 3.9 and onely meant as S. Iohn doth Whosoeuer is borne of God sinneth not neither can he sinne because he is borne of God he erred no whit at all nor affirmed any thing therein but what Hierome and Austine haue affirmed as well as he and M. Bishop knew well enough that it is this onely that M. Perkins deliuered not that the regenerate cannot or do not sinne whose fals we confesse to be very many and to themselues very grieuous from day to day but that the regenerate doth not so sinne as vtterly to be cut off from Christ that the faithfull man doth neuer finally or wholly fall away from the grace of God To which purpose S. Bernard saith b Bernard de implic haerint vincul c. Noâ—â— Dominus qui sunt etus propositum Dei manet immobile Et si horrendorum crimirum nos Dauid muritur etsi Maria Magdalene sep â— saemonijs cumulatur ets priaceps Apostolorum in profundum negationis submergitur non est tamen qui de manis Dei possit cruere The Lord knoweth who are his and the purpose of God abideth vnmoueable Although Dauid be branded with the brand of horrible sinnes although Mary Magdalen be fraught with seuen deuils although Peter the chiefe of the Apostles be drowned in the depth of denying his maister Christ yet there is none that can take them or pluck them out of the hands of God not that it is incident to the faithfull to walke in malicious and wilfull sinne but when by occasion or temptation he falleth the Lord c Luc. 22.61 looketh vpon him as he did vpon Peter that he may repent the d Psal 37.24 Lord putteth vnder his hand and lifteth him vp againe We see therefore how little trust is to be giuen to him who sticketh not to deliuer so manifest and apparant vntruth He is like the cariers horse that brooketh not to go out of his accustomed way we had had no booke of him if he had bene tyed to speake nothing but what is true Now M. Perkins for assertion of the perseuerance of the faithfull addeth further that if a man be a member of Christ he cannot be wholly cut off not so much as for a time much lesse for euer For if he could wholly be cut off for the time then at his returne he ought to be baptized againe which being absurd to affirme it followeth that a man cannot wholly be cut off In which confirmation M. Bishop saith that he hath let slip a brace of other heresies Where we may conceiue that he was mightily a-dreamed of heresies the night before he wrote this and they ranne so thicke in his head that he imagined euery man that he met with to be an heretike Surely M. Bishop if
iudge of our selues who in our greatest innocencie as seemeth vs yet cannot iustifie our selues to God and when to our selues we are guiltie of nothing yet with him are found guilty many waies because he seeth in as that that we see not in our selues and espieth iniquities and defaults where we by our sight can descry none so that to his sight haply they are found superiours to vs whom we thinke to be our inferiors they are approued for the better whō mens iudgements take to be the worse therfore reiecting the vainglorious cōmendations of partially affected men we are to refer our selues wholy to the iudgement of the Lord. And thus are those words expoūded by those very authors whō M. Bishop citeth not that men may haue secret faults which perhaps may hinder their being iust but that the best haue secret faults at least by reason whereof in themselues they are not iust Thus Ambrose taketh it f Ambros in Psal 118. ser 5. Delicti conscius sibi non erat sed quia homo erat peccatorem se fatebatur scieus vnum esse Iesum lumen verum qui peccatum non fecit c. ipsum solii iustificari qui verè alienus esset à lapsu The Apostle was not to himselfe guiltie of default but because he was a man he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus onely is the true light who did no sinne neither was there guile found in his mouth and that he onely is found iust who was indeed free from falling The words of Theodoret are not so plaine but Basil euidently maketh the Apostle to say g Basil in Constit monast cap. 2. Hoc est multa pecco quae non intelligo vnde propheta dixit Delicta quis intelliget c. Licet multa peccamus plura tamē dilectorum nostrorum ignoramus I offend in many things which I know not as it is writtē who knoweth how oft he offendeth For although we sinne many wayes yet we do not know or we are not ware of many of our sinnes The Apostles words then import not a doubt but an absolute deniall of his being iust euen by the testimonie of M. Bishops owne records And this shall further appeare in the next question vpon further examination of the same words M. Bishop therefore must change his antecedent proposition and not say We are vncertaine of our owne iustice or righteousnesse but rather We are certaine and sure that in our selues we are not iust And if hereof he will conclude that we must therefore doubt of our owne Saluation we must tell him that his argument holdeth not Indeed if our Saluation were to stand vpon our owne righteousnesse we were not onely to doubt but wholy to despaire of our owne Saluation because by inherent iustice as shall be shewed no man shall be iustified in Gods sight Euen in our greatest perfection when we looke vnto our selues and our owne righteousnesse we are subiect to that amased distraction which the Apostle describeth euen to say h Rom. 10.6 Who shall ascend into heauen as if Christ were not ascended to make way for vs and Who shall descend into the deepe as if Christ had not died to deliuer vs from thence we can neuer satisfie our selues how either to escape the one or to attaine the other Therefore we according to the promise of the Gospell rest the assurance of Saluation vpon faith in Christ fully beleeuing that his merit is our righteousnesse and that by the vertue thereof we are accepted vnto eternall life Which sith M. Bishop knew well inough it was but an idle vagarie of his to alledge this so impertinently for an argument against vs. Now as touching the testimonies that he further alledgeth the first of them is nothing to the matter in hand to say nothing that he quoteth it from a place where it is not found where it is found is not Austins though it be in an homily amongst his The author of those words speaketh to the same purpose as the Apostle did to disswade from taking delight in the praises and commendations of men because they cannot know what commendation should be due vnto vs. Yea saith he i Aug. homil 35. Quamdus viuimus hic de nobisipsis nosipsi iudicare non possumus non dico quod eras erimus sed quod hodie simus Quantè minus delemus moueri iudicijs alienis quà m de conscientia nostra quae nobis perhibet testimonium Nam gloria nostra debet esse conscientia nostra So long as we liue here we our selues cannot iudge of our selues I say not what we shall be to morrow but what we are to day how much lesse then should we be moued with other mens iudgements then with our owne conscience which giueth testimonie vnto vs for our conscience should be our glorie We are not then vpon other mens opinions of vs to swell in opinion of our selues we do not for the present sufficiently conceiue our owne imperfections and defaults which with God may detract from vs much of that which men attribute vnto vs we know not whether God may suffer vs to fall as he doth many times his dearest children to staine that commendation and vaine glorie that we take too great pleasure in but all this hindereth nothing but that faith is assured by the word of God that God will neuer suffer it so to faile or vs so to fall as to fall vtterly away from him The other place of Austin speaketh indefinitely of all who k Aug de ciuit Dei lib. 11. cap. 12. Quos videmus iustè ac prè cum spe futurae immortalitatis hanc vitā ducere c. Licet de suae perseuerantiae praemio certi sūt de ipsa tamē perseuerantia sua reperiuntur incerti c. to our sight liue iustly and godlily with hope of future immortalitie who though they be all sure that there is a reward of perseuerance yet are not all sure to perseuere because all are not indeed the same that to our sight they seeme to be Onely they are assured thereof as he saith l Quis sciat c nisi aliqua reuelatione ab illo fiat certus qui de hac re iusto latentique iudicio nō omnes instruit sed neminem fallit whom God assureth by reuelation from him who doth reueale it by faith through the spirit in our vocation and iustification as we haue heard before out of S. Bernards words The same S. Austin saith to his hearers m De ver Apos ser 16. Fidei quae per dilectionem operatur si est in vobis iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos vocatos iustificatos If there be in you faith which worketh by loue euen now ye belong to them that are predestinated called iustified Now sith the faithful by S. Austins iudgement do belong to thē that are predestinated called iustified it followeth by S. Austins iudgement that they
therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ It is no arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued it is not pride but deuotion What word is here of Certaintie of Saluation but that it belongeth to a faithfull man to confesse himselfe much bound to God for calling of him to be his Which euery Christian must do hoping himselfe so to be and being most certaine that if he be not in state of grace it is long of himselfe and no want on Gods part The second place hath not so much as any shew of words for him thus he speaketh Let no man aske another man Tract 5. in Epis Ioan. but returne to his owne heart and if he find Charity there he hath securitie for his passage from like to death What need was there to seeke charity in his heart for securitie of his Saluation if his faith assured him thereof therefore this text maketh flat against him R. ABBOT The words of Austine or rather of Ambrose for he indeed is the author of them are these a August de verb. Dom. ser 28. ex Ambros de sacram lib 5. cap. 4. O homo nō audebas oculos tuos ad coelum attollere oculos tuos ad terram dirigebas subitò accepisti gratiam Christi Omnia tibi peccata dimissa sūt Ex malo seruo factus es bonus filius Ideo praesume non de operatione tua sed de Christi gratià Gratia enim saluati estis Apostolus ait Non ergo hìc arrogantia est sed fides praedicare quod acceperis non est superbia sed deuotio O man thou didst not dare to lift thine eies to heauen thou didst cast them to the earth and vpon the sodaine thou receiuedst the grace of Christ all thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Of an euill seruant thou art made a good sonne Presume therefore not of thine owne working but of the grace of Christ For by grace ye are saued saith the Apostle Here therefore is no arrogancie but faith to speake of that which thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion To which words Maister Bishop answereth What word is here of Certaintie of Saluation when as expresly against his assertion it is affirmed that the faithfull regenerate in Christ doth presume that his sinnes are forgiuen him that he hath receiued the grace of Christ that he is made the child of God and that this is no arrogancie no pride no vnlawfull presumption but a matter of faith a matter of deuotion and a good presumption as he calleth it afterwards Now all these things he comprehendeth vnder the name of Saluation citing to that purpose the words of the Apostle By grace ye are saued For how doth the Apostle say By grace ye are saued as of a thing done already but for that we are made partakers of the forgiuenesse of sinnes haue receiued the grace of Christ and are become the children of God Therefore in presuming of these things as Ambrose willeth the faithfull to do we consequently presume and stand assured of our owne Saluation because in these things our Saluation is begun as appeareth by the words of Christ concerning Zacheus b Luk. 19.9 This day Saluation is come to this house because this man is become the sonne of Abraham And whereas M. Bishop saith we may not presume hereof because we know not our owne works or righteousnesse S. Ambrose telleth vs that this is not to be presumed of our owne works but of the grace of Christ the true calling whereof is such as maketh vs that whereunto we are called because we are thereby called not at the eare onely but inwardly and in the heart Therefore them that are thus truly called S. Ambrose willeth not coldly to hope according to the manner of M. Bishops hope where feare is as strong as hope but faithfully and deuoutly to presume that they are in the state of grace not with doubting to thinke that if they be not so it is long of themselues but to resolue that without themselues they are so indeed onely by the grace of God We may well thinke that it was a frostie morning that made M. Bishop to make so cold construction of so effectuall and plaine words But in the next place cited out of Austine he goeth beyond himselfe Let vs take the whole words as he hath them vpon these words of S. Iohn c 1. Iohn 3.14 By this we know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren Hereupon saith he d August in Ioan. tract 5. Quid nos scimus Quia transiuimus de morte ad vitam Vnde scimus Quia diligimus fratres Nemo interroget hominem redeat vnus quisque ad cor suum Si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam se uros sit quia transcit de morte ad vitam Iam in dextera est Non attendat quia mo lo gloria eius occulia est cum venerit Dominus tunc apparebit gloria eius Viget enim sed adhuc in hyeme viget radix sed qu est aridi sunt raini Intus est medulli quae vigis tintus sunt solit arborum 〈◊〉 fructus sed aestatem expectant Ergo nos 〈◊〉 c. What do we know That we are translated from death to life Whereby do we know it Because we loue the brethren Let no man aske of another man let him returne to his owne heart if he find there loue to the brethren let him be without doubt that he is passed from death to life He is now on the right hand Let him not regard that his glory is now hid when the Lord shall come then his glory shall appeare For he is aliue but yet as in the winter the root is aliue but the branches are in a manner dry Within is the pith that liueth within are the leaues within are the fruits but they looke for a sommer Therefore we know that we are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren Where we see both by the text it selfe and by the exposition of this auncient Father that by loue towards them that are our brethren in the faith of Iesus Christ we are to take knowledge and assurance of our being translated from death to life that is of our owne Saluation and that so as to be without doubt thereof and yet this wrangler doubteth not to say This place hath not so much as any shew of words for him The point in question is affirmed not in ambiguous and doubtfull words but euidently and apparantly and yet he goeth away with This place hath not so much as any shew of words for him nay this text maketh flat against him But why so I pray you What need was there saith he to seeke charitie in his heart for securitie of his Saluation if his faith assured him thereof But why doth he not answer to the point Doth not S. Austine teach the
savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am guiltie of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification as I haue before shewed But M. Perkins addeth that vve must remember that vve shall come to iudgement vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed We knovv it vvell but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about Originall sinne vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had runne a good race c. and therefore there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him by that iust iudge and not onely to him but all them that loue Christs comming And concerning both Inherent iustice and the abilitie of it to fulfill the law and what law heare this one sentence of S. Augustine Serm. 18. de verb. Apost He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the law albeit the law be good but he shall fulfill the law not by iustice which he hath of himselfe but which is giuen of God for charitie is the fulfilling of the law and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts not certainly by our selues but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. R. ABBOT There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot none so readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe I pray thee gentle Reader whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner him that saith that the Apostle saying I am not thereby iustified doth meane as he saith I am not thereby iustified or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place b Greg. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulgeâ— operantis Oft times saith he our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing by and by added but I am not iustified thereby Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs sâ—to As if he should say Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me c. d Quia ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret nisi hanc seueâ—us iudex in subtilâ— lance examinâ— misericorditèr penset Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination Againe he saith of the same place e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus Ducta namque ad internam regulaÌ„ nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes which we thought we did with strength For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule if it find seuere iudgement by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward or perfect Righteousnesse Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones that is euen the strength of vertues and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination saith I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing yet am I not thereby iustified f Acsi diceret Recta egisse me recolo attamen demeritis non praesumo quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis ossa turbantur As if he should say I remember I haue done the things that be right but yet I presume not of any merit because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled Thus by the iudgement of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified because though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes much more in many secret sinnes could find sufficient to condemne him And this is the true meaning of those words that howsoeuer a man if it be so know nothing by himselfe yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd g Psal 143.2 that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe I know nothing by my selfe namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him which was the matter spoken of yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe h Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne i Vers 19. I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. k Vers 23. I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true which were meant onely respectiuely as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that
Christ had imposed vpon him Now M. Perkins to take away the opinion of our owne Righteousnesse and to shew that we haue no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ to rest safely vpon alledgeth as Gregorie doth the rigour and seueritie of Gods iudgement which admitteth of nothing but what is exact and perfect according to the rule of iustice prescribed vnto vs. Where M. Bishop sheweth himselfe a verie stupide and senslesse man not moued with the l 2. Cor. 5.11 terrours of the Lord and the dread of that iudgement which the very Angels tremble at We know it well saith he Yea do but what is then your refuge and defence Marrie seeing there is no condemnation to them that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne as saith he M. Perkins himselfe confesseth the Apostle to teach what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge Wherein he notably abuseth M. Perkins for the hiding of his owne shame For neither the Apostle nor M. Perkins do teach that by Baptisme we are purged from Originall sinne but onely that in baptisme it is remitted and pardoned so that though it continue still in vs yet the faithfull are not thereby holden guiltie before God So then by forgiuenesse of sinnes through the imputation of Christs merits and obedience it is that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ it is not for that there is nothing in them for which otherwise they might iustly be condemned Surely they that rightly know themselues do know that in themselues there is that still being for which God might iustly cast them away if he should iudge them in themselues but their comfort hope is that for Christs sake it is not imputed vnto them that they shall stand before Gods iudgement seate in the veile of his innocencie and most perfect Righteousnesse and in him shall haue eternall life adiudged vnto them But with M. Bishop the case is farre otherwise There is no condemnation because there is nothing worthie of condemnation all iustice all innocencie no impuritie or vncleannesse no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocencie as he hath m Sect. 10 before spoken in the question of Originall sinne May we not maruell that an hypocrite should thus securely flatter himselfe being occasioned to bethinke himselfe of that dreadfull and fearefull day We are purged from Originall sinne saith he vvhat needes then any iustified man greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge But farre otherwise thought Saint Austine when he sayd as we heard before n August epist 29. Cum rex iustus sederit in throne quis gloriabitur se castuÌ„ habere cor aut quis gloriabâ—tur se esse immunem à peccato Quae igitur spes est nisi superexultet miserecordia iudicium When the iust king shall sit vpon his throne vvho shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or that he is free from sinne What hope then is there saith he vnlesse mercie be exalted aboue iudgement And what in the rest of his life hath the iustified man no cause greatly to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge no sinne no trespasse for the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge to take any hold of We haue seene before that our best workes will not endure seueritie of iudgement how shall we then quaile by reason of our sinnes S. Austin saith very well o Aug. in Psal 42. Quiâ—unque hic viâ—it quantum libet iuste viuaâ— vae illi sicum illo in iudicium intrauerit Deus Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue wo vnto him if God enter into iudgement with him And fully answerable hereunto is that which Gregorie saith p Greg. Moral li 8. c. 21 Quantalibet iustitia polleant nequaquam sibi ad iustâ—tiam vel electi sufficieÌ„t si districtè in iudicio requirantur Not the very elect howsoeuer they excell in iustice shal be able to approue themselues innocent if they be narowly sifted in iudgement But most effectuall to the purpose is that of Hierome q Hieron in Esa l. 6. c. 13. Quum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit dissolueÌ„tur omnes manus quia nâ—llum opus dignum Dei iustitia reperietur c. Omne quoque corâ—siue anima hominis tabescet pauebit conscientia peccati sui When the day of iudgment or of death shall come all hands shal be dissolued because there shal no worke be found vvorthie of the iustice of God neither shall anie man liuing be iustified in his sight Whereupon the Prophet saith O Lord if thou markest iniquities who shall endure it euerie heart and soule of man shall faint and feare by reason of the conscience of his owne sinne And will M. Bishop notwithstanding say what needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge The best is that he leaueth no man to make vse of that which he sayeth because he will giue no man leaue to assure himselfe that he is iustified Yet to make his matter good he alledgeth that Sainr Paul saith that he had runne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice layed vp for him by that iust iudge c. Of which place we would gladly haue knowne how he maketh application to his purpose The Apostle maketh mention of a crowne of iustice layed vp for him and to be rendered vnto him by a iust iudge but he doth not say that he needeth not to feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge God is a iust iudge as well when he iudgeth by lawes of mercie as when he iudgeth by lawes of extremitie as well in the r Rom. 3.27 law of faith as in the law of workes but the rigorous sentence of this iust iudge is onely when he iudgeth by the law of workes By the law of faith God forgiueth and pardoneth he considereth with fauour and Å¿ 2. Cor. 8.12 if there be a vvilling mind it is accepted according to that a man hath not according to that that he hath not and all this he doth as a iust iudge because by law he doth whatsoeuer he doth But in the rigor of the law which is the law of workes he remitteth nothing but requireth all to t Mat. 5.26 the vttermost farthing nothing pleaseth but what is exact and perfect and fully answerable to the rule S. Paul then expected that God as a iust iudge would yeeld vnto him the crowne not by the law of workes but by the law of faith wherein God u Psal 103 4. crowneth in mercy and louing kindnesse because this crowne is a crowne of iustice x Bernard de grat lib. arbit sub finem Corona iustitiae sed iustitiae Dei non suae JustuÌ„ est quippe vt reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Et haec est iustitia de quae praesumit Apostolus promissio
Dei not of Pauls owne iustice saith S. Bernard but of the iustice of God For it is iust with God to pay that he oweth and he oweth that which he hath promised And this is the iustice saith he vpon which the Apostle presumeth euen the promise of God Now verie much doth M. Bishop mistake to thinke that God rendereth by the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge that which as a iust iudge he rendereth by promise according to the law of faith In a word it toucheth the Apostle Paul which Saint Austine sayeth vnto God y August in Psal 129. Si nobiscum seuerus iudex agere volueris non miserecors pater quis stabit ante oculâ—s tuos If thou vvilt deale as a rigorous iudge and not as a mercifull father who shall stand in thy presence The place of Austin by him cited maketh nothing at all against vs nor helpeth him at all He would thereby proue Inherent iustice and we denie it not onely we say that in this life we are farre from the perfection of it In this life we are z August de verb. Apost ser 15. Vtatores non habitatores non possessores trauellers to it not dwellers in it not possessors of it as Saint Austin speaketh in the same Sermon misquoted by M. Bishop the eighteenth for the fifteenth a Ibid. ser 16. Puto hoc esse dicere Iustus sum quod est peccator non sum I thinke it is all one for a man to say I am iust saith he as to say I am no sinner and who is there liuing that can so say Therefore aduisedly he saith implebit legem he shall fulfill the law not he doth fulfill He now fulfilleth it in part but shall perfectly fulfill it when charitie shall be perfect which is b Rom 1.3.10 the fulfilling of the law which c August epist 29. Plenissima charitas quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine shall be in no man so long as he liueth here Therefore in another place he bringeth in the Apostle himselfe saying d Idem de verb. Apost ser 5. Non implet legem infirmitas mea sed laudat legem voluntas meae My weaknesse fulfilleth not the law but yet my will commendeth the law referring it to the commaundement Thou shalt not lust This is the state of our Righteousnesse here rather a desire to fulfill the law then any perfect attainment of our desire And thus M. Bishops answer to the first argument is indeed not worth a rush 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second argument He which knew no sinne 2. Cor. 5. was made sinne for vs that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God which is in him Hence M. Perkins reasoneth thus As Christ was made sinne for vs so we are made the Righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he being most holy Therefore a sinner is made righteous in that Christs Righteousnesse is imputed vnto him I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our Iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any likelihood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sinne in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers An host or Sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truly made his bodie being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see S. Augustine Tract 26. in Ioh. Jtem Epist 120. ad Honorat cap. 30. Item in Psa 30. Conc. 1. De spirit lit c. 9. One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the faith of Christ Iesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by which Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberalitie they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of workes but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs and that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to worke that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted R. ABBOT The words of the Apostle are plaine yet M. Bishop denieth that there is any signification of a similitude that Christ vvas so made sinne as vve are made iust M. Perkins to approue that there is a similitude alledged the exposition of Anselmus a Anselm in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Ille peccatum vt nos iustitia non nostra sed Dei non in nobis sed in illo sicut ille peccatum non suuÌ„ sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis He vvas made sinne that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods not in our selues but in him as he was made sinne not his owne but ours not in himselfe but in vs. M. Bishop answereth that Anselme shall be answered when the place is quoted He was loth of his labor to search for it being left vnquoted by M. Perkins because he saw that all his wit could not deuise what to say against it But when he will answer he must not answer Anselme only but Austin also from whom Anselme borrowed that exposition as he vsed to doe verie much b August Enchirid cap. 41. Ipse ergò peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine catâ—is peccati in qua crucifixus erat demonstrauit He then was made sinne saith Austin that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods nor in our selues but in him euen as he by the similitude of sinfull flesh vvherein he vvas crucified did shew foorth sinne not his owne sinne but ours not being in him but in vs. In which words we see it plainely affirmed which M. Bishop denieth that the Apostle in those words did intend a comparison betwixt Christs being made sinne and our being made Righteousnesse that as Christ not being a sinner yet was reputed as a sinner for our sakes and for the sinne that is in vs so we not being in our selues iust and righteous
forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Which being so albeit his exposition conteine nothing materiall against vs yet we hold the same not so properly applied to the thing which he there expoundeth For we doe not thinke that the iustice or righteousnesse of God is so called onely for that it is the gift of God but because thereby we are iustified thereby we are iust and righteous in the sight of God Which because we are not by inherent iustice as S. Austine euery where confesseth it followeth that the righteousnesse of God must be vnderstood of another kind of righteousnesse which is that whereof the Apostle instructeth vs whereby Å¿ Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works according to the words of Dauid t Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose vnrighteosnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Therefore the Greeke Scholiast expounding the righteousnesse of God to be that that is giuen of God further sheweth what that gift is u Oecumen in Rom cap. 3. Iustitia Dei est iustificatio absolutio seu liberatio à peccatis à quibus non potuâ—â— lex liâ—erare The iustice or righteousnesse of God is iustification and release or deliuerance from sinnes from which the law could not deliuer vs. And so Chrysostome though he say as M. Bishop citeth that iustification is of grace that is of Gods free gift yet withall saith that x Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. Deâ— est ista iustitia quando non ex operibus quando necessarium est etiam nullam maculam inuenâ—â— the righteousnesse of God is so called because it is not of works inasmuch as it is necessarie that there be no spot sound Where he presupposeth that there cannot be found any righteousnesse of works but such as is spotted and defiled and therefore importeth that the righteousnesse of God which must be without spot can by no meanes be vnderstood of the righteousnesse of works Neither doth it helpe M. Bishop any whit that inherent righteousnesse is pure of it selfe as it is the gift of God because though it be pure of it selfe and in the worke of God yet it is soiled in the puddles of our corruption and receiueth a blemish by our crooked and vntoward vsing of it and is neither giuen to that end nor is sufficient to yeeld vs iustification in the sight of God Hitherto therefore the argument standeth good As Christ was made sinne so we are made righteousnesse Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinne We are therefore made righteous by the imputation of his righteousnesse 6. W. BISHOP Rom. 5. M. Perkins third reason As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous mark here a comparison betweene the first and second Adam hence I reason thus As by the obedience of Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of Christ are they made righteous but men are made sinners by imputation of Adams sinne vnto them and not onely by propagation of naturall corruption ergo by imputation of Christs iustice we are made righteous Answer The comparison I allow because it is the Apostles and denie that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault and say that euery one descended of Adam by naturall propagation hath his own personall iniquity sticking in them which is commonly called Originall sinne and an high point of Pelagianisme is it to denie it For albeit we did not tast of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue we the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many were made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Now to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquity in like manner we are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice which is powred into our soules when we are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penurie of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them R. ABBOT This argument Maister Bishop could no way auoid but by shewing himselfe either impudently wilfull or absurdly ignorant and surely if his knowledge be no better then be here expresseth he hath ill bestowed those thrice seuen yeeres that he hath before spoken of in the studie of Diuinitie and were best to set himselfe to schoole againe The case is very cleare that if we be sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne then are we also righteous by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ Therefore he denieth that we are made sinners by the imputation of Adams sinne Yea but M. Bishop you should then haue told vs how it is true that the Apostle saith that a Rom. 5.19 by Adams disobedience we are made sinners For how should we be sinners by his disobedience but for that his disobedience is imputed vnto vs Bellarmine saith and he therein saith truly that b Bellarm. de Amiss grat statu peccati lib. 4. ca. 10. Peccatâ— Adami ita posteris omnibus imputatur acsi omnes idem peccatuÌ„ patrauissâ—nt Adams sinne is imputed to all his posteritie as if all had committed the same He alledgeth to that purpose Saint Bernard saying that c Bernard Domin prima post Epiphan ser 1. Nostra est culpa nobis iusto Dei iudicio imputabatur licet occulto Adams sinne is our sinne and by the iust though secret iudgement of God is imputed vnto vs. He saith againe in another place that d Bellar. ibid. lib. 5. ca. 17. Communicatur per imputationem Omnibus enim imputatur qui ex Adamo nascuntur Adams sinne is communicated vnto vs by imputation that it is imputed to all that are borne of Adam and calleth it the imputation of Adams disobedience If Adam then by disobedience were holden a sinner and his disobedience is imputed vnto vs as if we our selues had disobeied it must needes follow that by the imputation of the same disobedience we also are sinners as well as he Therefore doth the Apostle say that e Rom. 5.12 in him that is in Adam all haue sinned If in Adam all haue sinned then in Adam all are sinners in Adam all are guiltie of sinne To which purpose Saint Bernard saith f Bernard de aduent Dom. ser 1. In Adam omnes peccauimus in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes In Adam we haue all sinned and in him we haue all receiued the sentence of damnation So Saint Austine also saith that g August de Trint lib. 13. ca. 12. Parentum
vnto thee put case he had said If a Papist shall say vnto thee How is all the world saued it being onely Christ that hath done righteously thou maiest answer him How was the whole world condemned when it was onely Adam that obeied not The matter of our condemnation then is in the one and the matter of our saluation in the other corruption of nature being consequently drawne by generation from the one as a part of our condemnation and sanctification to holinesse consequently deriued by faith and regeneration from the other as a part of our saluation And now he may well see that our arguments be not poore nor make against our selues as he pretendeth but his answers are such penurious and poore shifts as that now they are once discouered we expect from him no further maintaining of them 7. W. BISHOP His fourth reason The Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction but satisfaction is equall to iustice therefore they must make it as well their iustice as satisfaction For the Maior he citeth Bellarmin Lib. 2. de Iustif cap. 7. I haue read the Chapter and finde no such words further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and iustification for satisfaction cannot be done vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Maiestie and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherefore the infinite valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinnes leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it as shall be in his due place declared more at large Againe a man must needes haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kinde of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christ satisfaction There is nothing like in iustification for first to make a man iust in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocencie and of all the blessed Soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight Neither is it necessarie to be infinite for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen which be not infinite as they are enioyed of men or Angels either of whom haue all things there in number weight and measure Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of another but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on another and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquitie no more then a simple man will take a Black-moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell R. ABBOT In true and right vnderstanding satisfaction is fully equiualent to iustification and that that is our satisfaction is also our iustification before God For declaration whereof it is to be obserued that sinne consisteth partly in commission partly in omission partly in doing that that we ought not to do partly in not doing that that we ought to do Satisfaction then for sinne must serue to acquit both the one and the other it must take away what we haue done and supply what we haue not done or else it cannot be called a satisfaction Therefore as on the one side in the euill that we haue done we are reputed as if it neuer had bene done so on the other side in the good that we haue not done we are reputed as if all had bene done Accordingly S. Austine saith that a August Retract l. 1. cap 19. Omnia mandata facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed to be done when that is pardoned that is not done Our satisfaction therefore is our iustification with God because thereby we are reputed as if we had performed all the righteousnesse of God And so doth Bernard make them both one when saying b Bernard ep 190. Assignata est ei aliena iustitia qui caruit sua There is the righteousnesse of another assigned to him who wanted of his owne he addeth to expresse the same c Satisfactio vnius omnibus imputatur c. the satisfaction of one is imputed vnto all euen as he alone hath borne the sinnes of all But more clearely is it euicted by the words of the Apostle who where Dauid pronounceth the man d Psal 32.1 blessed to whom the Lord forgiueth his sinnes saith that he e Rom. 4.6 describeth there the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works giuing thereby to vnderstand that forgiuenesse of sinnes is the imputation of righteousnesse without works If therefore in satisfaction there be forgiuenesse of sinnes then is there also iustification that is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes Now then sith Bellarmine confesseth that the merit and obedience of Christ is our satisfaction f Bellarm. de Iustif lib. 2. ca. 7. Si solùm vellent nobis imputari Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patrè offerre pro peccatis nostris quoniam Christus suscepit super sâ— onus satisfaciendi pro peccatis nostris nosque Deo pâ—tri recoÌ„ciliaÌ„di recta esset eorum sententia he must acknowledge it also to be our iustification that is the thing whereby and for which we are reputed iust in the sight of God because thereby we are reputed as hauing perfectly fulfilled all the commandements of God I haue read the chapter in Bellarmine saith M. Bishop and finde no such words But he was drowsie belike when he read it let him reade it better when he is well awake and then he shall finde that Bellarmine saith that in true meaning it may be said that the merits of Christ are imputed vnto vs for that they are giuen vnto vs of God and we may offer the same to God the Father for our sinnes in respect that Christ hath taken vpon him the burden of satisfying for our sinnes Where what doth he but acknowledge that Christ according to the burden taken vpon him hath in his merits made satisfaction for our sinnes but in his folly like M. Bishop because he vnderstandeth not himselfe will not haue them imputed for our righteousnesse before God His differences betwixt saluation and iustification are impertinent because that iustification which he speaketh of is not our iustification before God as shall appeare Briefly therefore to touch what he saith the guilt saith he of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite maiestie But therefore the guilt of all sinne is infinite neither is there any sinne but what is mortall because all sinne is against an infinite maiestie Therefore to all sinne the infinite valour of Christes satisfaction is required which because it is infinite
vnderstanding or vsing of the name of grace as meaning thereby the grace of sanctification as the Scripture by grace meaneth the free mercy of God accepting vs freely in Christ by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and this M. Bishop citeth as if Caluin had affirmed that Austines opinioÌ„ had ben wholy against him as touching iustification by the righteousnesse of Christ In like sort he abuseth Chemnicius whose words in the former place are these b Chemn Exam. Coâ—cil Triden de iustific Patribus lâ—cet verbum iustificare accipiaÌ„t pro renouatione qua efficiuntur in nobis per spirituÌ„ opera iustitiae non mouemus litem vbi iuxta scripturam rectè commodè tradunt doctrinam quemodo et quare persona Deo reconcilietur c We contend not against the Fathers albeit they commonly take the word iustifying for that renewâ—â—g whereby the works of righteousnesse are wrought in vs whereas according to the Scripture they rightly and conueniently deliuer the doctrine how and for what a man is reconciled vnto God receiueth remission of sinnes and adoption and is accepted vnto euerlasting life In the other place he saith c Patres quidem verbuÌ„ iustificare in hac significatione saepe vsurpare non ignoro sed de proprietate linguarum quaestio est I am not ignorant that the Fathers do often vse the word iustifie in this signification namely to make inherently iust but the question is of the propriety of tongues He confesseth that the Fathers sometimes do somewhat differ from vs as touching the signification of the word but rightly truly affirmeth that as touching the matter point of doctrine they teach the same that we do Surely if betwixt the Papists and vs there were no greater difference then onely about the meaning of a word we would not loose our time nor spend our labour friuolously and idlely to contend against them But they abuse the Fathers mistaking of a word to the ouerthrowing of the doctrine approoued by the Fathers And yet the Fathers when they place iustification in the forgiuenesse of sinnes as many times they doe and teach that by the righteousnesse that is in vs being defectiue and vnperfect e August de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 14. Vtique iustuÌ„ est vt debitores quos tenebat liberi dimittaÌ„tur credentes in eum quem sine vllo debito occidit hoc est quòd iustificari dicimur in sanguine Christi d Psal 143.2 no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God as they alledge out of the Psalme they doe neither in matter of doctrine nor meaning of the word depart from that that is maintained by vs. S. Austine saith Iust it is that the debters or trespassers whom the diuell held should be let goe free beleeuing in him whom he slew without debt or trespasse This is it that we are said to be iustified in the bloud of Christ f Jbid. cap. 16. Iustificati planè in eo quòd à peccatis omnibus liberati liberati autem à peccatis omnibus quoniam pro nobis est Dei filius qui nullum habebat occisus We are iustified in his bloud in that we are freed from all sinnes and freed from all sinnes for that the Son of God who had no sinne was slaine for vs. So Theodoret giuing the meaning of the words of the Apostle we are iustified freely c. maketh it to be this g Theodoret. in Rom. cap. 3. Sola fidâ— allata remissionem peccatorum consequimur Bringing faith onely we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sins Origen maketh these words Thy sins are forgiuen thee h Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. the pronouncing of the iustification of the woman who with her teares washed the feet of Christ S. Bernard saith that i Bernard in Anâ—unciat ser 1. Crede quia per ipsâ—m tibi peccata doâ—antur Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus gâ—atis iustificari hâ—minem per fidem our being iustified freely by faith which the Apostle speaketh of consisteth in beleeuing that our sinnes are forgiuen vs. But most fitly to the purpose he saith in another place k Idem epist 190 Vbi re oÌ„â—iliatio ibi remâ—ssio pec catorum quid ipsa nisi iustificatio Where there is reconciliation there is forgiuenesse of sinnes and what is that but iustification Now according to this construction of iustification they are wont to deliuer that l August in Psa 33. Iste est modus humanae iustitiae vt vita mortalis quantumlibet proficiat quia sine delicto esse non potest in hoc non delinquat dum speratin cum in quo est remissio delictorum JdeÌ„ de ciu Dei lib. 19. cap. 27. vt supra Sect. 5. mans iustice or righteousnesse is to hope or put trust in himâ—â—â—â— whom is forgiuenesse of sinnes that our righteousnesse in this life is rather forgiuenesse of sinnes then perfection of vertues that m Idem cont 2. epist Pelag. lib 3. cap. 5. Omnium piorum c. Spes vnâ— est quòd aduocatum habemus c. the onely hope of all the godly groning vnder this burden of corruptible flesh in the infirmitie of this life is this that we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes as S. Austine speaketh that n Hieron adu Pelag. lib. 1 Tunc iusti sumus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia then we are iust when we confesse our selues sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our merit but of the mercie of God as Hierome saith that o Ambros de Jacob. c. Non gloriabor quia iustus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui aut quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me aduocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est we are not to reioyce that we are iust but that we are redeemed not that we are without sinne but that our sinnes are forgiuen vs not in the good that we haue done or that any other man hath done for vs but that Christ is our aduocate with the Father that the bloud of Christ was shed for vs as Ambrose saith that p Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatorum Christ is our righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and that q Ibid. ser 23. Hominis iustitia indulgentiae Dei Gods forgiuenesse or pardon is mans righteousnesse as S. Bernard saith Now what do we teach otherwise then all these haue taught when we say that we are reputed iust by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and that this is our iustification in the sight of God For what are we but iust in the
sight of God when there is taken from vs the imputation of all sinne Surely r August de verb. Apost ser 16. Puto hoc esse dicere Iustus sum quod est Peccator non sum to be iust is the same as not to be a sinner and Å¿ Idem in Psal 118. conc 3. Jovia fidei pro non peccantibus habentur quibus peccata non imputantur in the way of faith they to whom their sinnes are not imputed are accounted not sinners Therefore it followeth that they are accounted iust Yea as was before alledged t Idem Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. vt supra sect 7. all the commandements of God are reputed to be done when that which is not done is pardoned But he who is reputed to haue done all the commandements of God is reputed iust He therefore to whom God pardoneth that which he hath not done is reputed iust u Idem in Psal 118. con 3. Siquid à deuiante coÌ„mittitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur In the way of faith if any thing be committed by stepping out of the way for the waies sake it is not imputed and a man is taken as if he had not done it Yea x Bernard in Cant. 23. Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare decreuerit sic est quasi non fuerit all that God hath determined not to impute is all one as if it had neuer bene Now he that is taken as if he had neuer done amisse is reputed iust Whosoeuer therefore is in the way of faith is reputed iust And thus much is included in the sayings of the Fathers â—heresoeuer they teach forgiuenesse of sinnes who thereby to expresse our iustification learned of the Apostle himselfe who saith that we are iustified y Rom. 3.24 through the redemption that is in Christ and expoundeth that redemption by z Ephe. 1.7 Col. 1.14 forgiuenesse of sinnes and in the not imputing of sinne vnderstandeth a Rom. 4.6.7.8 the imputing of righteousnesse without works as before was said Now forgiuenesse of sinnes is yeelded vnto vs by vertue of the merit righteousnesse which Christ hath wrought for vs who b Rom 8.32 was giuen for vs and c Tit. 2.14 gaue himselfe for vs who was d Gal. 4.5 made vnder the law to redeeme vs and therefore is e Bernard in Cant. ser 70. Iustus pro hominibus iust or righteous for vs who f Luk. 22.10 shed his bloud for vs g 1. Thess 5.10 died for vs h Act. 3.26 rose againe for vs and whatsoeuer he hath done hath done for vs. And if for vs the Sonne of God haue i Mat. 3.15 fulfilled all righteousnesse and obedience to his Father who had no neede to vndergoe any such seruice for himselfe should it not be strange that the same should not be reckoned and imputed vnto vs Very iustly it is accounted ours whatsoeuer he hath done for vs no lesse then if we our selues had performed the same for our selues And this is the imputation of Christes righteousnesse which we maintaine by which our sinnes are couered and hidden that is pardoned and forgiuen and we are consequently reputed iust euen by the iustice or righteousnesse of Christ because in the righteousnesse of Christ is the forgiuenesse of our sins But why do they reiect imputation of righteousnesse which as we haue seene before the spirit of God so expresly recommendeth vnto vs by the very phrase importeth that we are not righteous in our selues Surely it were k Origen in Rom ca. 4 Quid videbitur gratiae iusto reputari iustitiam ad iustitiam no matter of grace or fauour as Origen well noteth that to a iust or righteous man his righteousnesse should be reputed for righteousnesse But it is a matter of fauour and grace that God reputeth vs iust It must therefore of necessity be by other meanes then by the righteousnesse that is in vs which can be no other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ that it may be verified of him which is written l Ierem. 23.6 This is the name whereby they shall call him The Lord our righteousnesse Thus saith Ambrose m Ambros in Psa 118. ser 18. Ipse iustitia est nobis de suo dedit sui habere consortiâ—m Christ is righteousnesse and of that that is his he hath giuen vnto vs to haue fellowship with him n IdeÌ„ de Abrah lib. 2. cap 8. verè nos tegmine velleris sui vestiuit in demum introducit aeternae salutis he hath indeede clothed vs with the couer of his fleece and bringeth vs into the house of euerlasting saluation And hereof he intimateth a comparison which o Pigh controu De fide iustificatione Pighius himselfe could not but approoue that as Iacob receiued the blessing and inheritance in the garments and apparell of Esau his elder brother to whom the same did properly belong so we receiue the blessinâ— of God and are accepted to eternall life in the garment of the righteousnesse of Christ by faith in him whilest thereby we obtaine the forgiuenesse of our sinnes p Ambros de Iacob c. li. 2. cap 2. Odoratus est odorem vestimentorum Fortasse illud est quia non operibus iustâ—ficantur sed fiâ—e quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est fidei autem claritas factorum â—b umbrat errorem quae meretuâ— veniam delictoâ—uÌ„ Isaac smelled the sauour of Iacobs garments namely which Rebecca his mother had put vpon him of his brother Esaus Haply saith he it importeth this that we are not iustified by works but by faith because the infirmitie of flesh is a hinderance to works but the brightnesse of faith ouershadoweth the errour of our works as which obtaineth the forgiuenesse of our sinnes This ouershadowing is our safety this hiding and couering of our errours and imperfections which disgrace and blemish all our righteousnesse and works and what haue we to couer and hide the same but onely the fleece of the merit of Iesus Christ And this point Saint Bernard as he was most abundant in spirituall meditation so hath most clearely and diuinely set forth vnto vs and saue that we know with whom we haue to deale we should hold it almost incredible that there should be that impudencie in any man as with so wretched and beggerly answers to goe about to shift off so plaine and manifest proofes q Bernard epist â—90 vt supra Sect. 9. There is the righteousnesse of another saith Saint Bernard assigned vnto him that wanted of his owne The righteousnesse then that is assigned vnto vs is anothers and not our owne Yea but let his owne reason saith Maister Bishop serue for exposition of his former words Be it so and what is that reason Forsooth this saith he For why may not iustice be from another as
Righteousnesse in the sight of God that through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ our sinnes are forgiuen vs and thereby no accusation is liable against vs either as hauing done what we ought not to do or not done what we ought to do according to the words of the Apostle d Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect If we respect inherent qualitie there is inough to charge him with but by forgiuenesse of sinnes the same becommeth as if it had neuer bene In a word therefore we are not formally iust in qualitie if God iudge vs thereby being stained and defiled in all the Righteousnesse that we haue but we are formally iust in law by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ for that thereby a satisfaction is interposed and our sinnes are remitted and pardoned so that there is no let but that God mercifully for his sake accepteth vs vnto euerlasting life 10. W. BISHOP 2. Obiect If we be righteous or iust by the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs then is euerie iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe hauing the same iustice his which is Christs but that is too too absurd Ergo M. Perkins answer Christs Righteousnesse is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ in him it is infinite but of it so much is applied to this or that man as will serue for his iustification And to helpe this answer forward I will adde his marginall note euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne with the rest so far forth as the light makes it to shine Reply That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kind Or it is not infinit but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs infinit iustice for all the parts of an infinite thing are infinite according vnto true Philosophie It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of iustice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this or that man as in his owne example The light of euerie starre is receiued from the Sunne beames yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sunne for one accident cannot be in two subiects so farre distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skies as it is euident but is a farre dimmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueyed into this or that mans soule wherby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charitie but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which Saint Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying Lib. 12. conf cap. 15. How much difference there is betweene the light that doth lighten and that which is lightened that is the Sunne and the starre light so much difference is there betweene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice which is made by that iustification to wit betweene the iustice of Christ and that which is in euerie good Christian R. ABBOT M. Bishops learning might here haue informed him but that his will outranne his wit that the Righteousnesse of Christ as he is man is not infinite because it is the Righteousnesse of a finite creature which is not capable of that that is infinite True diuinitie distinguisheth the things of the manhood from the things of the godhead the one finite the other infinite thereby to vphold the integritie of two natures in the one person of Iesus Christ Yea and the Righteousnesse of the manhood of Christ as I conceiue may two wayes be considered either absolutely as in himselfe or respectiuely as for vs. The absolute Righteousnesse of Christ though it be finite yet is next to that that is infinite being aboue all the Righteousnesse of men and Angels in that the a Ioh. 3.34 spirit was giuen him without measure and therefore his perfections were the vttermost that a creature in any sort can be capable of But the respectiue or dispensatiue Righteousnesse of Christ is that whereby he is b Bernard in Cant. ser 70. Iustus pro hominibus iust for men as S. Bernard speaketh the righteousnesse which he performed for vs in fulfilling the law c Gal. 4.4 being made vnder the law to redeeme vs. According to this Righteousnesse therefore it is true that by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ we are as righteous as Christ not absolutely but as Christ was for vs in fulfilling the law The infinite value and force of which Righteousnesse in Christ arose not from any infinitenesse of it selfe being but the Righteousnesse of the law which is but the description of that image of God to which man was first created and ought to be in man but it arose from the infinitenesse of the person of him by whom it was performed being both God and man and thereby is of that large extent to iustifie all and to purchase euerlasting life to all that do beleeue in him Rightly the refore doth M. Perkins say that the Righteousnesse of Christ is not applied to euerie particular man according to the infinite value of it selfe because that infinitenesse proceeded not of the nature of it selfe but according to that measure whereby it appertaineth to vs which is described in the law Neither is his comparison of the Sunne and the starres further to be strained but onely to shew that euerie thing that receiueth from another receiueth according to the stint and measure of it selfe he neuer meant that the Righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed vnto vs is deriued to vs to be actually inherent in vs as the light of the Sunne is deriued from it to be actually inherent in the starres Yet we denie not but that the beames of inherent Righteousnesse are deriued vnto vs by regeneration and new birth through the spirit of Iesus Christ but that is not the Righteousnesse here spoken of and M. Bishop might take occasion out of his owne words to call it a dimme light as indeed it is more dimme and darke then that by it we can find the way to God and euerlasting life 11. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike partie If men be made truly and really iust by Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men imputed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrarie but one may as well be made vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easily and more wayes then good M. Perkins answer is that we may say Christ was a sinner
truly not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes were laid on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not truly a sinner that payes the debt of sinne which an innocent and most iust person may performe but he that either hath sinne truly in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sinnes are made his owne really and he in all cases to be dealt with all as if he sinned himselfe as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice is really in Gods sight iust and is both loued in this life and shall be rewarded in the next as if he were truly iust indeed But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the diuell and sonne of perdition which is plaine blasphemie That sentence out of the Prophet Isa 53. He was counted with sinners is expounded by the Euangelists that he was so taken indeed but by a wicked Iudge and a reprobate people And therefore if you allow of their sentence range your selfe with them as one of their number S. Chrysostome by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one truly Christ I know is called sinne by S. Paul but by a figure signifying that he was a sacrifice for sinne as hath bene before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly affirmeth in plaine tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs Heb. 4. in all things excepting sinne R. ABBOT M. Perkins yeeldeth that as we are called righteous by the Righteousnesse of Christ so Christ might be called a sinner by our sinnes not by hauing the blemish and corruption thereof but onely the guilt and imputation euen as he becommeth truly a debtor that vndertaketh anothers debt M. Bishop saith that an innocent and most iust person may pay the debt of sinne and such a one do we acknowledge the Sonne of God to be who yet being iust and innocent might by M. Bishops owne confession be termed being rightly vnderstood a sinner because he saith that he may be called truely a sinner who is so by imputation stroken as that the sinnes are made his owne really and he in all cases to be dealt with as if he had sinned himselfe For thus was the case with Christ who really though not inherently took vpon him our sinnes by vndertaking really as in our person the guilt thereof and therefore being dealt with as if he himselfe had committed the same Therefore doth Hierome apply these words to Christ a Hieron in Psal 87. Vt supra sect 5. Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to poure out vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes So Hilarie saith that b Hilar. in Psa 68. Omnis in eum terror desaeuientis in nos â—eÌ„pestatis in cubuit all the terrour of the tempest that raged against vs lighted or lay vpon him Therefore in right meaning to say that Christ was made a sinner in the bearing of our sinnes is not to affirme that Christ was auerted from God the slaue of the diuell and sonne of perdition as M. Bishop ignorantly collecteth because these are consequents onely of inherent corruption and sinne whereby a man is borne in sinne according to the depraued image of him of whom he is borne and not euerie one to whom sinne is imputed but c 1. Ioh. 3.8 whosoeuer committeth sinne is of the diuell Therefore the Fathers in that sence that here is spoken of haue not forborne to terme Christ a sinner in respect as he tooke vpon him the imputation of our sinnes So saith Oecumenius d Oecumen in Heb. cap. 9 Etenim Christus vehementer peccator erat vt qui totâ—â—s mundi peccata assumpserat sibique propria fecerat c. Quod enim Christus peccator fuerit audi Eum qui peccatum c. Christ was greatly a sinner as who did take vpon him the sinnes of the whole world and make them proper to himselfe For that Christ was a sinner heare the Apostle He made him sinne for vs c. Vpon which words of the Apostle Chrysostome also saith not only as M. Bishop citeth that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner but also as M. Perkins alledgeth though M. Bishop vnhonestly dissembleth it e Chrysost vt supra sect 5. He made the iust a sinner that he might make sinners iust In like sort Hierome as in one place he saith that f Hier. in Psal 21. Peccata nostra sua reputat Christ accounteth our sinnes his sinnes so in another place he affirmeth that g Jdem in Psal 37. Peccatorem se profiâ—etur qui peccata nostra portauit Christ did professe himselfe a sinner in that he bare our sinnes So saith also Saint Austin h August in Psal 37. Tanquâ—m peccauit in infirmitate tua Christus Modo enim peccata tua tanquam ex cre suo dicebat ea dicebat suae Christ after a sort sinned in thy infirmitie he mentioned thy sinnes out of his owne mouth and called them his sinnes All this the Prophet Esay confirmeth when he saith i Esa 53.12 He was counted with the transgressors which was not onely by a wicked iudge and a reprobate people as M. Bishop mentioneth but in that God made him sinne God counted him with sinners and therefore layed vpon him the curse of sinners in that he was k Gal. 3.13 Act. 5.30 hanged on a tree for the l Deut. 21.23 curse of God is vpon him that is hanged Therefore the Prophet in the same place saith that m Esa 53.6.10 the Lord did lay vpon him our iniquities the Lord would breake him and make him subiect to infirmities that we may vnderstand that God did not onely leaue him to the hands of men but himselfe counted him with sinners by the bearing of our sinnes and therefore dealt with him himselfe accordingly so that he had cause to cry out n Psal 88.6 Applied to Christ by Athanaâ— De interpret Psal by Arnob. and Hierome in Psal 87. Thine indignation lieth hard vpon me and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes o Vers 14. Lord why abhorrest thou my soule and hidest thy face from me p Vers 16. Thy wrathfull displeasure goeth ouer me and the feare of thee hath vndone me Yet as touching the person of Christ in himselfe we acknowledge it as farre as M. Bishop that he was q Heb. 4.15 excepted from sinne that he was r Cap. 7.26 holy harmelesse vndefiled separated from sinners and because to apply vnto Christ the name of a sinner in what sort soeuer is subiect to misunderstanding and offence we wholy forbeare the same and as though a man by taking vpon him another mans debt be become a debtor yet we call him not a
debtor but a suretie and do name what befalleth him to befall him by suretiship and not by debt so do we content our selues to say with safetie that Christ did beare our sinnes and suffered for our sinnes or with the Apostle was made sinne for vs but the name of sinner we do not giue vnto him 12. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect If a man be righteous onely by imputation he may together be full of iniquitie whereupon it must needs follow that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and wicked but that is absurd when Gods iudgement is according to truth Here M. Perkins yeeldeth That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing Originall sinne a deadly wound And yet elsewhere he sayd That Originall sinne Of Originall sinne Pag. 31. which remained after iustification in the partie did beare such sway that it infected all the workes of the sayd partie and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he will abide in it Let vs go on R. ABBOT It had bene strange if M. Bishop could haue set downe this argument without full of iniquitie for it had not otherwise sufficiently filled his mouth But we denie that if a man be righteous onely by imputation speaking as we do of perfect Righteousnesse in the sight of God it must follow that he is still full of iniquitie as before because Iustification in the sight of God by the imputation of Christs merits is alwayes accompanied with the sanctification of the holy Ghost whereby the inward qualitie of the man a August de peccat mer. remiss lib. 1 cap. 27. Hominis qualitatem non totam continuò mutari c. though not wholy yet in part is altered and changed and is thencefoorth further to be renewed from day to day In part I say because together with this sanctification there is still a remainder of originall corruption by the touch and staine whereof the holinesse and newnesse that is wrought in vs is defiled and standeth in need of mercie and fauour to accept it which made Gregorie the Bishop of Rome to say b Greg. Moral lib. 9. cap. 11. Omnis humana iustitia iniustitia esse conuincitur si districte iudicetur Prece ergo post iustitiaÌ„ indiget vt quae succumbere discussa poterat sola iudicis pietate conualescat All the righteousnesse of man is proued to be vnrighteousnesse if it be strictly iudged therefore a man needeth prayer after Righteousnesse that that which being sifted might quaile by the only mercie of the iudge may stand for good For although it be true that Originall sinne haue receiued a deadly wound yet it followeth not thereof that it is straightwayes wholy dead It is dead indeed c August cont Iulian lib. 2. Mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat c. as touching the guilt of it as Austine saith but it is not yet dead as touching corruption and infection and therefore doth indeed infect the workes of the regenerate and by lusting and rebelling giueth him occasion to cry out with the Apostle d Rom. 7.24 Miserable man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death This M. Perkins vniformely teacheth he doth not here amend what he had sayd before because in the former place there was nothing to amend and therefore it was but M. Bishops dreame that made him imagine a contradiction there where all things well agree and stand together 13. W. BISHOP 5. Obiect Or fifth reason is inuerted by M. Perkins but may be rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall but by him we lost Inherent iustice Ergo By him we are restored to Inherent iustice Rom. 5. The Maior is gathered out of Saint Paul vvho affirmeth that vve receiue more by Christ then vve lost by Adam Lib. 3. cap. 20. lib. 6. de gen 24. â—6 26. and is Saint Irenaeus and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine vvho say How are we sayd to be renewed if we receiue not againe which the first man lost c. Immortality of the bodie we receiue not but we receiue iustice from the which he fell through sinne R. ABBOT This obiection proueth nothing that we denie being vnderstood according to the meaning of Austin and Irenaeus whom he alledgeth Christ came to restore to vs that which we lost in Adam But in Adam we lost inherent iustice Therefore Christ came to restore the same We affirme the same and say that what Christ came to do he beginneth to do and to bring to effect in euerie man that is iustified but in no man doth he perfect it so long as we continue in this life and therefore inherent iustice is not such in any man here as that thereby he can be found iust in the sight of God Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith that Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall if he meane it as the Apostle doth when he saith that a Ephe. 2 6. God hath quickned vs together with Christ and hath raised vs vp together and hath made vs sit together in the heauenly places in Christ Iesus that is b August de bapt cont Donatist lib. 1. ca. â— Nondum vnâ— sed in spe not yet really but in hope as S. Austin speaketh we admit the proposition to be true and it is nothing against vs. But if his meaning be that Christ hath really and alreadie in possession restored vnto vs what we lost in Adam the proposition is absurdly false and all this discourse tendeth to proue the contrarie 14. W. BISHOP The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall dureth after this life and is crowned in heauen but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life Ergo. M. Perkins answereth First that imputed Righteousnesse continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we shall haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life inward Righteousnesse shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answer ouerthroweth the other Wherefore I need not stand vpon it but will proceed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers The first place I take out of these words of Saint Paul And these things certes were you Drunkerds Couetous 1. Cor. 6. Fornicators c. But you are Washed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord S. Chryso Ambr. Theophilac in hunc locum Here Iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sinnes and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and for the sake of Christ
Christ we be to follow Paul then by our faith we are to beleeue of our selues as he beleeued of himselfe and what he wrote in that behalfe we are to take it as written for our learning not as a matter particular and peculiar to himselfe The other place is most notable where Paul first propoundeth it as f 1. Tim. 1.15 a true saying and worthie by all meanes to be receiued that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners He addeth Of whom I am chiefe that is of which sinners whom Christ would saue I was a chiefe I was the formost man g August in Psal 70 Primus non tempore sed malignitate not in time but in badnesse as S. Austine expoundeth it Notwithstanding for this cause I was receiued to mercy saith he that Iesus Christ should shew on me being the chiefe all long suffering to the ensample of them that should in time to come beleeue in him vnto eternall life Now how doth the place import that Paul should be an ensample to them that beleeue in Christ but that all that beleeue in Christ may learne in him not to be dismaied at the greatnesse and grieuousnesse of their sinnes whereof they haue seene the like in him but with him to receiue that true saying that Christ came into the world to saue sinners and therefore resolue that he would saue them as he had saued him that they should not feare to say euen as he could say Christ hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me h August de Temp ser 49. Talem se peccatoreÌ„ consitetur fuisse vt omnis peccator propterea de se non despereâ— quia Paulus meruit indulgentiaÌ„ He confesseth himselfe such a sinner saith Austine as that therefore no sinner may despaire of himselfe because Paul obtained pardon It was not therefore the vnskilfulnesse of a sectarie but true diuinitie that made Maister Perkins to make that vse and application of the Apostles words but it was M. Bishops absurdity to say that the place importeth only that Paul was made an example of patience without expressing how or what patience he meaneth there being no patience there spoken of but the patience of Christ bearing with men long in great and fearefull sinnes and yet at length of his owne mercy calling them to be partakers of his saluation 16. W. BISHOP M. Perkins 2. Reason That which we must aske of God in praier that we must beleeue shall be giuen vs but in prayer we must aske the merits of Christes righteousnesse to our selues ergo Answer Of the Maior much hath bene said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and denie that we must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that were greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacitie may be powred into our soules whereby we may lead a vertuous life and make a blessed end But it is goodly to behold how M. Perkins proueth that we must pray that Christs righteousnesse may be made our particular iustice because saith he We are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this we must say Amen which is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans wits were gone a pilgrimage when he wrote thus Good Sir cannot our sinnes or debts be forgiuen without we apply Christes righteousnesse to vs in particular we say yes Do not then so simply begge that which is in question nor take that for giuen which will neuer be graunted But a word with you by the way Your righteous man must ouer-skip that petition of the Pater noster forgiue vs our debts for he is well assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christes righteousnesse applied to him and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherefore he cannot without infidelity distrust of his former iustificaâ—ion or pray for remission of his debts but following the famous example of that formall Pharise in liew of demaunding pardon Luc. 18. may wel say O God I giue thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vniust aduouterers as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sinnes or the certaintie of my saluation but am well assured thereof and of Christes owne righteousnesse to and so forth But to go on with M. Perkins discourse Here we must note that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principall duty of faith for in faith saith M. Perkins are two things first knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation Secondly an applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance the first they acknowledge So then by M. Perkins owne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the meanes of saluation then he and his fellowes erre miserable The second which is the substance and principall they deny Answer Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and merits of Christes Passion so they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assure himselfe by faith of Christes righteousnesse and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to do that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come See S. Tho. 22. q. 21. art 1. R. ABBOT The Maior proposition he graunteth yet with this limitation all due circumstances of praier being obserued But his circumstances as he intendeth them are but a Labyrinth to intricate and perplexe the consciences of men and to bereaue them of all ioy and comfort of their praiers We beleeue that a Psal 145 18. God is nigh vnto all them that call vpon him in truth We know that many are the weakenesses and imperfections of our praiers many our distractions in that deuotion but yet we beleeue that God respecting the truth and not the measure of our hearts pardoneth the same for Christes sake who is our high Priest b Exod. 28.38 to beare the iniquitie of our holy offerings to make them acceptable before the Lord. To the Minor proposition he answereth that we must not pray that Christes merits may be made ours in particular for that were greatly to abase them As though the Prophet Dauid did abase God in making him his in particular saying c Psal 18.2 The Lord is my rocke and my fortresse my God and my strength my shield the horne of my saluation and my refuge with infinite other speeches of
iustificari hominem per fidem but go fâ—rther yet to beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is saith he the testimonie that the holy Ghost giueth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For thus doth the Apostle suppose that a man is iustified freely by faith Of imputed righteousnesse enough hath bene said before the point here is of particular faith whether a man beleeue his owne sinnes to be forgiuen him S. Bernard saith yea and saith it so plainly as that M. Bishop could not tell for his life what directly to answer to it But forsooth S. Bernard addeth conditions on our party saith he which M. Perkins craftily concealeth and here he bringeth words following a mile after where S. Bernard hath broken off the point formerly in hand which was to set forth the condition of a true iustifying and sauing faith And what I pray are the conditions that he addeth Forsooth truth of conuersion bewailing of our sinnes and confessing them and afterwards following holinesse and peace Where we see a glosing sycophant which will make the simple Reader beleeue that he giueth an answer when indeede he giueth none For when we teach the beliefe of the forgiuenesse of sinnes do we teach a man vnconuerted to beleeue the same The penitent sinner confessing and bewailing his sinnes to God and carefull as hauing felt the sting of sinne thenceforth to auoid the same is the proper and onely true subiect of this disputation of iustification by faith We denie that faith hath place in any other man and therefore denie that any other can haue the true beliefe of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes Of the conuerted man then of him that truly repenteth and forsaketh his sinne S. Bernard saith and we say that the faith whereby he is iustified is a faith whereby he particularly beleeueth the forgiuenesse of his owne sinnes What is M. Bishop now but a wrangling Sophister that thus in a mist of idle discourse seeketh to steale away where indeede he is so fast holden that he cannot vntie himselfe In like sort he dealeth with the other place of Cyprian who encouraging faithfull Christians against the terrour and feare of death saith f Cyprian de Mortal Deus tibi de hoc mundo recidenti immortalitateÌ„ pollicetur tu dubitas fluctuasi Hoc est DeuÌ„ omninò non nosse hoc est ChristuÌ„ credentium magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere hoc est in ecclesia constitutum fideÌ„ in domo fidei non habere God hath promised immortality vnto thee when thou departest out of this world and doest thou wauer and doubt thereof This is not to know God this is by the sinne of vnbeliefe to offend Christ the maister of beleeuers this is for a man being in the Church to be without faith in the house of faith The words are manifest He propoundeth the promise of God particularly requireth the same accordingly to be beleeued not to beleeue it so he affirmeth is to be without faith in the house of faith God promiseth to thee and doest thou doubt this is not to haue faith Cyprian then teacheth such a confidence in the promises of Christ as is to be without all wauering or doubt Yea saith M. Bishop we are secure on Christes side that he will neuer faile of his word and promise but the cause of feare lies vpon our owne infirmities Thus he is like the mother that strangleth her child so soone as she hath brought it forth He setteth vp confidence with one hand and throweth it downe with another nay he setteth it vp with one hand and throweth it downe with both What is it to vs that Christ is true of his word if we may not beleeue that his word doth appertaine to vs what confidence can it yeeld that Christ faileth not of his promise so long as we must feare least our infirmities disable vs of hauing any part therein And would Cyprian talke so idlely to bid men not wauer or doubt when they might answer they had cause to feare and doubt by reason of their owne infirmities Would he bid men not doubt to go out of the world because of the promise of God when their owne infirmities might be a sufficient cause to make them feare their departure out of this world But Cyprian knew well that we can haue nothing but feare from our selues and therefore teacheth vs to build our selues wholy vpon the promise of God that howsoeuer our owne infirmities doe offer vs occasion of distrust yet resting vpon the truth of God we beleeue with Abraham g Rom. 4.18 vnder hope against hope that God will performe what he hath spoken for his owne sake as he saith by the Prophet h Ezech. 36.22 Not for your sakes but for my holy names sake I will do it saith the Lord. Yea but we bid them not doubt saith Maister Bishop as if they were as likely to be condemned as saued But how so when they see and know in themselues that for which they may be condemned and cannot know any thing whereupon they may rest the hope of saluation For you say Maister Bishop that a man cannot tell whether he haue repentance hope charity praier whether he be iustified and in the state of grace or not and therefore how should he but thinke himselfe more likely to be condemned then otherwise You say you animate them and put them in the good way of hope by twenty kinds of reasons But how can you put them in hope when you teach them to feare That one reason whereby you impose feare carieth more sway in the conscience then all those twenty kinds of reasons whereby you perswade hope And when you teach that a man cannot tell whether he haue any hope or not what can there rest but horrour and despaire at leastwise anguish perplexity trembling and feare saue onely in consciences that are benummed and astonished and haue no feeling of themselues In a word in death there can be no hope but setting aside the respect of our selues to depend vpon the promise of God and to say with Hilary out of the Psalme i Hilar. in Psal 51. Spes nostra in miserecordia Domini in secuâ—um in secuâ—â—m seculi Our hope is in the mercy of God for euer and euer 18. W. BISHOP M. Perkins hauing thus confirmed his owne partie why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons which the Catholikes alledge in fauour of their assertion Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter Nothing lesse It was then belike because he knew not how to answer them I will out of their store take that one principall one of the testimonie of holy Scripture and by that alone sufficiently proue that the faith required to Iustification is that Catholike faith whereby we beleeue all that to be true which by God is reuealed and not any other particular beleeuing Christs Righteousnesse to be ours
not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion It followeth not that because the act of faith is no further expressed here therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely but of the heart of the will and affections as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth f Rom. 10.9 If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue in God which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not and therefore we are sure that he cannot say But though he cannot say it yet let him not repine at vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries both religious and secular and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ for n Rom. 5.15 by the obedience of one saith the Apostle shall many be made righteous and what is the obedience of Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants frō hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
top and perfection of the whole worke is charity R. ABBOT To set downe the places alledged out of Ambrose is sufficient to discouer the bad and euill conscience of M. Bishop in the answering of them and to shew what a one he is indeede in all the rest of his answers First a Ambros in Rom. ca. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operaÌ„tes neque vicem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei they are iustified freely saith he because working nothing nor making any requitall they are iustified by faith alone through the gift of God The second is this b Jbid cap. 4 Manifestè beati sunt quibus sine labore vel opere aliquo remittuntur iniquitates peccata teguâ—tur nulla ab hâ— requisita poenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke their iniquities are forgiuen and sinnes couered no worke of penitencie being required of them but onely to beleeue Thirdly he saith c Idem in 1. Cor. cap. 1. Hoc constitutuÌ„ est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere sola fide gratu accipiens remissioneÌ„ peccatorum This is appointed of God that he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without works freely by faith alone receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes I pray thee now gentle Reader to marke well his answer to these allegations First he saith that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Ambroses It is true indeede that some make question of the Prefaces that are inserted to the seuerall Epistles but of the Commentaries themselues saue onely vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes I know no man that doubteth Their d Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib 4. Sixtus Senensis reckoneth them for the workes of Ambrose for their part and our e Centâ—r Magdeburg lib. 4. cap. 10. Centuristes for our part and on both sides they are alwaies cited in his name There is no doubt but they are the workes of a very auncient writer if they were not his and therefore that can make little to acquit Maister Bishop of crossing the auncient Church vnlesse he can giue vs a better answer But that we shall haue namely that that Author excludeth not repentance but onely the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessarie as circumcision and such like Short and sweete this he hath told vs and if we will fare better we must take the paines to go further But let him remember that the point in question is of being iustified by faith alone which Saint Ambrose there directly and fully affirmeth by faith onely by faith onely it is required onely to beleeue Now though the ceremoniall workes of Moses law be excluded from iustification yet if we be iustified by any other workes we are not iustified by faith onely or alone He excludeth not repentance saith he but let vs request him to turne vs these words into English Nulla ab his requisita paenitentiae opera nisi tantùm vt credant We take it to be this there being required of theÌ„ no labour or worke of penitency or repentance but onely to beleeue He meaneth indeed by penitencie that which publikely was don for which men were called poenitentes penitents as afterward appeareth but by excluding such works of penitencie it appeareth that it was not his meaning to exclude only circumcision and such other ceremonies of Moses law and therefore that M. Bishops answer is a verie absurd and broken shift Marke the words gentle Reader Working nothing not making any requitall without any labour or worke no worke of penitencie required without workes and freely and by faith alone all sounding that f Ambros in Psal 43. Non facta sua vnumquenque iustificant sed fides prompta a mans works do not iustifie him but his prompt faith as the same S. Ambrose speaketh in another place As for the words which he bringeth to crosse the other they are no way contrarie to vs. We say as he saith that faith alone sufficeth not and yet we say as he also saith that faith sufficeth to iustification For it is one thing to say what sufficeth to iustification another thing to say what sufficeth to the perfection of a Christian and iustified man The place alledged out of Austin inferreth our assertion though it expresse it not If it be our propitiation that is our iustification to beleeue in Christ then onely to beleeue in Christ doth iustifie If not then it cannot be said to be our iustification to beleeue in Christ For where the effect belongeth to many causes alike there it cannot be singularly attributed to anie one His answer to the words of Hesychius is impertinent for Hesychius beside that he saith that grace is not merited because it is of mercie telleth vs also what it is whereby the same is apprehended and that he saith is faith alone g Hesych in Leuit lib. 4 cap. 14. Gratia ex misericordia compassione probatur fide comprehendiur sola non ex operibus Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes If grace be not apprehended by works as Hesychius saith why doth M. Bishop tel vs that it is apprehended by workes If it be apprehended by faith alone why doth he tell vs that it is not apprehended by faith alone Be it that our workes before grace doe not merit our iustification yet if by workes we be iustified as well as by faith then it is not true which this Father saith that the grace of iustification is apprehended by faith and not by workes The words of Saint Bernard are plainely spoken of the imputed righteousnes of Iesus Christ by occasion of the Apostles words that Christ is h 1. Cor. 1 30. made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption i Bernard in Cant. ser 22. Iustitia in absolutione peccatoruÌ„ Righteousnes saith he by forgiuenesse of sinnes for prosecuting therof saith of Christ k Iustitiae tuae tanta vbique fragraÌ„tia spargitur vt non solum iustus sed ipsa dicaris iustitia et iustitia iustificans TaÌ„ validus denique es ad iustificandum quaÌ„ multus ad ignosâ—enduÌ„ Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit iustitiaÌ„ credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit ad Deum so sweete a sauour of thy righteousnes is euery where spred abroad as that thou art not only called righteous but also righteousnesse it selfe and a iustifying righteousnesse As strong thou art to iustifie as thou art readie to forgiue Whosoeuer therefore being pricked with his sinnes hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifiest the vngodly and being iustified by faith onely he shall haue peace with God M. Bishop telleth vs that S. Bernard by faith alone
concupiscence to be restrained and bridled Therefore he saith f De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis quòd lex dixit Ne concupiscas Hoc modo impleri non potest The perfection of vertue is that which the law saith Thou shalt not lust this now in this life cannot be fulfilled And againe g Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere hoc est non concupiscere Quis ergo hoc qui viuit potest To fulfill the law is not to iust and who is there liuing that can so do It is manifest then by S. Austin that that commandement requireth a perfection which in this world we neuer are able to attaine vnto because it doth not onely forbid consent but euen the very hauing of any euill motions or affections contrarie to the law And by those motions we do not onely breake the commandement Thou shalt not lust but we faile of yeelding loue to God with all our heart with all our soule c. because euil motions and lusts do occupie some part of the heart and soule and withhold the same from God Therefore S. Austin saith againe h Aug. de perf iust Cùm est aliquid concupisceÌ„tiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carnaliter anima concupiscit so long as there is any part of carnall concupiscence by continencie to be bridled God is not perfectly loued with all the soule for the flesh lusteth not without the soule although the flesh be said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh Now therefore albeit it be true that a man may resist such euill motions and deny consent vnto them yet is he not therby freed froÌ„ transgression of the law But yet M. Bishop falsely alledgeth S. Austin to that purpose who in the place i August Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus c. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lasciuos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere c Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas vsque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam cited not the seuenth as he quoteth but the thirtieth Chapter affirmeth indeed that somtimes men resist those concupiscences euen in their sleepe that it is in Gods power to make him alwaies so to do He signifieth his longing desire after that puritie and perfection but his expectation of it onely then when death shall be swallowed into victorie howsoeuer God be able if so it were his pleasure to giue it euen now also in the meane time And indeed there is no man liuing to whom can be attributed that perfection to be altogether and wholy free from consent of sinfull lust There is no man that fighteth so warily but that sometimes yea many times he receiueth grieuous wounds and findeth cause to cry mournfully vnto God for the cure thereof A man resisteth in one thing and is ouertaken in another at one time he checketh those corrupt desires with which as nets he is strongly intangled at another This is the state of all flesh and of this we haue cause to complaine so long as we liue here 41 W. BISHOP Iac. 3.2 1. Ioan. 1. We do offend in many things and if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Answer I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily led by the craft of the diuell into many offences which we might auoyde if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the law which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we commit some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing with it But of this matter more fully in some other place R. ABBOT There is no doubt but if all impediments were taken away whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandements of God it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfill the same It is true which S. Austine saith that a August de spâ— lit cap. 19. Non vitio suo non implebatur lex sed vitio prudentiae carnis it is not by any default of the lawe that we fulfill it not but by default of the wisedome of the flesh which as the Apostle saith is b Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God and is not subiect vnto the law of God nor indeed can be We are by our frailtie led into many offences saith M. Bishop and we might auoyde the same if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be But so long as this frailtie hangeth vpon vs and by the weaknesse and corruption of flesh we are not so warie and watchfull as we ought to be why doth he attribute vnto vs a power and ablenesse to fulfill the lawe And what is that that he saith but euen the deuice of the Pelagian Heretickes who affirming c Hieron Epist ad Ctesiphont Hominem posse esse sine peccato si velit c. Cùm ab eis quaerimus qui sint quos absque peâ—cato putent noua stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint sed qui esse possint that a man may be without sinne if he will and being demaunded who they were whom they tooke to be without sinne by a wily shift answered that they said not what men are or what they haue bene but what they may be Euen thus M. Bishop being vrged by the confession of the Apostles themselues that in many things we all offend and sinne that is do trespasse and breake the commandements of God confesseth it to be true but yet notwithstanding saith that it is vnpossible to keepe them But as Hierome answered the Pelagiaâ—s so we answer him d Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare What a reason is this that that is possible to be which neuer was and may be done which thou bearest witnesse that neuer any man did and to giue to euery man that which in the Patriarkes and Prophets and Apostles thou art not able to make good To be short as it is not possible for a man being feeble and weake and sicke to beare a
illud esse consequens video vt quâ—lemlibes vel quantamlibet in hac vita potuerimus definire iustitiam nullus in ea sit hominum qui nullum habeat omninò peccatum Such iust men liuing by faith haue no need to say forgiue vs our trespasses do coÌ„uince it to be false which is writteÌ„ No maÌ„ liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God and that If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and that there is not a man that sinneth not and that There is not a man iust vpon the earth that doth good and sinneth not But because these sayings cannot be false it followeth that whatsoeuer or how great soeuer we can define righteousnesse in this life there is not a man therein that is without sinne Where very plainely he disclaimeth the assertion of any righteousnesse in this life in which that may be found that M. Bishop speaketh of namely not to sinne And surely had not this man a face of brasse and an iron conscience he would not in these dayes of light affirme a thing or seeme to affirme it so contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine and confession of the Church As for his distinction of veniall sinnes I haue before shewed it to be friuolous and vaine and the same God willing shall appeare further in the Section next saue one 46. W. BISHOP To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or two drawne from the absurditie of our aduersaries doctrine which teacheth euery good worke of the righteous man to be infected with mortall sinne which being graunted it would follow necessarily that no good worke in the world were to be done vnder paine of damnation Rom. 7. thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the wages of sinne is death but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne ergo no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation It followeth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly for all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second table but euery performance of any duty is necessarily linked with some mortall sinne therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sins and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseparable companions if not sworne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Now let vs heare what arguments they bring against this Catholike verity R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop hath learned from his fellow M. Wright to strike the matter dead at one blow Albeit it is more likely that these arguments going so currant amongst them were agreed vpon at Wisbich or some other like place in some solemne assembly and consultation where the graue and reuerend companie of the Seculars laid their wits together to giue the Protestants some ineuitable and deadly blow It is hard to thinke that one or two mens wits should serue to contriue such a matter as here is against vs. Now if some young Sophister of the Vniuersitie had stood by and smiling at them had said that it was pitty that they good old men should be troubled with making of Syllogisms who had forgotten of how many termes a Syllogisme doth consist would they not think you haue startled at the hearing of it and thought themselues exceedingly disgraced by a boy Surely the arguments here set downe are such as that if a boy in our Vniuersities should make the like in earnest he shold be thought iustly to deserue the rod and yet these are they who take vpon them as if we were to say vnto them a Iob. 12.2 Because you onely are men wisedome must dye with you He will proue by our doctrine that no good worke is to be done vnder paine of damnation And how forsooth no mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation but all good workes are stained with mortall sinne ergo c. Did not his head serue him to know that it is an error in arguing when a Syllogisme consisteth ex quatuor terminis We haue mortall sinne in the Maior proposition and in the Minor stained with mortall sinne If he would haue kept the course of argument he must haue said thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation but all good workes are mortall sinnes ergo c. Which if he had said the absurditie of his minor proposition had easily appeared because euery man could haue discerned that good workes though they haue some aspersion or touch of our corruption yet do not thereby become sinnes no more then gold by his drosse becometh earth or iron no more then white linnen for some spot or staine is to be accounted blacke haire-cloth no more then the day is to be called night because it hath but ouercast and darksome light S. Hierome telleth vs that b Hier. aduers Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari Denique Apostoli appellantur lux mundi sed non est scriptum quod in Apostolorum luce nullae sint tenebrae When S. Iohn saith that there is no darkenesse found in the light of God he sheweth that all others lights are blotted with some vncleannesse The Apostles saith he are called the light of the world but it is not written that there was no darknesse in the Apostles light And what will M. Bishop conclude that because there was some darknes in the Apostles light therefore their light was darknesse and not light If he will not so conclude then let him say that it followeth not that good workes are sins albeit in our doing of them they receiue some blemish and staine of sinne But to shew vs somewhat more of the sweat and superfluitie of his learning he hath added another argument of the like feature to proue that by our doctrine euery man is bound to sinne deadly And why so because all men are bound to performe the duties of the first and second Table and euery performance thereof is necessarily linked with mortall sinne Which is as if a man should reason thus A lame man is bound by law to come to the Church but he cannot come to the Church but he must halt therefore he is bound by law to halt M. Bishop is bound to pay a man twenty pounds but he cannot tell the mony without soyling his fingers therefore he is bound to soile his fingers He can no way inferre his conclusion but by a sophisticall cauillation which the Logicians call fallaciam accidentis whereby in the conclusion he inferreth that of the accident which in the premisses is referred onely to the subiect his argument by that meanes wholly without forme and offending in the like sort as the other did Bring it into his due fashion and euery child then shal see that his proofe is most ridiculous and absurd For to bring in his conclusion
this our vertue which commeth not of God but is attributed vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good workes all which we acknowledge to proceede principally from the grace of God dwelling in vs. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot attaine vnto perfect purity such as shall be in heauen reade the beginning of his first and second booke of Morals and there you shall finde him commending Iob to the skies as a good and holy man by his temptations not foiled but much aduaunced in vertue R. ABBOT These arguments the most of them are foisted in of his owne head there being none of ours that alledgeth them to that purpose to which he produceth them But thus because he would be taken for a valiant warriour he maketh himselfe a man of straw to fight with and with all his might bestirreth himselfe against a shadow But the worth of his answers is first to be seene in that which he saith to the words of the Apostle a Psal 32.2 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The best men sinne venially saith he and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned Now the Apostle expoundeth the forgiuenesse or not imputing of sinne there spoken of to be the imputation of righteousnesse But the forgiuenesse of their veniall sinnes is not the imputation of righteousnesse because without any forgiuenesse of veniall sinnes a man continueth righteous and iust as wherein there is no breach of iustice and righteousnesse and notwithstanding the same a man is iust in the sight of God as out of the Romish doctrine was shewed in the section last sauing one Therefore forgiuenesse of sinnes spoken of in that place cannot be vnderstood of veniall sinnes Againe he maintaineth in the question of Satisfaction that forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh not away the temporall punishment of sinne How then is a man happie when those veniall sinnes be pardoned if for want of satisfaction he remaine still to pay deare for them as he speaketh in his Epistle in Purgatory fire He bringeth in a place of Cyprian as idlely as he did the former texts To that which he saith we answer him that it is by the grace of Christ through the forgiuenesse of sins that the wounds which the faithfull man receiueth be not mortall His foiles and wounds of themselues are such as that he must say with Dauid b Psal 130.3 If thou O Lord be extreame to marke iniquities who can stand c Aug. in Psal 129. Vidit propè totaÌ„ vitaÌ„ humanaÌ„ circuÌ„latrari peccatis suit accusari omnes coÌ„scientias cogitationibus suis non inueniri castum cor praesumens de iustitia sua Si ergo cor castuÌ„ non potest inuenirs quod praesumat de sua iustitia prasumat omnium cor de miserecordia Dei dicat si c. He saw saith S. Austine the whole life of man in a manner to be barked at on euery side with his sinnes all consciences to be accused by their owne thoughts that there is not a cleane heart found that can presume of it owne righteousnesse If then therâ— cannot be found a cleane heart which may presume of it owne righteousnesse let the hearts of all presume vpon the mercy of God and say If thou markest iniquities O Lord who shall abide it Let Maister Bishop marke it well that in this warfare there is no heart cleane that can presume of it owne righteousnesse and that we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely Gods mercy To the place of Hierome he saith that all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially But iust men confesse their sinnes in the same meaning as they say Forgiue vs our trespasses They say Forgiue vs our trespasses as S. Austin saith the Apostles did as we heard before for those sinnes for which they say also Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants for in thy sight no man liuing shall be iustified They confesse therefore such sinnes as hinder them from being iustified in the sight of God which M. Bishop saith his veniall sinnes do not The repeating of the whole sentence of Hierome is a sufficient answer to him the latter part whereof he concealeth because it taketh away his glose vpon the former d Hieron cont Pelag li. 1. Tunc iusti â—umus quaÌ„do nos peccatores fatemur et iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit miserecordia Then are we iust when we coÌ„fesse our selues to be sinners and our righteousnesse standeth not vpon our owne merit but vpon the mercy of God If our righteousnesse consist in the acknowledgement of our sinnes and in the mercy of God pardoning and forgiuing the same then is there in vs no such perfection as M. Bishop speaketh of neither can any worke come from vs that can haue the title of absolute and perfect righteousnesse before God And this will be yet more by that that in the next place is alledged out of Saint Austine who noting diuers degrees of charity saith that e Aug. epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iaÌ„ augeri non potest quamdiu hìc homo vinit est in nemine QuaÌ„diâ— autem augeri potest profectò quicquid minus est quà m â—ebet ex vitio est the most perfect charity no further to be increased is in no man so long as he liueth here and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of a corruption or default Now hereto Saint Austine addeth not onely that which Maister Bishop mentioneth though he mention it also by halfe f Ex quo vitio 〈◊〉 est iustuâ— c. By reason of which g Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Aug. de li. aâ—â—iâ— lib 3. cap. 14. corruption there is not a man iust vpon earth which doth good and sinneth not but also another sentence which he concealeth h Ex quo vitio non iustificaâ—â—tur c. By reason of which corruption no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God Now if by reason of a corruptioÌ„ remaining in vs there be such an imperfection of charity which is the substance of inherent iustice as that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight then can no good worke proceede from vs which can be said to be perfectly and entierly goâ—d For from an vnperfect cause cannot come a perfect effect i Bern in Cant. ser 71. Si radix in vitio ramus If the roote be faulty the braunch also must be so A lame legge cannot yeeld an vpright and stedfast gate Therefore needes must there be a lamenesse and blemish in all the good workes that issue from vs. For charity is not such as it ought to be till we loue the Lord our God with all our soule But k Aug. de perfect iustit
c Cap. 4. Sect. 4. What need any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge Hence are those most insolent speeches of theirs that good workes are d Rhem. Annot. 2. Tim. 4.8 truly and properly meritorious and fully worthy of euerlasting life that heauen is the due and iust stipend which God by his iustice oweth to the persons working by his grace that we haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily that it is our owne right bargained for and wrought for and accordingly payed vnto vs as our hire e Ibid. Heb. 6.10 that good workes be so farre meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for the same Thereupon Tapper sticketh not to say f Ruard Tapper in explic art Louan tom 2 art 9. Absit vt iusti vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam Multò namque gloriâ—sius est ipsoâ— quasi victores triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmaÌ„ suit sudoribus debitam God forbid that the iust should expect eternall life as the poore man doth an almes for it is much more glorious that they should haue it as conquerers and triumphers as the prize due vnto their labours Thus you your selues haue written M. Bishop and do we slaunder you in reporting truly what you haue written No no your speeches are impudent and shamelesse in this behalfe and such as we wonder that your foreheads serue you to auouch Why doth it not suffice you to preach good workes simply as Christ and his Apostles did with commendation of Gods mercy in rewarding the same What need this vaine foolery of merite so improbable so absurd so impossible whereby you do not magnifie God but set vp the righteousnesse of man against the grace of God As for the definition of the Councell of Trent we esteeme it not knowing the same for the most part to haue bene but a conuenticle of base Italianate Machiauels who by equiuocations and sophistications haue deluded the world and by casting the chaffe of some phrases of the Fathers vpon the meeres and puddles of the schoolemen haue laboured to couer and hide the filth and mire thereof and indeed haue left them still to serue by false confidence and trust for gulfes and whirlpools to swallow vp and deuoure the soules of men Although the words of the Councell may beare some good construction according to the auncient fathers meaning of the name of merites yet by them they are deceitfully set downe to leaue open a gappe to the absurd and intollerable presumption of men in aduancing and lifting vp the desert of mens workes as if God were thereby greatly bound and beholding vnto them How farre their meaning extendeth will appeare by M. Bishop who will not haue vs thinke that he will speake any thing but by the authoritie of that Councell And first he telleth vs that they hold that eternall life is a grace which indeed they dare not denie because the Scripture expresly so affirmeth g Rom. 6.23 Eternall life is the grace or gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. But he addeth to grace a supply of workes quite contrary to the Scriptures for it is expresly sayd h Chap. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace i August contra Pelag. Celest lib. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo Grace saith Saint Austin is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort It is of grace saith M. Bishop and yet it is of workes also But still to make a shew of vpholding grace he telleth vs that though eternall life be by workes yet the first grace out of which those workes do issue is freely bestowed vpon vs. Which he saith only as ashamed to deny grace altogether and not of any conscience that hee maketh faithfully to auouch the same For if the grace whence those workes do issue which is the grace of iustification be freely bestowed vpon vs why doth he before labour to approue that we are iustified by workes Or if we obtaine the grace of iustification by workes how doth he say that the same is freely bestowed vpon vs The plaine truth is that by their works of preparation they make a man at least in some sort as we haue heard before out of Bellarmine to merit and deserue euen the first grace if by the first grace we vnderstand the grace of their first iustification as M. Bishop vsually doth But beside grace it is also a reward due in iustice saith he And how so Marry partly by the promise of God Now if he rested here we would not contend with him For promise is indeed grace and iustice in respect of promise is nothing but truth in the performance thereof neither is here any impeachment of the free gift of God But not contented herewith he addeth that it is due in part also for the dignitie of good workes And thus he confoundeth those things which the Scripture still very precisely distinguisheth aduertising vs that k Rom. 4.14 if they which are of the law that is of workes be heires then is faith made voide and the promise is made of none effect and againe l Gal. 3.18 if the inheritance be of the law that is of workes it is no longer by promise To be inheritors by workes and to be inheritors by promise are things so opposite as that the one wholly excludeth the other neither can they possibly stand together As for that which he saith of infants merite and dignitie it is also the schoolemens fiction and deuice Remission of sinnes is their saluation as it is ours and in them it standeth good which the Apostle saith m Rom. 5 2â— As sinne hath raigned ouer them vnto death so grace also raigneth by righteousnesse that is by imputation of righteousnesse vnto eternall life not by any dignitie in them but through Iesus Christ our Lord. But as touching them that arriue to yeares of discretion he telleth vs that either they must by good vse of grace merite life or for want of such fruite fall into the miserable state of death A very hard sentence for himselfe for if he neuer haue life till he merite and deserue it we can well assure him that he shall go without it And I wonder that his heart did not tremble at the writing hereof but that he hath hardened the same against the truth and writeth but only for maintenance of that occupation and trade that must yeeld maintenance backe againe to him What will he say in the end when he shall lie wrastling with death and readie to resigne his soule into the hands of God Will he then craue for mercie who writeth now so earnestly for merite Let him take heede that God do not then answer him n Luk. 19.22 Out of thine
onely reasonably but fully worthy of euerlasting life that they haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily and that God by his iustice oweth it vnto them These are downe-right lads that sticke not to vtter their mindes but M. Bishop he commeth in paltring with his Geometricall proportion and reasonable correspondence and like a young nouice is abashed to say all and by that meanes if good heede be not taken is likely to marre the market of merit to the harme of himselfe and the rest of them Hitherto then it appeareth that M. Perkins did rightly assigne those foure conditions or circumstances to be required in a meritorious work which standing good as they do there can be no merit because all the good that we do is Gods because in all we do but our duty because that that we do doth not fully satisfie our duty nor hath any due proportion or correspondence to the reward of heauen 7. W. BISHOP Exod. 20. His second testimonie is God will shew mercy vpon thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements Hence he reasoneth thus Where reward is giuen vpon mercy there is no merit but reward is giuen vpon mercy as the text proueth ergo Answere That in that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods gifts might day by day increase them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bene otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise Jn Eâ—chir cap. 25. righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue bene from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen this by the way R. ABBOT What when God promiseth mercy to thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements doth he meane his mercy to their children only and not to themselues and is the mercy that is promised only for earth and not for heauen Here M. Bishop as it appeareth was hardly bested when he could find no way to get out but by such a sencelesse and absurd shift But to take away that corrupt glose of his the Prophet Dauid expresly referreth all reward to Gods mercy a Psal 62.12 Thou O Lord art mercifull or mercy O Lord is to be ascribed vnto thee for thou rewardest euery man according to his work Which words are generall of euery man not signifying that which God doth to some for others sake but that which euery man receiueth for his owne worke and import not onely reward of temporall things because they are the words which the Scripture euery where vseth to signifie the reward that shall be giuen at that day Now then there is no merit either in things temporall or eternall because it is of mercy that God rewardeth euery man according to his workes And thus of Gods eternall mercy the same Prophet alluding to the words of the commaundement saith in another place b Psal 103.17 The mercy of the Lord is for euer and euer vpon them that feare him and his righteousnesse towards their childrens children euen such as keepe his couenant and thinke vpon his commandements to do them It is Gods mercy then whereby to them that feare him and keepe his commaundements he giueth reward for euer and euer shewing himselfe iust also in performance of the same promise of his mercy to their childrens children But could not the blind man here see how by his owne answer he doth circumuent himselfe The place he saith must be vnderstood of temporall graces and benefits not of the reward of heauen So then by mercy God bestoweth the reward of temporall benefits but by merit he bestoweth the Kingdome of heauen Now how strange a thing is it and improbable that merits should extend to the purchase of the Kingdome of heauen and yet should not serue to purchase temporall benefits here vpon the earth c Hieron Si tanti vitruÌ„ quanti pretiosissimum margaritum If glasse be of so great price how much more woorth is a most pretious iewell If earth be so much woorth as that mercy onely can yeeld it shall we thinke that we haue merit to deserue heauen But we will leaue the man to his folly it may be when he hath better considered of the matter we shall haue of him some wiser answer In the meane time we acknowledge that God doth not for one mans sake bestow the Kingdome of heauen vpon another but yet of mercy he bestoweth it both vpon the one and vpon the other both vpon the fathers and vpon the children euen all that feare him and keepe his commaundements And fith of mercy he bestoweth it certaine it is that they haue no merit to deserue and chalenge it whosoeuer they be that loue him and keepe his commaundements That which he saith of Adam he saith it without booke and hath no warrant for that he saith As for the place of Austine though it containe nothing but what is probable yet we answer to it by a rule which the same S. Austine hath prescribed otherwhere that d Aug de peccat mer remiss lib. 2. ca. 36. Vbi de re obscurissima disputatur noÌ„ adiuuantibus diuinarum scripturarum certis clarisque documentu cohibere se debet humâ—â—a praesumptis nihil faciins in alteram parteÌ„ declinando where there is controuersie of a very obscure matter there being no certaine cleare instructions of holy Scriptures to helpe vs therein humane presumption is to stay it selfe doing nothing by inclining either way 8 W. BISHOP Now to the third Argument Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merit of works The wages of sinne is death True But we speake of good workes and not of bad which the Apostle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father Saint Augustine in diuers places of his most learned Workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt De grat lib. arb cap. 8. which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearly teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repayed for workes and so pursuing the points of difficultie at large in
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
because the mercie of God alone sufficeth not Now it were wickednes thus to crosse and contradict the Apostles words and therefore doth he conclude that al is wholy to be ascribed vnto Gods mercie See then the good dealing or rather the lewd falshood of M. Bishop and his fellowes who teaching for the maintenance of their doctrine of merits that good works are principally indeed of God but yet partly of our selues do alledge S. Austine for the defence thereof who constantly teacheth to the vtter ouerthrow of merits that our good workes are wholy and onely of the grace of God and in no part of our selues This is one thing for which we iustly detest them as setting vp the glorie of man in stead of the glory of God the righteousnesse of man in stead of the righteousnesse of God and so by bearing men in hand with a merit of eternall life do bereaue them of Gods mercie by which onely they should attaine the same And yet all this is graced and shadowed with goodly faire words as we see here by M. Bishop who hauing said that the grace of God is principally the cause of our saluation and therein implied that our free will also is partly though not principally a cause thereof yet addeth that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes If grace be the onely fountaine of all good workes then all good workes proceed onely from grace and if onely from grace then what can we merit or deserue thereby If we merit and deserue thereby then they are partly of vs and of our free will then grace is not the only fountaine of merit and all good works Therfore let him not lye in this sort let him speake as he meaneth acknowledge that which they al maintaine that good works are therfore our merits because they proceed from our Free will and are no otherwise our merits neither do we otherwise deserue by them but as they proceed from our free will Yea when the grace of God hath done all that appertaineth to it to do all is nothing with them vnlesse man adioyne thereto the worke of his owne free will Either let him renounce his doctrine of Free wil or else let him leaue with colourable words thus to delude and mocke the simple and ignorant reader in saying that which he thinketh not that the grace of God is the onely fountaine of merit and all good works 9. W. BISHOP Ad Eph. 2. Ad Tit. 3. Now to those texts cited before about iustification We are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace R. ABBOT The oftennesse of his answer sheweth the corruption of his conscience that was not moued with so often repeating a manifest vntruth What was it the Apostles meaning to teach the Ephesians that they were not saued by the workes which they did when they yet were a Eph. 2.1 dead as he saith in trespasses and sinnes or had the Ephesians any such opinion that the Apostle should need to reforme in them Did they renounce their former workes to come to Christ that they might be saued by him and did they afterwardes grow againe to a conceipt of being saued by their former workes These are grosse and palpable vntruths neither hath the Scripture any thing at all that may giue any shew for warrant of such constructiō Nay as hath bene before said when the Apostle hauing said b Ver. 9. Not of workes lest any man should boast addeth as a reason and proofe hereof c Ver. 10. for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. as if he should haue said We cannot be said to be saued by workes because our workes are none of ours but Gods works in vs he plainely sheweth that not onely workes before grace but after also are excluded from being any cause of our saluation The place to Titus likewise resteth our saluation only vpon d Tit. 3.5 Gods mercy and therefore leaueth no place to our good workes and therefore it is vsed by S. Bernard not only in this day for an exception against workes before grace but e Bernard in Cant. ser 50. that we may know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. 10. W. BISHOP Now to that text which he hudleth vp together with the rest although it deserued a better place being one of their principall pillars in this controuersie it is Rom. 8. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lieth in a false translatiō of these words Axia pros tein doxan equall to that glory or in the misconstruction of them for we grant as hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merite the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words 2. Cor. 4. for saith he That tribulation which in this present life is but for a moment and light doth worke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting waight of glory in vs. The reason is that iust mens works issue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his works are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh which addes a worth of heauen to his works 2. Pet. 1. Neither is that glory in heauen which any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignitie as M Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merits otherwise it would make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesse R. ABBOT These words of S. Paule to the Romanes a Rom. 8.18 The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shall be reuealed vpon vs are verie directly cited and are as pregnant to the matter here in hand M. Bishop saith that that text is one of our principall pillars in this controuersie and indeed it is so strong a pillar as that all M. Bishops strength is not able to shake it from vpholding that which we professe to teach by it But yet pro forma he
stomacke and to be reconciled to them that offended theÌ„ But I had thought that the Gods without any recompence or satisfaction would leaue their anger and remit to sinners their offenses For it is saith he the property of Gods liberally to forgiue to grant free pardons This censure of Arnobius the Papists also vndergo who make God in the like sort as did the Pagans to sell his own wrongs for our satisfactions and deny that God giueth to the penitent any free pardon but he wil haue a recompence for the offence done vnto him yea and that after the sin is not only past but also pardoned as we are here told Which I wish thee gentle reader to obserue diligently that thou maist see herafter how vnhansomly he manageth this matter These satisfactions M. Bishop telleth vs are either inioyned by the CoÌ„fessor or vndertaken by the penitent or sent by Gods visitation The two first kinds are in matter all one either almes by giuing a fee to a Priest or a gift to holy Church or after a full Friday dinner to fast at night with Sugar cakes and suckets wine or to mumble so many Pater nosters Aue-maries and Creeds such and such daies for thus or thus long And if they be but veniall sins e Sext Proaem in Glossavenialia remittuntur per benedictionem Praelati per orationem dominicaÌ„ aquam lenedictam tunsionem pectoris c. to receiue the Bishops blessing or to be besprinkled with holy water or to say one Pater noster or to giue himselfe a knocke on the brest or some such like matter will be satisfaction good enough Such impudent and shameles harlots haue we to do with who stick not with their ridiculous toyes to abuse vilifie the maiesty of God and to make a mockery of the appeasing of that wrath before which the Angels themselues haue no strength to stand The like impietie we see in the other kind of satisfactioÌ„s which he saith are sent by Gods visitation wherby we must thinke that euery ague euery bile euery sore finger is a satisfaction for our sins For althogh God do lay these things vpon vs yet we in the bearing thereof do yeeld him a recoÌ„pence for such trespasse or offence as we haue done to him Now if we performe not these satisfactions here then we must after this life make satisfaction in the fire of Purgatorie if we take not good order for the quenching of it As for hell fire it makes no great matter that burnes but litle at Rome the only Catholike fire is Purgatory fire Hell yeeldeth neither gold nor siluer but Purgatorie is a rich mine and the fire thereof melteth much treasure out of mens purses that it may run into the Popes mint therfore no maruell if there be much Catholike businesse many bellowes blowing to keepe it from going out This is a terrible fire I warrant you if it be hot enough to melt gold and siluer how cruelly doth it scorch the tender soules that lye frying and broyling in it Hard therefore will be the case of them that neglect to make full satisfaction while they liue here but yet there is a helpe for that for the Popes pardon will cut off all The Pope hath a store house of satisfactions at Rome wherin he hath hoorded vp whatsoeuer the Virgin Mary the Apostles other Saints Martyrs haue by way of satisfaction payed to God more then they ought him if a man will come off and be liberal he can thence furnish him with sufficient to make vp that which he wanteth of his owne for payment for all his sins And he good holy Father perceiuing in these times f Râ—â—m Testam Annot. in 1. Cor. 2.11 a fall of deuotion a lothsomnes that men commonly haue to do great penance though their sins be far greater then euer before euen of pure coÌ„passion fearing to driue them either to despaire or to forsake Christ and his Church enioyneth small penance and pardoneth exceeding often and much not only all enioyned penance but also all or great parts of what teÌ„poral punishment soeuer due or deserued either in this world or the next Belike God is waxen more remisse in these later times and is not so strict to require satisfactions as he was wont to be and hath bin content to put the penalties and forfeitures that are made to him into the Popes hands that he may make benefit of them as hauing greater occasion of expence then Peter Paul and the first Bishops of Rome had But one thing there is that maketh vs here somewhat to stick M. Bishop reckoneth Gods visitations for one part of these satisfactions Now the Pope hauing so large power to remit all teÌ„porall punishment due or deserued either in this world or the next we wonder that we could neuer yet heare that a Popes pardon hath eased a fit of an ague or cured head-ach or tooth-ach or such like whereas by their assertion it should be strong enough to break the stone in the bladder to cure the Strangurie the Gowt the Gangrena the Nolime tangere whatsoeuer else Phisitians Chirurgians do accountincurable How should we think that he that cannot giue helpe for any of these should be of power to set men free from Purgatory paines But by his failing so wholy in these we take him to be a lier in all the rest do proue both him and his Factors to be the notable impostors and cousiners of the world g 2. Pet. 3. â— Apoc. 18.13 through couetousnes with fained words making merchandize of mens soules and h Tit. 1.11 speaking things which they oughs not for filthy lucres sake We must take you M. Bishop to be one of these vnlesse you bring vs better matter then we looke for for the proofe of these things Of Purgatorie vntill you giue vs further occasion to speake further of it sufficient hath bene alreadie said in i Sect. 10.16 26. answer of your Epistle to the King 2. W. BISHOP M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnly That no man can be saued vnlesse he made a perfect satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for al his sins Yet in the explication of the difference between vs defineth as peremptorily that no man is to satisfie for any one of all his sins or for any temporall paine due to them which be flat contradictory propositions and therfore the one of them must needs be false Bâ—â— such odde broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground-woâ—â—â— of his questions and thereupon raiseth the tottering building of his nâ—â— doctrine and lets not like a blind man to make an outcry that in this matter the Papists erre in the very foundation and life of religion which in his first argument he goes about to proue thus Imperfect satisfactioÌ„ is no satisfaction at all but the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they do therunto
adde a supply of humane satisfaction ergo they make it no satisfaction at all Answ This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon which hath both propositions false The first is childish for he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of theÌ„ makes some satisfaction which satisfaction is vnperfect yet cannot be called no satisfaction at al as euery child may see His second is as vntrue mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction but to apply it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his will and ordinance God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sins and taketh fully away all paine due to sinne so that he who dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if we do afterward vngratefully forsake God and coÌ„trary to our promise transgresse against his commandements then lo the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor but he vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable vnto the fault committed not to supply Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall but that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoyd sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Gal. 6. Euery man do beare his owne burden R. ABBOT M. Bishop well knew that M. Perkins speech importeth no contradiction because in the one he intendeth that euery man is to make satisfaction for his sins either by himselfe or by a Mediator and in the other denieth that any man maketh this satisfaction or any part thereof by himself Though the phrase were not so easie of our making satisfaction when he meant it by another yet his meaning was very plaine There must be a satisfaction yeelded to the iustice of God which is done onely in Iesus Christ a Rom. 3.25 whom God himselfe hath set foorth to be an attonement or reconciliation through faith in his bloud Here is therefore no broken rubbish but a sure foundation laid and the building setled vpon it standeth firme and fast the wind wherwith M. Bishop hath blown against it being only his owne breath And because b 1. Cor. 3.11 there is no other foundation to be laid but only that which he hath laid which is Iesus Christ therefore not like a blind man but vpon good discernement and sight he hath made the outcry that the Papists laying another foundatioÌ„ in the merits and satisfactions of men do erre in the very foundation and life of Christian faith To shew this he argueth in this sort A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they adde a supply of humane satisfactions therefore they make Christs satisfaction no satisfaction at all A substantial argument saith M. Bishop well if it be not so we expect that M. Bishop make it appeare to vs by a very substantiall answer He telleth vs that both the propositions are false yea the first saith he is childish but well we wot that he hath giuen vs a very childish reason why he so saith He that satisfieth for halfe his debts or any part thereof saith he makes some satisfaction But we tell him that therein he fondly misapplyeth the name of satisfaction which is a word of perfection and therfore cannot be rightly vsed of that that is vnperfect It importeth the doing of that that is sufficient and enough to giue full contentment to the party to whom it is done and fully to quit the offence and wrong that is done vnto him Therefore no man but M. Bishop is so mad as to say that by the tender of a penny a man offereth a satisfaction when the debt or damage is an hundred pounds Yea and howsoeuer the name of satisfaction may be abused in party-payment for matters of meere debt yet he should remember that in their schooles it is resolued that because Satisfaction as here it is spoken of is c Thom. Aquin. Supplement q. 14. art 1. c. Cùm per satisfactioneÌ„ tolli debeat offensa praecedentis peccati offensae autem ablatio sit amicitiae diuinae restitutio quaeper quoduis peccatuÌ„ impeditur sieri non potest vt homo de vno peccato satisfaciat alto retento Vide in corpâ—art the taking away of displeasure and offence and the taking away of offence is the restitution of friendship and loue and there cannot be restitution of friendship and loue so long as any impediment therof coÌ„tinueth therfore there can be no satisfaction for one sin that is for one part of a mans debt so long as there is a remainder of another M. Bishop might very well conceiue that God receiueth not recompence of his wrongs by pence and halfpence nor doth account the sacrifice of a sheep to be some satisfaction towards the sauing of a soule But it is the 2. proposition that specially concernes the point To that he answereth that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs satisfaction Where we see it to be with them as Tertullian mentioneth of the Valentinian heretickes d Tertullian aduers Valent. Nihil magis curant quà m occultare quod praedicant si tamen praeditant qui occuliant c. Negant quicquid agnoscum They care for nothing more then to hide that which they preach if at least they preach who conceale and hide they deny it howsoeuer they well know it They do indeed make the satisfaction of Christ vnperfect our satisfactions to be the supply of his want but yet because that soundeth odiously they will not haue it knowne or taken that they do so Yet M. Perkins brought proofe thereof out of one of their great Schoolemen Gabriel Biel who plainly saith that although the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which is conferred grace and the opening of the kingdome and glory yet it is neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause It is manifest saith he because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason Here it is expresly affirmed that the passion of Christ is not a totall meritorious cause and if it be not a totall cause then it wanteth a supply that that is
added for the producing of the effect must necessarily be holden to be added for a supply of that that it wanteth Seeing then to the satisfaction of Christ as not being a totall and perfect cause our satisfactions are added for the producing of the effects of grace and glorie it cannot be denied but that our satisfactioÌ„s are a supply of somwhat wanting to the satisfaction of Christ To this acknowledgment taken out of their owne bookes why doth M. Bishop answer nothing but that in his conscience he knoweth that they are guilty of that wherwith they are charged Yea and the thing is very apparent of it selfe for if they held the satisfaction of Christ to be a totall and perfect satisfaction then they must needs confesse that in the nature of a satisfaction nothing else should be needfull for vs. But they require somwhat else as needfull in the nature of a satisfaction Therfore they do not confesse the satisfaction of Christ to be a total and perfect satisfaction for it implieth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a totall cause and yet to require another cause as necessary for the same effect M. Bishop telleth vs that the vse of our satisfactions is to apply vnto vs Christs satisfaction and to fulfil his will and ordinance A goodly and witty deuice I haue a medicin fully sufficient and auaileable for the curing healing of my wound I must haue another medicin for the healing of the same wound which I must apply and lay to the former medicine My surety hath fully and perfectly discharged my debt and I must my selfe pay the debt againe that my sureties paiment may stand good for me A satisfaction to apply a satisfaction is a toy so improbable senslesse as that we may thinke them miserably put to shifts that could find no better cloke to hide their shame Yet this is the couer of al their poisoned cups They multiply their witchcrafts and sorceries without end bring into the Church what they list lewdly to deuise and then tell vs that these things serue to apply vnto vs the merit passion of Christ The sacrifice of the Masse is the propitiation for our sins but it applyeth vnto vs the sacrifice of the crosse of Christ The bloud and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs are auaileable for the forgiuenesse of sins but they apply vnto vs the vertue of the bloud and sufferings of Christ But here M. Perkins noted that the meanes of application consist in Gods offering to vs and our receiuing of him God offereth Christ vnto vs by the word SacrameÌ„ts we receiue him by faith He required it to be proued that by satisfactions Christ is either offered on Gods part or receiued on our part Why did M. Bishop omit to do this why doth he neither bring reason example nor authority to shew vs that satisfaction hath any such nature or vse of application or in what sort it should be said to apply We haue shewed e Of Iustification Sect. 19. 29. before that faith is as it were the hand of the soule an instrument properly seruing for apprehending receiuing laying hold of and applying to our selues why doth not he make the same appeare to vs concerning satisfaction But why do we require him to do more then he can do But here is a secret gentle Reader which I wish thee to take knowledge of and if thou be acquainted with him aske him if occasion serue the solution of this doubt He telleth vs through all this discourse that the vse of Christs satisfaction is to take away the guilt of sin the eternal punishment therof that this we obtain in the forgiuenes of our sins But now after the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactions remaine to be performed by vs. If this be so if the vse of Christs satisfaction be determined in the forgiuenes of our sins these satisfactioÌ„s follow after how or to what vse do these satisfactions apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ As for example M. Bishop giueth a man absolution before he dieth he hath therupon his sins forgiuen him a release froÌ„ eternall punishment but yet being not yet throughly scoured to Purgatory he must go Now then in what sort and to what end doth Purgatorie apply vnto him the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ For the satisfaction of Christ medleth not with temporall punishments he hath left the kingdome of temporall satisfactions the whole reuenew thereof to the Pope What do we here then with applying the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ Riddle this riddle he that can for M. Bishop cannot do it yet he telleth vs further that our satisfactioÌ„s are to fulfill the wil and ordinance of Christ and hereupon he entreth into a goodly tale to declare vnto vs this ordinance But his declaratioÌ„ is such as that we may see in him that which Hilary said of the Arian heretikes f Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ingerunt nomina veritatis vt virut falsitatis intrâ—â—at They thrust in words of truth that the poison of their falshood may find entrance It fitteth them which Tertullian said of the Valentinians g Tertul. aduers Valent. Sanctis nominibus titulis argumentis verae religionis vanissima turpissima sigmenta coâ—figurant They fashion their most vaine filthy deuices to the holy names and titles and arguments of true religion He telleth vs that God in Baptisme for Christs sake both pardoneth all sin and taketh fully away all paine due to sin But where I maruell hath he seene this miracle wrought That God in Baptisme giueth full forgiuenesse of sins we acknowledge but yet did we neuer find but that baptisme for pain outward grieuances leaueth a man the same that it found him sicke and diseased before sicke and diseased still lame before lame still blind before blind still We see that infants baptized who he saith haue no sin to satisfie for yet haue many pangs and frets and sicknesses and how then doth baptisme take away al paine due to sin He who dieth in that state saith he goeth presently to heauen but he who dieth in that state dieth he without pain We see he talketh at randon wholy by fancy not by reason neither do his eyes look which way his feet go Well let this passe What after baptisme If after we transgresse saith he then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauor Why but the Apostle S. Iohn saith to them that are baptized h 1. Ioh. 22. If any man sin we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation or satisfaction for our sins What is the difference then if both in baptisme and after baptisme Christ be the attonement satisfaction for our sinnes Yea saith M. Bishop God vpon our repentance pardoneth the sinne and eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ but doth
punishments in the world to come but also for the temporall afflictions punishments that are incident to this life It is therefore a great impiety in the Church of Rome to take away this part of Christes office from him and to make euery man thereof partaker to his wrong But now whereas M. Bishop saith that it would require an infinite vertue to satisfie for the euerlasting punishment of sinne we would gladly know of him how it standeth that a greater vertue is required to satisfie for the euerlasting paines of hell then there is to merit and purchase the euerlasting ioyes of heauen He saith the grace of Christ giueth force to our workes to deserue the one but if that be true by what reason doth he deny that the grace of Christ giueth force to our satisfactions to quit the other His owne confession in the one condemneth his assertion in the other and because he denieth that our merits of satisfaction can release from hell he must deny that our merits of purchase are of sufficient value to deserue heauen because the grace of God must be holden to be of the same power and vertue on both sides Againe it is vntrue which he saith that the temporall punishment being limited may be satisfied for by a meere creature because the satisfaction is not to be esteemed according to the quantity of the temporal punishment but according to the maiestie of him to whoÌ„ the offence is done who being the same in punnishing whether temporally or eternally can haue none of sufficient worth to deale with the one who is not the same for the other also He cannot in any sort merit any thing at Gods hands who is not in worth and power answerable to his infinite greatnesse And this Thomas Aquinas saw who to make good humane satisfaction attributeth vnto it d Thom. Aquin. suppl q. 13. art 1. ad 1. Sicut offensa habuit quandaem infinitateÌ„ ex infinitate diuinae maiestatisâ—â—ta etiam satisfactio accipit quandaÌ„ infinitatem ex infinitate diuinae misericordiae proui est gratia informata per quam acceptum redditur quod homo facere potest an infinitie in respect that it is informed by grace accepted thereby whereby we may see how well these men accord in the grounds of their defence But Thomas Aquinas saw it to be an absurd fancie which M. Bishop here followeth in designing a rate as he calleth it of sins to be answered by a measure of temporall stripes whereas the infinitenesse of sin can beare no such limitation nor be bounded in any sort within the coÌ„passe of temporall reuenge But yet M. Bishop will make vs beleeue that he hath a deuice whereby to make good this rate and measure He telleth vs that in sin two things must be considered the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend Our turning from God both the fault the eternall punishment due vnto it he saith are freely pardoned by Christ but man forsooth must satisfie for the pleasure that he tooke in turning to the creature But this idle Sophisme of his is reiected also by the same great Rabbine of theirs Thomas Aquinas as a thing of nought e Jbid. Quidam dicum quòd habet infinitateÌ„ ex parte auersionis sic gratis dimittitur sed ex parte coÌ„uersionis finita est sic pro ea satisfiers potest Sed hoc nihil est quia satisfactio non respondet peccato nisi secundum quod est offensa Dei quod noÌ„ habet ex paâ—â—â— conuersionis sed â—x 〈◊〉 â—â—â—sionis 〈…〉 22. Ci◠〈…〉 beneâ—◠〈…〉 dineâ—â—ist 〈…〉 muliaeuteÌ„ 〈◊〉 perturâ—ato Some say saith he that sin hath an infinity in respect of auerting or turning away from God and so it is freely pardoned but that in respect of conuersion or turning to creatures it is finite and so may be satisfied for But this is nothing because satisfaction answereth not to sin but according as it is an offence to God which it hath not of conuerting to other things but of auerting and turning from God There is a loue of the creatures which is according to God standeth with the loue of God f The creature because it is good it may be loued aright saith Austin and it may be loued amisse aright if order be kept amisse if order be peruerted Therefore vertue righteousnes is not a deniall of the loue of the creatures but it is as he saith g Ibid. Definitio breuis vera virtutis â—rdo est amoris an order in louing The act of sin then consisteth in disordered loue in that the loue of the creature implieth an auersion and turning away from God Now then seeing satisfaction is to be made by vs in respect of auersion froÌ„ God the punishment that belongeth to auersion froÌ„ God is the eternall punishment of sin as M. Bishop also saith he must acknowledge by the doctrine of their owne Schooles that we are to make satisfaction for the eternall punishment of sin and then let him tell vs what exception he hath yet giuen that their doctrine of satisfactions doth not make vs Christes Redeemers of our selues Priests of the same order with the Sonne of God But we are yet further desirous to know vpon what ground M. Bishop would haue vs to beleeue that only temporall punishments should belong to the pleasures delights of sin or in what sort we should conceiue the same pleasures of sin seuered from auerting turning away from God These are such strange deuices howsoeuer he setteth them downe as speciall tricks of wit as that he should thinke him to haue written them in a dreame but that he vttereth so many of them as that then we must imagine him to liue in a continuall dreame Must we thinke that the Apostles were acquainted with this nice conceipt of his Did they meane that Christ suffered and died for our sins quantum ad auersionem so farre as concerneth turning from God but that he left vs to suffer for our owne sins and one for anothers sins quantum ad conuersionem so farre as concerneth turning to the pleasures of our sins Surely the Prophet saith quantum ad auersionem h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray and quantum ad conuersionem we haue turned euery man to his owne way and addeth concerning both And the Lord hath laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all But M. Bishop hath learned another lesson of their schoolemen who haue exercised their wits to mocke the word of God for the colouring of those lewd and blasphemous nouelties which the Romish Apostasie hath brought in to the wrong and derogation of the crosse of Christ 4 W. BISHOP But Christ saith M. Perkins said on the Crosse It is finished Wherfore all satisfaction was at Christes death ended as well temporall as eternall Answer
That those words haue a farre different sence To wit that Christ had then ended his course and fulfilled all prophecies and endured all such torments as it pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind of satisfaction temporall there is no mention neither can any thing be drawne thence against it No more can be out of this other Christ made sinne for vs 2. Cor. 5. that is the punishment of sinne as M. Perkins gloseth it but the learned say an hoast or sacrifice for sinne But we graunt that he suffered the punishment for our sinne and say consequently that all sinne is pardoned freely for his sake and the paine of hell also which is punishment of sinne but not other temporall paines such as it hath pleased the iustice and wisedome of God to reserue vnto euery sinner to beare in his owne person And after this sort and no other was God in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe And that Saint Paul vnderstood well that Christes sufferings did not take away ours may be gathered by these his words Colos 1. I reioyce in suffering for you and do accomplish those things that want of the Passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church But of this point more when we come vnto the Arguments for the Catholike part R. ABBOT What our Sauiour meant by saying in the very instant of his giuing vp the ghost a Iohn 19.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is finished we may coÌ„ceiue by the Apostle making as it seemeth application of that word when he saith b Heb. 10.14 With one oblation he hath * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consummated or made perfect for euer theÌ„ that are sanctified By that one oblation he performed whatsoeuer was necessary for our full and perfect satisfaction and reconcilement vnto God And therein he fulfilled all prophecies that were written of attonement peace to be made betwixt God man the effect wherof S. Peter expresseth saying c Act. 10.43 To him giue all the Prophets witnesse that through his name all that beleeue in him shall receiue remission of sinnes d Ephe. 1.7 In him we haue redemption saith S. Paul through his bloud euen the forgiueâ—eâ— of sins Now as the author to the Hebrewes inferreth e Heb. 10.18 where remission of these things is there is no more offering for sin so may we infer where remission of sinnes is there is no more satisfying for sin because sacrifice satisfaction haue one and the selfe same respect to sin Seeing then Christ hath done that that yeeldeth vs perfect forgiuenes of sins it must follow that there remaineth no further satisfaction to be performed for sin And thus much is coÌ„tained in M. Bishops words but that like Caiphas he saith wel vnderstandeth not what he saith Christ saith he endured all such torments as God would impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind And what is redemption but a paiment of full perfect satisfaction f Tho. Aquin p. 3. q. 48. art 4 in corp Quia passio Christi sufficient superabuÌ„dant suit satisfactio pro peccato reatu poenae humani generis eius passio fuit quasi quoddaÌ„ pretium quo liberati sumus ab viraque obligatione Naâ—â— ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit siue pro se siue pro alio pretium quoddam dicitur quo seipsum vel alium redimit à peccato poenae Christus autem satisfecit dando seipsum pro nobis ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio Because the passion of Christ saith Thomas was a sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of mankind guilt of punishment his passion was as it were a price or paiment by which we were set free froÌ„ obligatioÌ„ both those waies For the satisfactioÌ„ wherby a man satisfieth either for himself or for another is called a price by which a maÌ„ redeemeth or buieth out himselfe or another from sin and punishment Now Christ saith he hath made satisfactioÌ„ by giuing himself for vs therfore the passioÌ„ of Christ is said to be our redemption If then the passion of Christ be therefore our redemption because he hath paid a sufficient superabundant satisfaction to free vs from obligation of guilt and punishment how can it stand that after Christes redemption the obligation should stil remaine that there should be yet a further satisfaction to be made Either it must be said that Christ hath not made a full redemption or else it must be acknowledged that Christ hath taken away all temporal satisfaction But Christ in saying It is finished testifieth that in his death he fully finished our redeÌ„ption Therefore he testifieth that he hath left no place for any further satisfaction This cannot be shifted off A perfect redemption taketh away all obligation of further satisfaction or else it cannot be called absolutely perfect Christes redemption therfore being simply absolutely perfect must necessarily inferre a deniall of temporall satisfaction Albeit the very name of temporal satisfaction in this case is absurd because the guilt of sin being only infinite eternal and in no fort temporall cannot be brought within any coÌ„passe of temporall satisfaction as before was said In a word we do not beleeue that Christ plaid the Sophister vpon the crosse to say quantum ad auersioneÌ„ It is finished that is the satisfaction of sin is fully paid but quantum ad conuersionem all is not yet fully finished but there remaineth some further satisfaction to be made No more do we beleeue that the Apostle when he said g 2. Cor 3 21. Christ was made sin for vs did play fast or loose as meaning that if we vnderstand sin quantuÌ„ ad auersioneÌ„ then it is true that he was made sin for vs that is the punishment or sacrifice for sin but that quantum ad conuersionem we are made sin for our selues or one man for another Or that when it is said h 1. Pet. 3 13. He suffered for sinnes once the iust for the vniust that he might bring vs to God the meaning is that in part he suffered for our sins to bring vs to God but left vs in part to suffer for our owne sinnes to bring our selues to God We cannot be perswaded that that was the meaning of the Apostle when he said i 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe because he defineth that reconcilement to consist in the not imputing of our sinnes and how are our sinnes not imputed if we be still holden in any sort to make satisfaction for theÌ„ But these things though they be apparently blasphemous wicked and do expose the Gospel of Christ to mockery contempt yet M. Bishop laboureth to colour with a sentence of S. Paul which for more theÌ„ a thousand yeares after the time of Christ and his Apostles neuer any man
is shed for the remission of the sinnes of the brethren which Christ hath done for vs and in that hath yeelded vs not any thing to imitate and follow but what to reioyce of For if any man will compare himselfe to the power of Christ in thinking himselfe to heale the sin of another man it is too much for him he is not capable thereof He is the rich man saith he who being not subiect to any debt either hereditarie or of his owne is both iust himselfe and iustifieth others euen Iesus Christ. Do not aduaunce thy selfe against him being so poore as that thou appearest in thy prayer daily a begger of the forgiuenesse of sinnes There is no forgiuenesse of sinnes then by the bloud of Martyrs there is no ablenesse in one man to heale the sinne of another or to pay anothers debt euery man is poore euery man a begger crauing from day to day the release and remission of owne debts This was S. Pauls case thus he praied daily as Christ had taught him and why then doth Maister Bishop make him so rich as that he should be able to make paiment of our debts that he should purchase a release of the punishment of our sinnes that he should take vpon him y Tho. Aquint supplem q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Satisfactio est quaedaÌ„ illatae iniuriae recoÌ„pensatio Et q. 14. Ablatio offensae art 1. in corp to make recompence for the wrongs that we haue done to God and to take away our offence towards God or Gods offence and displeasure towards vs as their name of Satisfaction doth import It was a farre other matter that the Apostle intended in that he saith that he endured afflictions for the Churches sake It was to confirme vnto the Church the truth of the Gospell of Christ to cause the greater opinion of that doctrine which he preached in that he yeelded himselfe for the testifying thereof to hazard and bestow his temporall life to encourage comfort the faithful to continue constant in the faith of Christ according to the example that they had seen in him to embolden other men to preach the word notwithstanding the opposition that was made against it And thus doth the Apostle expresse the ends and vses of his afflictions z Phil. 1.7 the confirmation of the Gospell a Ver. 12. the furthering of the Gospel b Ver. 17. the defence of the Gospell c Ver. 20. the magnifying of Christ d 2. Cor. 1.6 If we be afflicted saith he it is for your coÌ„solation and saluation which is wrought in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer Not then as to purchase any thing towards their saluation by his afflictions but as to hearten and comfort them to the patient bearing of afflictions in the enduring whereof God had intended to bring their saluation to effect Thus Thomas Aquinas where his eies were open coÌ„ceiued both of this text of that to the Colossians which is here in question who writing vpon the words of the Apostle Was Paule crucified for you vseth these words e Tis. Aquin in 1. Cor. cap. 1 lect 2. Hoc proprium est Christo vt sua passioâ—e morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit c. Sed contra hoc esse v. letur quod Apostolus dicit Gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit nâ—bis salutifera non solum per modum exempli sed etiaÌ„ per modum meriti efficaciae inquaÌ„tuÌ„ eius sanguine redempti iustificati sumus c. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solùm per moduÌ„ exempli secundum 2 Cor. 1. Sine tribulamur c. This is proper to Christ that he by his passion and death hath wrought our saluation But it seemeth to be against this which the Apostle saith Col. 1. Now I reioyce in my sufferings for you c. But we are to say that the passion of Christ was the cause of our saluation not onely by way of example but also by way of merit and effectuall working in that by his bloud we are redeemed and iustified but the sufferings of others is furthering to our saluation only by way of example according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted it is for your comfort and saluation c. Againe in another place propounding by way of obiection that f Idem p. 3. q. 48. art 5. arg 3. Non soluÌ„ cassio Christi sed etiam alioruÌ„ sanctorum preficua fuit ad salutem nostram vt Col. 1 Gaudeâ— in passionibus meis pro vobis c. Dicendum quod passiones sanctoruÌ„ proficiunt Ecclesiae non quideÌ„ per modum redemptionâ—â— sed per modum exempli exhortationis secundum illud 2. Cor. 1 Sine tribulamur c. not onely the passion of Christ but also of other Saints was helpfull to our saluation according to the saying of the Apostle Col. 1. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you c. and therefore that Christ onely cannot be called our Redeemer but also other Saints he answereth thus We are to say that the passions of the Saints are helpful or profitable to the Church not by way of redemption but by way of example comfort or encouragement according to that 2. Cor. 1. If we be afflicted c. So where the Apostle saith g 2. Tâ—m 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus he asketh h In â— Tim. 2. lect 2 Sed nunquid sufficit Christi passio Dicenduâ— quòd siâ— effectiâ—â— sed passio Apostoli dupliciter expiediebat Primo quia dabat exâ—mplum perfistendi in fide Seâ—undo quia confirmabatur fides ex hoc indâ—cebantur ad salutem what was not the passion of Christ sufficient Yes saith he as touching the working of saluation but the Apostles suffering was two waies expedient First because he gaue example thereby of continuing in the faith Secondly because thereby the faith was confirmed and by that meanes they were induced and drawne on to saluation Thus then we haue example confirmation comfort encouragement in the sufferings of the Apostles and Saints but we cannot finde any satisfaction for our sinnes And that M. Bishop may know that we speake this from better authority then onely Thomas Aquinas let S. Ambrose tell in what sence the Apostles suffered for the Church i Ambrosâ—n Psal 43. Petrus pro Ecclesia multa toleraâ—â—it Multa etiaÌ„ Paulus raeterique Apâ—stoli pertulerunt cùm caederentur vâ—rgis cùm lapidarentur cùm in carceres truderentur Illa enim tolerantia amurtaruÌ„ vsu periculorum Doâ—â—ni fundatus est populus ecclesia incrementum est consecâ—â— cùm caeteri ad martyrium festinarent vilentes per illas passiones nihil Apostâ—lorum decessisse virtutibus sed etiaÌ„ propter hanc breâ—em
by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them then doth it follow that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them In Psal 31. Hierome saith The sinne that is couered is not seene not being seene it is not imputed not being imputed it is not punished Answer To wit with hell fire which is the due punishment of such mortall sin whereof he speaketh or sin may be said to be couered when not onely the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully payd Lib. 2. de punit cap. 5. So doth S. Ambrose take that word couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him whose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him whose sinnes are couered with good workes For he that doth penance must not onely wash away his sins with teares but also with better workes couer his former sins that they be not imputed vnto him Now we must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this when he cited the other Hom. 44. sup Math. or else this was reserued to strike it dead He saith Some men endure punishment in this life and in the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come other neither in this nor in the life to come there alone as Diues here alone as the incestuous Corinthian neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and the rest of this kind for they endured no sufferings for punishment but that they might be knowne to be conquerers of the fight Answer Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures were not for their sins for they committed but ordinarie light offences for which their ordinarie deuotions satisfied abundantly The great persecutions which they endured were first to manifest the vertue and power of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and withall to animate and encourage his followers Finally that they like conquerers triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing sufferings were not for their owne sinnes And thus much in answer vnto M. Perkins arguments against satisfaction R. ABBOT Against his answer to the words of Tertullian I must vrge his owne words in the section before alledged Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say Now then put these together Tertullian saith a Tertul. de haptismo Exempto reatu eximitur poena The guilt being taken away the punishment is also taken away But the pardoning of a sinne saith M. Bishop taketh away all guiltinesse belonging to it Therefore consequently it taketh away all the punishment for where there is no guilt no punishment can be Yes saith M. Bishop guiltinesse of temporall punishment doth remaine after the sinne and guilt of eternall be released But then a pardon doth not take away all the guiltinesse of sinne as before he saith it doth Oportet mendacem esse memorem A lyer must beare a braine Againe we would know some ground whereupon we may be assured that sinne hath two kinds of guilt for we conceiue but one onely guilt whereby the sinner is guiltie of all both temporall and eternal punishments Otherwise we may with as good warrant affirme guilt of infinite sorts one whereby a man is guilty of burning another whereby he is guilty of drowning another for the gowt another for the palsie and for euery seueral punishment a seueral guilt and that there may be a remitting of one of these guilts and yet a retaining of the other If M. Bishop take this to be absurd he must giue vs leaue to take him for an absurd man in thus seuering the guilt of temporall and eternal punishments Yea and this assertion of his is the denying of that that in the ground of this question is supposed and confessed For if the sinne be past and pardoned as he saith at first how remaineth there any guilt for what is the pardoning of a sinne but the remitting of the guilt The guilt is a bond whereby we stand bound to punishment the forgiuing of the sinne what is it but the releasing or loosing of this bond If the bond be released why doth he affirme that we are bound still or if we be still bound why doth he affirme the loosing of the bond If he will say that the bond is partly released and partly standeth still then let him say the sinne in part is pardoned but not wholly and then let him shew vs what warrant he hath that God in that sort forgiueth sins by patches and peeces which because he cannot do let him giue vs leaue to take him for that that he sheweth himselfe to be The words of Austine are meerly deluded with the same shift b Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 37 Suscipiendo poenam non suscipiendo culpam et culpam deleuit poenam Christ saith he by taking vpon him the punishment and not taking vpon him the fault hath done away both the fault and the punishment Iust saith M. Bishop the eternall punishment not the temporall But how doth he warrant this limitation in the one part of the sentence which cannot be iustified in the other Where it is said that Christ hath taken vpon him the punishment it is vnderstood of our punishment both temporall and eternall though that which should haue bene eternall to vs by the infinite power of his Godhead was ouercome and made temporall to him Was it S. Austins meaning then to say that Christ hauing taken vpon him our whole punishment hath deliuered vs onely from a part and left the rest to be satisfied by our selues Surely what Christ tooke vpon him for vs from the same he deliuered vs. He tooke vpon him our temporall punishments therefore hee hath taken away our temporall punishments so that they remaine not in the nature of punishments but of medicines to them that haue obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes by faith in him That the mediation of Christ extendeth to the remitting of temporall punishments I haue shewed c Sect. 2. 3. before and therfore need not stand here any longer to confute this improbable and vnlikely glose As for the place of Austine which he alledgeth for colouring hereof it hath his answer in the former section being the next words to those that are cited there d August Enchirid cap. 70. Nemini dedit laxamentū peocandi quamuis miserando deleat tā facta peccata si non satisfactio congrua negligatur God hath giuen to no man a freedome
meaning whereof we speake He meaneth indeed that he vsed no apologie no excuse or answer for himselfe but yeelded himselfe with teares to the acknowledgement of that that he had done amisse The word of satisfactioÌ„ is here very vnproperly vsed and therefore may very easily be mistaken without any purpose of cosinage or fraud I might as well obiect cosinage here to M. Bishop who taking vpon him to make good his answer by another place of Ambrose alledgeth for another place the very same which M. Perkins cited But Ambrose hath the words indeed in another place in one of his i Ser. 46. Lachrymas eius lego satisfactionem non lego Rectè planè Petrus fleuit tacuit quia quod defleri solet non solet excusari sermons and therefore we will not charge M. Bishop here with cosinage there being otherwise euery while occasions enough to discouer him to be a cosiner As for that which he saith that Peter sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for his fault we take him to deale very absurdly in that he should go about to make the Apostle so absurd as to thinke the shedding of a few teares to be any part of the redemption of so great a sinne The Apostles teares were no part of Popish satisfaction but the tokens of true repentance lamenting the wound but seeking the cure onely in the satisfaction of the crosse of Christ As for that which he alledgeth from Ambrose that k De poenit lib. 2 cap. 5. Qui poenitentiam agit non solum diluere lachrymis debet peccatum suum sed etiam c. he that repenteth must with his teares wash away his sin he needed not for that phrase to haue gone so far he might haue found it in the places l In Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. Lauant lachrymae delictâ— quod voce pudor est confiteri idem habet ser 46. before alledged But he spake therein as we many times do not as thinking the teares of the bodie to be the washing away of the sinnes of the soule but as to note that the weeping and teares of faith do obtaine of God the washing away of our sinnes in the bloud of Iesus Christ In the other place S. Ambrose saith thus m Debono mortis cap. 12. Nos eum in temporuÌ„ fine quaeramus et complectamur pedes eius adoremus eum vt dâ—cat nobis Nolite timere id est nolite timere à peccatis seculi nolite timere ab iniquitatibus mundi nolite timere à fluctibus corporalium passionuÌ„ ego sum peccatorum remissio Let vs seeke Christ in our times let vs embrace his feete and worship him that he may say vnto vs Feare not that is feare not for the sins and iniquities of the world feare not for the waues of bodily sufferings I am the forgiuenesse of sinnes So long as there is necessitie of punishment especially such a n Bellar. de poenit lib. 4. cap. 1. Poena illa quae luenda restat post culpae remissioneÌ„ est illa ipsa poena sensus quaÌ„ in gelienna pati debuisset peccator remota solùm aâ—ernitate hellish punishment as they say is in purgatorie so long there is iust cause of feare But S. Ambrose telleth vs here that Christ by forgiuenesse of sinnes taketh away all occasion of feare that in our sinnes and iniquities he leaueth vs nothing to be afraid of It followeth therefore that after forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no further punishment no further satisfaction to be made Here M. Bishop againe putteth off his Reader with a dodge If saith he by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes and the punishment of them then doth it follow that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them Which is as leaden an answer as if a man should say If by intreating praying the Physicion I obtaine of him a medicine whereby I am cured then my intreating and praying is the very medicine it selfe by which I am cured For what do we seeke Christ worship him embrace him desire him pray vnto him but to be releeued succoured comforted and saued by him that in him we may haue satisfaction and remission of our sinnes What madnesse is it then to make our seeking our worshipping our praying to be themselues the satisfaction that we professe to seeke in him But such madnesse do they runne into who will not submit their right mindes to the obedience of the faith of Christ In the next place followeth Hierome o Hieron in psal 31. Quod regitur noÌ„ videtur quod non videtur non imputâ—tur quod non imputatur nec punietur That which is couered is not seene that which is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished He speaketh it for exposition of the words of Dauid p Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose vnrighteousnesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne Now if the forgiuing of sinne be not the imputing of sinne then where sinne is forgiuen there is no punishment because there is no imputation of that to which the punishment is due That which is not imputed is not punished To wit saith M. Bishop with hell fire But that answer will not serue his turne for if it be any way punished it cannot be said not to be imputed for whence ariseth the punishment but from the imputation of the sinne Now of not imputing S. Austine telleth vs that q August in Psal 118. Siquid à deuiante committitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur when sinne is not imputed a man is taken as if he had neuer done it So saith S. Bernard that r Bernar in Can. ser 23 Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare 〈◊〉 decreuerâ—t sic est quasi non fuerit whatsoeuer God hath determined not to impute it is as if it had neuer bene If it be as if it had neuer bene if a man be taken as if he had neuer done it how then doth M. Bishop tell vs that there is still a satisfaction and punishment to be endured for it But therefore he bringeth vs another answer such as for which be deserueth to be admited for a wise and well learned man Sinne may be said to be couered when not onely the fault is pardoned but also all punishment due vnto it is fully payed So then whereas in briefe Hierome saith The sinne that is couered is not punished his meaning must be that it is not couered till it be fully punished nay he is made directly to contradict himselfe and to say The sinne that is punished is not punished Would not a man thinke him to be out of his right wits that maketh such wrong constructions of plaine
words As for the words of Ambrose which he bringeth in what is there in them concerning punishment after the pardon of the fault He speaketh of couering former sinnes with better workes but of couering them with punishment he saith nothing And as for that which he saith though at large it may be construed well enough yet according to the exact truth of Scripture it is vntrue namely that sinnes are vnderstood there to be couered with good workes as is plaine by that the Apostle witnesseth that the Prophet in that place describeth ſ Rom. 4.6 the blessednesse of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes But the true couering of sinne is that which S. Bernard speaketh of when in one place he saith that t Bernar. in Can. ser 23. Charitas patris ipsorum cooperit multitudinem peccatorum the loue of the Father and in another place that u Jbid. serm 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum the righteousnesse of Christ couereth the multitude of our sinnes And of those words of Dauid it shall be worth the while to heare what Saint Austine saith and to consider how well M. Bishops answer accordeth therewith x August in Psal 31. Quia totum gratiae imputatur non meritis nostris beati quorū c. Non in quibus non sunt inuenta peccata sed quorum tecta sunt peccata Cooperta sunt tecta sunt abolita sunt Si texit peccata Deus noluit aduertere si noluit aduertere noluit animaduertere si noluit animaduertere noluit punire noluit agnoscere maluit ignoscere Because all is imputed to grace saith he and not to our merits blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Not in whom no sinnes are found but whose sinnes are couered They are couered they are hidden they are abolished If God haue couered sinnes hee looketh not on them if he looke not on them he mindeth them not if he mind them not be will not punish them he will take no knowledge of them he chuseth rather to forgiue them If forgiuenesse of sinnes be such as that God thenceforth looketh not on them mindeth them not taketh no knowledge of them punisheth them not le ts vs know that that which M. Bishop saith is an vntruth that he still reserueth sharp and seuere punishment both in this life and in the life to come to be inflicted for them The force of the saying of Chrysostome which is the last standeth in this that he denieth that the Apostles and Prophets and holy men endured their sufferings for punishments but that they might be knowne to be conquerers in the fight The place sheweth that the afflictions of the righteous and faithfull haue not the nature of punishments but lie vpon them for other respects and therefore not being in the nature of punishments they cannot be accounted for satisfactions M. Bishop answereth that they were no punishments for their owne sinnes And why for they saith he committed but ordinary light offences for which their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly A very dapper but a very fond speech of a remoislesse man whose heart yet hath neuer felt what the burden of sinne is Good Lord how lightly doth he trip ouer with ordinary light offences Surely the redeeming of those light offences required the shedding of the bloud of the Sonne of God and is it so lightly to be skipped ouer for which the Sonne of God shed his most precious bloud Tush saith M. Bishop their ordinary deuotions did abundantly satisfie for their sins Belike they were proud hearted as he is they would not be beholding to God they would not die in his debt what they owed him they would pay themselues for themselues being rich enough and well able to discharge all But will he make those holy men as very fooles as himselfe that they neither knew God or themselues but would thinke their ordinary deuotions to be sufficient satisfaction for their sinnes No no they knew wel that after all their deuotions they stood in need of Gods mercie that they had still to crie Forgiue vs our debts Enter not into iudgement with vs that all their merites were but drosse and all their satisfactions were but dung if they were opposed against the iudgment of God as to shield them from their sins But M. Bishop yet addeth more It is nothing against satisfactions that their surpassing sufferings were not for their owne sins And why because we must vnderstand forsooth that though they were not satisfactions for their owne sinnes yet they were so for other mens and in that respect are called surpassing as namely exceeding the measure of their owne sins This is that impious monster of Romish apostasie whereby they haue put the Saints in Christs place and taught men to seek for that redemption in them which they should seeke for and find in him alone But we would gladly know of M. Bishop where those surpassing sufferings of Iob and of the Prophets and other holy Saints of old were layd before the storehouse was built at Rome what vse were they put to who was the dispenser and disposer of them What was there a Pope then also to send pardons flying about the world to fetch one soule out of Purgatory for the surpassing sufferings of another Or shal we think that they lay idle all that while that the whole haruest of thē towards the end of the world might be brought together into the Popes barnes The high Priest of the Iewes was ouerseene that he did not take vpon him to be Pope of Ierusalem for of these surpassing sufferings he might haue raised much thrift Wicked caitiues that thus delude men with blasphemous tales and lies who thus defile the innocent bloud of the Sonne of God by mingling with it the leprous and corrupted bloud of sinfull men They all thought wholly and onely to be redeemed by Christ and must we thinke now in part to be redeemed by them They knew themselues by their sinnes guiltie of eternall suffering and must we now thinke their sufferings to be beyond their sinnes But against this blasphemie sufficient hath bene said before albeit it is in it selfe so grosly impious and lothsome as that the very mention of it is enough to make all Christian hearts to detest them that are the teachers of it 8. W. BISHOP Now to the reasons which he produceth for it And albeit he like an euill master of the camp range our arguments out of order placing that in the forefront of our side which Caluin presseth out against vs Lib. 3. instit cap. 4. num 29. yet wil I admit of it rather then breake his order 1. Leuit. 4.56 Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seueral persons and ordained that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens
storie saith f 2. Sam. 24.1 The wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he moned Dauid against them in that he said Go number Israel and Iudah Here therefore necessarie it was and standing with the glorie of God by Dauids prayer that the sin of the people shold be forgiuen as well as Dauids sin Dauid prayed for them He offered a burnt offering as it were to tender vnto God the mediation of Iesus Christ that for his sake he might be mercifull vnto them Vpon this it is said g Ver. 25. The Lord was appeased towards the land the plague ceassed from Israel This maketh plainly against M. Bishop because it proueth directly that the forgiuing of the sinne was the staying of the plague not that the plague continued after the forgiuenesse of the sinne 11. W. BISHOP Our fourth reason The Prophets of God when the people were threatened with Famine the Sword the Plague or such like punishments for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to workes of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloth and the like to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Niniuites at Ionas preaching doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M. Perkins answereth that famine the plague and such like scourges of God were not punishments of sinnes but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israel And what is the correction of a father but the punishing of a shrewd sonne for some fault committed yet in a mild sort Or doth the Schoole-master which is Caluins example whippe the scholer or strike him with the Ferula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them or masters to beate such scholers as commit no faults But saith M. Perkins these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senslesse ryming is this by due correction of the fault the party is satisfied in iustice and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnesse of his offence did require there is both due correction of the offender and due satisfaction vnto the party offended M. Perkins finally flieth vnto his old shift of imputatiue satisfaction that forsooth our sufferings do not satisfie but the party punished by faith layeth hold on the satisfaction of the Messias and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance Reply As we first graunt that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs which is giuen vs for Christs sake so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction is iust to begge the principall point in question therfore an old triuants trick to giue that for a final answer which was set in the beginning to be debated looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuites of whō it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias and therfore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction But most certaine euident it is in the text that God vpon the contemplation of their works of penance tooke compassion on them and was satisfied as by turning away the threatned subuersion is most manifest R. ABBOT It is an old saying a Tertul. adu Marc. lib. 4. Propter quod venimus hoc age Do that that we come for M. Bishop buildeth here beside his groundworke He propoundeth a Satisfaction to be made for sinnes past and pardoned that is after the forgiuenesse of the sins and bringeth vs arguments to proue a satisfaction for the obtaining of that forgiuenesse But we will take them as they come though by their owne grounds they be worth nothing there being no satisfaction to be made by a man as we shall see hereafter so long as he continueth in mortall sinne and still continuing in it vntill by forgiuenesse it be blotted out The Prophets denounce famine sword pestilence M. Perkins should not haue made any question but that they denounce them as the punishments of sinne as fruites and effects of Gods curse according to the law So did God accordingly execute them in fury and wrath for iust reuengement vpon a rebellious and vnthankfull people The point of question stood not in this neither needed M. Bishop to bestow so much paines for the prouing of it Yet it is to be obserued that although God in generall denounced and executed the same by way of reuenge and punishment yet in particular he had alwaies a respect to the calling and sauing of his elect turning those common iudgements to be vnto them occasions of repentance turning vnto God to obtaine of him remission of their sinnes and euerlasting life To them therefore vpon their repentance the nature of punishments was altered and they became meanes either to receiue them presently to endlesse blisse or to further them in the way wherein they were to walke for the attainement of it Of this enough hath bene said already but the matter here is this The Prophets denouncing such plagues do withall call the people to repentance to fasting to praying to putting on sackcloth and ashes This being performed saith M. Bishop God was satisfied Therefore he will haue vs to vnderstand that the doing of these things was a satisfaction that is the paiment of a iust price vnto God by which they merited the turning away of his fearefull and heauie wrath But this argument of his followeth not because we know that a man in fauour may hold himselfe satisfied towards another vpon his humbling of himselfe who yet receiueth not a satisfaction that is a iust and sufficient recompence for the debt that is owing him or the wrong that is done vnto him The seruant that ought his maister b Math. 18.24 ten thousand talents when he was called to paiment fell downe at his Maisters feete and besought him for patience His Maister herewith was appeased and satisfied and forgaue him all the debt and will any man hereupon say that he made his Maister satisfaction for the debt So is the case betwixt God and vs. We humble our selues before him we pray we intreat him to forgiue vs. He is herewith satisfied that is contented and appeased and remitteth the trespasse Shall we now hereupon say that our humbling of our selues our intreatie and praier to forgiue vs is the paiment of our debt This is a mad conclusion as we take it but such prety knots will serue at Rome to tye the Popes trinkets together and they hold fast enough there because no man must
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face whē he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs frō that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the tēptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
humiliet cum qui nimis fuerat exaltatus vt affligat vt conterat do nec resipiscat quaerat dominum c. Abijciatur superbiae odor iste teterrimus c. â—e fortè irascatur Dominus tradat nos c. humilitatem quam in scientia Christi docere debuimus in correptionis nostrae tribulatione discamus sed vide benignum Dominum misericordiam cum seueritate misâ—entem ipsius poenae modum iusta clementi libratione pensantem to humble him that was exalted to afflict him to breake him vntill he repent and seeke the Lord exhorting to put away pride least the Lord be angrie and giue vs vp into the hands of the enemie that by the trouble of correction we learne that humilitie which we should haue taught in the knowledge of Christ Hereupon he inferreth that aduertisement of Gods tempering mercie with seueritie waighing the measure of his punishment by a iust and mercifull consideration namely in that sort as he hath before deliuered i Tradidit humiliaÌ„dos vt salubri medicinae ratione contraria contrarijs curarentur that in manner of a wholsome medicine one contrarie may be cured with another Therefore he saith that k Non in perpetuum tradit delinquentes sed quanto tempore errasse te nosti c. tanto nihilominus tempore humilia teipsum Deo et satisfacito â—t in confessione poenitentiae c. quia si te ipse emendaueris si te ipse correxeris pius et misericors est Deus qui vindictam temperet ab eo qui illam poenitendo praeuenit God doth not giue ouer a sinner for euer as to note that all that he doth is but to bring a man to repentance which being done he is satisfied Whereupon he giueth aduice to a man that according to the time that he knoweth himselfe to haue erred or offended so he humble himselfe and satisfie God in the confession of repentance because saith he if thou reforme and amend thy self God is gracious mercifull to withhold punishment from him who preuenteth it by repentance Now what is all this but that which the Apostle saith l 1. Cor. 11.31 If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord He exhorteth to preuent Gods iudgement to humble our selues to repent to cast away our pride to seeke God to satisfie him by confession and acknowledgement of our sinnes that God being gracious and mercifull may forbeare to punish vs but we finde nothing of that that we seeke for that hauing humbled our sinnes and being reconciled to God and hauing obtained forgiuenesse of sinnes we shall remaine bound to punishment and satisfaction for our sinnes The words cited out of Cyprians epistles concerne them who in the time of persecution had fallen and denied Christ whom he would not haue to be restored to the communion of the Church vntill they had publikely lamented their grieuous fall and giuen good tokens of their true and faithfull repentance Therefore he blameth them that too lightly and easily receiued them againe hereby causing m Cyprian lib. 1. epi. 3. Proponitur sacrilegis atque dicitur ne ira cogitetur Dei non timeatur iudiciuÌ„ Domini ne pulsetur ad EcclesiaÌ„ Christi sed sublata poenitentiae nec vlla exomologesi criminis facta pax à non veris presbyteris verbis fallacibus praedicetur c. that they conceiued not the wrath of God that they feared not the iudgment of the Lord that they knocked not at the Church of Christ but without repentance and open confession of their sinne had false peace preached vnto them with deceitfull words Here is therefore no speech of satisfaction after peace and reconcilement to God but only for the obtaining of this peace And this is euident by the very words cited by M. Bishop wherin Cyprian blameth them that withheld men from n Ibid. Elabâ—rant ne indignanti Deo satisfiat satisfying God being angry and he applieth them against vs for denying satisfaction when God is pleased In the other place Cyprian saith that o Lib. 3. epist 14. Possunt agentes poenitentiam veram Deo Patri ad misericordià precibus operibus suis satisfacere shewing true repentance they might by their prayers and works satisfie God to the procuring of mercy and M. Bishop alledgeth it to proue a satisfaction when men haue already procured mercie Cyprian speaketh of a satisfaction for want whereof men p Jbid seducuntur vt magis pereant qui se erigere possunt plus cadant perish and as M. Bishop translateth are seduced to their further damnation and M. Bishop applieth it to a satisfaction for want whereof men perish not nor are damned but must make it vp in Purgatory fire The words of Basil are as impertinent as the rest He sayth nothing but what we say that the greater wound should cause the greater paine the greater sinne the greater sorow that we may so much the more earnestly seeke reconcilement to God by how much the further we haue departed froÌ„ him but no shadow is there of satisfactioÌ„ to be made after that we are reconciled vnto him The last of his words containe the summe of all the rest q Basil orat in illud Attende tibi Adaequetur peccato poenitentia Let the repentance be equall or proportionable to the sin To the like sentence of Ambrose he referreth vs in the margent r Ambr. ad virg lapsam Grandi plagae alta prolixa opus est medicina grande scelus grandem habet necessariaÌ„ satisfactionem A great wound had need of a very effectuall and long cure a great sinne had need of great satisfaction The words immediatly going before are these Å¿ Peccator si sibi non pepercerit à Deo illi parcitur etsi futuras poenas gehennae perpetuas in hoc paruo vitae spacio compensauerit seipsuÌ„ ab aeterno iudicio liberat If the sinner spare not himselfe then the Lord will spare him and if in the short space of this life he shal recompence the euerlasting paines of hel that are to come he freeth himself from eternall iudgement It is apparent therfore that he speaketh of a satisfaction whereby to obtaine forgiuenesse of sinnes for the auoiding of the eternall paines of hell not of a satisfaction after forgiuenesse for the auoiding of the temporal paines of Purgatory He writeth it to a virgin that had yeelded her self to be defiled and corrupted and calleth her to publike and perpetuall penance denying her any remission or pardon in this world t Ibid. Inhaere poenitentiae vsque ad finem vitae nec tibi praesismas ab humano die posse veniam dari quia decipit te qui hoc tibi polliceri voluerit Quae enim propriè in Dominii peccasti ab illo solo te coÌ„uenit in die iudicij expectare remedium Continue in thy penance or repentance euen
to speake how much more securely would the Fathers vse such phrases when yet there was no feare of those misconstructions of heresie and Apostacie which haue since preuailed in the Church of Rome We haue seene Bellarmine before acknowledging out of their principles that the Fathers in these phrases imported only merit of fauour and grace not merit of woorth and purchase and therefore setting aside the name of merit let vs not doubt but that they meant in all their speeches to vphold the grace and fauour of God by the mediation of Iesus Christ They taught men amidst all their deuotions to aske pardon of Gods mercie and therefore could not be thought to teach them that by the same deuotions they did deserue it In a word I conclude this point with a speech or two of Chrysostomes which I wish thee gentle Reader to compare with the doctrine which M. Bishop here hath brought vs from Rome e Chrysost de beato Philogonio Ego testificor ac fide iubeo quod si quisquaÌ„ nostrum qui peccatis obnoxij sumus ex animo vereque promittat Deo se posteà nuÌ„quam ad illa rediturum nihil aliud Deus requirat ad satisfactionem viteriorem I testifie saith he and giue thee warrant that if any of vs who are subiect to sinne or guiltie of sinne do heartily and truly promise vnto God neuer to returne to the same againe God doth require no further satisfaction Againe vpon the words of the Apostle f 1. Cor. 11.31 If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord he saith thus g Jdem in 1. Cor. hom 28. Non dixit si puniemus si suppliciuÌ„ de nobis sumemus sed si dijudicaremus hoc est si nostra tantùm voluerimus peccata cognoscere si condemnare nâ—sipsos liberaremur vtique ab huius à futuri seculi supplicijs The Apostle saith not If we would punish our selues if we would take reuenge of our selues but If we would iudge our selues that is if we would onely acknowledge our sinnes if we would condemne our selues we should be deliuered both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come Here we see that after true repentance there is no further satisfaction that after true acknowledgement and confession of our sinnes there is no reseruation of punishment but by the mercie of God we are set free both from the punishments of this world and of the world to come whereby all that M. Bishop here hath built is vtterly ouerthrowne 19 W. BISHOP And if you please in few words to heare the Protestants workes of penance and satisfaction in stead of our fasting and other corporall correction they fall to eating and that of the best flesh they can get and take in the Lord all such bodily pleasure as the company of a woman will affoord In lieu of giuing almes vnto the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsurie and craftie bargaines are not ashamed to cosen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sinnes by many bitter teares they sing merrily a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errours And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world R. ABBOT A shrewd wench hearing her mother at angry words with her neighbour and well knowing her mothers desert gaue her this counsell Call her whore first mother for feare lest she call you whore M. Bishop knew very well that there is sufficient cause for vs to call his mother whore and to vpbraid the Church of Rome with the poisoned and abhominable fruites which their doctrine of satisfactions bringeth foorth Therefore he thought it good policie in her behalfe to follow the counsell of the vnhappy girle and to call whore first that by laying some slanderous imputations of euil behauiour vpon vs he might breake and abate the odiousnesse of those vncleane and filthie corruptions which he knew were iustly to be obiected against them He knew well that if we should paint them out from top to toe we should make the Church of Rome to appeare a monster most vgly deformed such as that all men may thereby take iust occasion to detest her To giue him some taste of their good fruites let him remember that of the Court of Rome it was said long since a Math. Paris in Henrico 3. Eius auaritiae totus non sufficit orbis Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis The world too litle is their couetise to satisfie No harlots are enough to serue their filthy lecherie b Ibi. Manifestè comperium est EcclesiaÌ„ RomanaÌ„ Dei indignationem incurrisse Ipsius enim magistratus rectores non populi deuotionem sed marsupia plena quarunt denariorum non animas Deo lucrifacere sed reditus capere pecunias congregare religiosos opprimere poena vsura simonia alijs diuersis argumentis alienae vsurpare Non curatur de iustitiae honestate c. Adeo inualuit Romanae Ecclesiae in satiabilis cupiditas confundens fasque nefasque quòd deposito rubore veluti meretrix vulgaris effrons omnibus venalis exposita vsuram pro paruo siâ—oniam pro nullo inconuenienti reputauit ita vt alias prouincias sua contagione macularit c. Foetor Curia Papaliâ— vsque ad nubes fumum teterrimum exhalauit It is manifestly found saith Matth. of Paris that the Church of Rome hath incurred the indignation of God The gouernours and rulers therof do not seeke the deuotion of the people but the filling of their owne purses not to gaine soules to God but to take rents and to gather mony to oppresse them that are religious by penaltie vsurie symonie and diuers other deuices to get other mens goods into their hand there is no care of iust and honest dealing The insatiable couetousnes of the Church of Rome is growne to that passe confounding right and wrong as that being past blushing like a common and shamelesse harlot setting her selfe to sale and being exposed to all men she accounteth vsurie for a small inconuenience and simonie for none so as that with her contagion she hath defiled other countries The stinch of the Popes Court hath breathed out a most noysome fume euen to the very clouds Of those times Abbas Vrspergensis speaketh in this sort c Abbas Vâ—spergensis in Chr. Tunc coeperunt multiplicars maâ—a interris Ortae siquidem sunt in hominibus simultates doli perfidiae traditâ—ones vt se inuicem tradâ—nt in mortem interituÌ„ Rapinae depraedationes depopulationes terraruÌ„ vastationes inteÌ„ diae seditiones bella rapinae siue in stratis siue in latrocinijs iustificatae sunt vt omnis homo iaâ—a sit periurus praedictis faciâ—â—râ—bus
this is all they can say out of the Scripture to proue that the written word containes al doctrine needful to saluation whereupon I make this inuincible argument against them out of their owne position Nothing is necessary to be beleeued but that which is written in holy Scripture But in no place of Scripture is it written that the written word containes all doctrine needfull to saluation as hath bene proued Therefore it is not necessary to saluation to beleeue the written word to containe all doctrine needfull to saluation R. ABBOT Here is a long discourse and a little answer and gladly M. Bishop would wind out of this sentence of the Apostle and it will not be The whole words of the Apostle entirely set downe will make the Reader plainly to vnderstand that he hath taken a great deale of paines and sayd iust nothing Speaking to Timothie he sayth a 2. Tim. 3.15 Thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to improue to correct to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect being perfectly instructed to euery good worke The first part of which words do sufficiently inferre that which we affirme for if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then they are sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō If they be not sufficient to instruct a man in all things necessary to saluatiō then can it not be said that they are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus The force of these words cannot be deluded euery eye can see that if the Scriptures be able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus then all doctrine necessary to faith and saluation is contained in the Scriptures Now for confirmation hereof the Apostle addeth The whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to teach the truth to improue false doctrine error to correct vice and sinne to instruct in righteousnes From hence then we must infer that which before is said that because the Scripture is able to direct a man in truth and righteousnesse therefore it is able to make him wise vnto saluation by faith in Christ for in the embracing and following of truth and righteousnesse consisteth the attainment of euerlasting life If any man will except and say that though it teacheth the truth yet it teacheth not all truth necessarie to saluation he wholly ouerthroweth the Apostles confirmation For if it doe not teach all truth necessarie to saluation then it is notable to make a man wise to saluation It may be said to helpe towards it but it cannot be said to be able to do it if it containe not all things belonging to that wisedome that concerneth vs for the obtaining of saluation But the Apostle telleth vs that it so doth the things by him mentioned as that the man of God may be absolute or perfect * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfectly instructed or being furnished and prepared to euery good worke The man of God is well knowne by the phrase of Scripture to import the minister of God in which sort the Apostle hath before said to Timothie b 1. Tim. 6.11 But thou O man of God flie these things c. Here therfore he giueth to vnderstand that the Scripture is so able to make wise vnto saluation so able to instruct in truth and righteousnesse as that therein the man of God the minister of God findeth enough to make him perfect and to prepare and furnish him to euery good worke And if there be enough for the perfection of the minister of God then surely it must needs follow that much more is it able to perfect euery other man to that faith and righteousnesse that should bring vs vnto God But here M. Bishop putteth vs off with three wise answers by which he wold faine perswade vs that we altogether erre in the citing of these words First he chargeth vs with falsification of the text because we reade the whole Scripture whereas we should say all Scripture the Greek words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing as he saith the whole Scripture but euery part But why is this on our part a falsification more then it is in the Rhemists to translate according to their vulgar interpreter c Math. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole heard d Ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole citie e Ephes 4.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole body and in their Latine f Heb. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totum vitam through their whole life which they English through all their life If there be no falshood in these translations why must there needs be a falsification in ours Yea and when it is all one with them to say their whole life and all their life why must it be a fault in vs to say the whole Scripture where they say all Scripture Surely but that malice blindeth it selfe and wil not see that that it doth see they would conceiue that all Scripture in this place can no otherwise be taken but to signifie the whole Scripture euen as elsewhere by g Acts 20.72 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the counsell of God we vnderstand the whole counsell of God in like sort as where it is said h Gen. 18.25 Qui iudicas omnem terram Thou which iudgest all the earth that is the whole earth i Chap. 35 2. Conuocata omni domo calling together all his house that is his whole house k Exod. 12.41 Egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Aegypti All the army of the Lord departed out of the land of Aegypt that is the whole army l Chap. 17.1 Profecta est omnis multitudo filiorum Israel All the multitude of the children of Israel went out of the desert of Sin that is the whole multitude m Leuit 8.3 Congregabis omnem coetum Israel Thou shalt gather together all the congregation of Israel that is the whole congregation with infinite other examples of the like sort And seeing the Apostle when in the propositiō the Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto saluation must needs be vnderstood to meane collectiuè the whole Scripture because it cannot be said of euery part of the Scripture that it is able so to do what is it but wilfull dotage to vnderstand all Scripture as meant otherwise in the proofe Especially when it is so apparent that that which the Apostle affirmeth in the proofe fitteth to the whole Scripture and so inferreth that which is propounded to be proued but cannot agree to euery part of the Scripture because
sine peccato nascitur c. Dicit Apostolus Per vnum hominem c. Jdeo non est superfluus baptismus paruulorum vt qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem liberentur They say saith he that an infant not being baptized cannot perish because he is borne without sinne but the Apostle saith By one man sinne entred into the world and by sinne came death and so death went ouer all forasmuch as all haue sinned c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous that they who by generation are bound to condemnation by regeneration may be deliuered from it And in another place against the Donatists q De Baptis lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in parâ—â—â—â—s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit If any man saith he desire diuine authority in this behalf we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued So by the rest of the Fathers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iustifying of that custome and r Bellarm de saâ—ram Baptism lib 1. cap 8 Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions that is of doctrines beside the Scripture In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these or rather more idle The Arian hereticke presseth Austine to shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is read in the Scriptures Saint Austine answereth him that Å¿ August Epist 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur illud Graecum esset prius quarenâ— on esset quid sit Homousion tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur restamen ipsa inueniretur Quid est enim contentiosius quà m vbi de reconstat certare de nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Greeke word and they spake Latin and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then to be required in the scriptures because albeit the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found For what greater wrangling is there then to contend about the word when there is a certaintie of the thing Where we see M. Bishop in the place which he himselfe citeth condemned for a contentious wrangler that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tradition beside the Scripture when as the thing it self and matter imported by it is contained in the Scripture yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike t Idem contrae Maximin lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion nisi Ego Pater vnum sumus What is Homousion consubstantiall but I and my father are one By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduaÌ„tage against the Arian who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word which not being found and yet approoued he concludeth u Jdem epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiaÌ„ de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur sic ergo homousion quod in authoritate diuinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere etiamsi vocabuluÌ„ ipsum ibi non inuentamus fieri posse vt illud inueniamus cut hec vocabuluÌ„ rectè adhibitum iudicetur Thou seest that it may be that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken so therefore consubstantiall also which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture albeit we find not the very word there yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged to be rightly applied In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scriptures the meaning is there though the letters and syllables be not there In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored which we may wonder that he should be so impudent or rather so impious as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture as if the Scriptures did not prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped when as S. Austine prooueth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath giuen for a rule that x Thom. Aquin. sum p. 1. qu. 36. art 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit à Filio inuenitur tamen quantum ad sensum concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning Whereof he saith for example Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne yet in sense and meaning it is there found To this our assertion accordeth that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scriptures and we will receiue them though we find not the words but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture those things the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures though the words be not he abuseth his Reader and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further gentle Reader to that which hath bene said y Sect. 11. before in answer of his Epistle to the King As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin what we are to conceiue hath bene before declared S. Austin z August haeres 56 84. affirmeth it but not vnder the name of a tradition and Hierome when he would maintaine it against a Hieron aduer Heluid Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt c. Non credimus quia non legimus Heluidius tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture are
loquentis sermonem audientis animuÌ„ confirmat if any thing be spoken without Scripture the mind of the hearers goeth lame but when out of the Scriptures cometh the testimonie of the voyce of God it confirmeth both the speech of him that speaketh and the mind of him that heareth Neither doth it sufficiently giue this confirmation to alledge generally that the Scripture speaketh of traditions because it is still a question whether those be the traditions which the Scripture speaketh of vnlesse by the Scripture it selfe they be iustified so to be To Chrysostome M. Bishop addeth Oecumonius and Theophilact but as they take their exposition out of Chrysostome so in him they haue their answer Next he bringeth in a sentence vnder the name of Basil which is not onely suspected by Erasmus and others but may by the place it selfe be well presumed to be none of his There is good cause to thinke that the Cuckow hath plaid her part and laid her egges in Basils nest that some counterfeit to grace himselfe hath not sticked to disgrace him by putting to him patcheries of his own deuice To say nothing of the difference of style and other arguments noted by Erasmus we may obserue how he maketh Basil coÌ„trarie to himselfe not onely to those rules which he hath giuen otherwhere but euen to the course which he hath before professed in this booke yea and maketh a seuerall question of that whereof Basil in the beginning of his book seuerally propoundeth nothing The matter as Basil declareth was this o Basil de spir Sanct. cap. 1. Glorificationem absoluens Deo ac Patri interdum cum ficio ipsius ac Spiritu sancto interdum per filium in Spiritu sancto that in his prayers in the Church for conclusion he would sometimes pronounce glorie to God and the Father with his Sonne and the holy Ghost and sometimes by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Some p Cap. 2. affected as he conceiueth to the heresie of Aerius or Arius blamed him for saying with the Sonne and the holy Ghost affirming that seuerall termes should be vsed of the three Persons of the Father and by the Sonne and in the holy Ghost intending that in this diuersity of phrases a diuersitie of natures should be vnderstood He sheweth that the heretikes borrowed this fancie q Cap. 3. from the curiosities of vaine Philosophie and propoundeth r Cap. 4. that in the Scriptures no such difference of those syllables is obserued This he prosecuteth Å¿ Cap. 5. at large and in the end propoundeth his aduersaries obiection t Cap. 6. in sine that this manner of speaking with the Sonne was strange and vnusuall but by the Sonne was familiar in the phrase of Scripture and accustomed with the brethren He answereth that u Cap. 7. the Church acknowledged the vse of both those speeches and did not reiect either of them as if the one did ouerthrow the other He affirmeth that so many as did keepe the tradition of their auncestors without alteration in all countries and cities did vse this speech Therefore euen the very countrey clownes saith he do so pronounce according to the maner of their forefathers That then which hath bene said by our auncestors we also say that glorie is common to the Father with the Sonne and therefore we sing hymnes of glorification to the Father together with the Sonne But he addeth which is the thing that we are specially to obserue x QuanquaÌ„ hoc nobis non est satis sic à patribus esse traditum nam illi Scripturae secuti sunt authoritatem c. Albeit it is not enough for vs that we haue it so by tradition from the Fathers for they also followed the authoritie of Scripture taking their ground from those testimonies which a little before we haue alledged Thus he calleth by the name of the tradition of the Fathers that wherein they followed the authority of the Scriptures and plainely instructeth vs that without authority of the Scriptures the tradition of the Fathers is no sufficient warrant for vs. And to this accordeth that which hath bene before cited from him that y Supra Sect. 5. it is a declining from the faith to bring in any thing that is not written Thus in another place he saith z Supra Sect. 10 If whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne as the Apostle saith and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne And againe a Idem reg contract q 95 Necessarium est consonum vt ex sacrae quisque Scriptura quod necesse sit discat cùm ad pretatis pleroâ—horiam tuÌ„ ne assuescat humanis traditionibus It is needfull and conuenient that euery man do learne out of the Scripture that that is necessarie for him both for the full assurance of godlinesse and that he may not be accustomed to the traditions of men Now how can we imagine that Basil thus reducing all to the Scriptures and though alledging as we do the tradition of the Fathers yet with vs acknowledging that that sufficeth not without authority of the Scriptures should so soone after attribute so much to traditions that haue no confirmation from the Scripture Albeit this contrarietie had bene small neither should we haue had any cause to take exception against those words of traditions whether they be Basils or whose soeuer if in exemplifying the same he had not strained them so far as that M. Bishop himselfe must perforce confesse they cannot accord with truth For if he had no more but required the obseruation of traditions vnwritten we should haue conceiued that he meant vnwritten as Basil elsewhere doth who professeth b Basil de fide Vocibus agraphis quidem verum noÌ„ alienis à pâ—a secundum Scripturam sententia c. to vse words that are not written but yet such as varie not from the meaning of pietie according to the Scripture wordes and termes which in letters and syllables are not framed to the Scripture but yet do retain that meaning that is in the Scripture Thus in the former part of the booke de Sp. sancto he mentioneth c Cap. 9. De Sp. sancto Sententiae quas traditione Patrum sine scripto accepimus speeches concerning the holy Ghost which without Scripture saith he we haue receiued by the tradition of the Fathers which yet are such as haue all their foundation and ground in the Scriptures So in the place here questioned he nameth diuers things for vnwritten traditions which we religiously hold according to the doctrine of the Scriptures though the words be not precisely set downe therein Such is in baptisme d Cap. 27. Renuntiare Satanae Angelis eius in baptismo ex qua Scriptura habemus the renouncing of the diuell and his Angels from what Scripture saith he haue
words among all when they should translate in all and the Adiectiue being put without a Substantiue must in true construction haue this word things ioyned with it and not men wherefore the text being sincerely put into English it would carry no colour of their error For the Apostles saying is Let mariage be honorable in all things and the bed vndefiled Here is no willing of any man to marry but onely a commaundement to them that be married to liue honestly in marriage to keepe as elsewhere he saith their vessels in sanctification and not in dishonor and then shall their mariage be honorable in all things that is in all points appertaining to matrimonie so that now you see that M. Perkins is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disproue the vow of chastitie R. ABBOT A double corruption saith M. Bishop and yet there is neither of them to be seene and vnlesse we wil take his simple word he is able to proue none First he blameth vs for saying Mariage is honorable telling vs that we should rather say Let mariage be honorable and seeth not in the meane time that our translation is implied in his owne for why should the Apostle say Let mariage be honorable but because it is so as if he should say let it be so reckoned of as it is a thing honorable amongst all But without any implicatioÌ„ the latter part of the sentence being affirmatiue sheweth that the Apostle meant to speake affirmatiuely in the former also In this sort S. Austine conceiued the Apostles meaning who mentioning the good things that are in mariage due order of generation fidelity of chastity and the sacred bond of mariage it selfe addeth a August cont Pelag. Celest lib. 2. cap. 34. Propter haec omnia honorabiles nuptiae in omnibus thorus immaculatus In all these respects mariage is honorable in all and the bed is vndefiled So also Chrysostom vnderstandeth it as we translate it that the Apostle b Chrysostom ad Heb. hom 33. Cùm posuisset honorabile coniugium thoruÌ„ immaculatum ostendat quod meritò inferat quae sequuntur setteth downe that mariage is honorable in all So likewise Theophylact rendereth the words affirmatiuely c Theoph. in Heb. 13. Connubium honorabile est honore dignum est Mariage is honorable mariage is worthy of honor and in the very same sort d Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice and the e Sext. Synod can 13. Fathers and Bishops of the sixt Synod in Trullo cite it as an affirmatiue speech Mariage is honorable in all and therfore we reiect M. Bishops assertion as childish and vaine that this cannot be the course of the Apostles speech The sentences before and after are vttered according as the matter requireth but it more fitteth here for the inferring of the latter part of the verse that the Apostle say affirmatiuely Mariage is honorable then Let it so be that fornicators and adulterers may vnderstand themselues to be without excuse in that mariage is appointed as an honorable state and remedy for the auoiding of such sinne And thus doth Chrysostome tie the two parts of the verse together f Chrys vt supra Si enim connubium concessum est iustè scortator supplicijs afficitur For if mariage be granted then the fornicator is iustly punished So Oecumenius g Oecumen in Heb. cap. 13. NaÌ„ si coniugium permissum est sine peccato licet ad explendae concupiscentiam quis erit excusationis praetextus scortatoribus adulteris For if mariage be permitted and be lawfull without sin to satisfie concupiscence what pretence of excuse shall there be for fornicators and adulterers The former part of the sentence then is an assertioÌ„ that mariage is permitted is lawful without sin Yea but then saith M. Bishop we must take him to say that the bed also is vndefiled amongst all which saith he is not true But he should haue told vs why it is not true where if he had answered that the bed of mariage is not vndefiled amoÌ„gst all because some pollute it by adultery and whoredom it would haue appeared that his vnderstanding was very short that could not conceiue that the Apostle telleth vs what the mariage bed is of it selfe not what it becometh by the vsage of it He saith elsewhere h 1. Cor. 3 17. The temple of God is holy which ye are and yet withall he saith If any man destroy the temple of God him will God destroy as giuing to vnderstand that the vncleannesse of men may defile that which God hath made holy So is it in this case the bed of mariage is holy and vndefiled God reputeth no vncleannes or pollution to it It is lawfull without sinne as Oecumenius hath before expounded it * Primaes in Heb. 13. Immaculatus lectustimmaculati illi inde surgentes hoc est maculam peccati iâ—de non trahentes They that rise from it are vndefiled saith Primasius not drawing from thence any spot of sinne but the vncleannesse is when the bed of mariage is made the bed of adultery and mans filthinesse polluteth that which God hath sanctified In a word that which the Apostle saith of all the creatures of God is to be applied to the mariage bed it is i Tit. 1.15 cleane to them that are cleane that is to them who by chast conuersation preserue in it that holinesse and honour that God hath attributed vnto it Now by that that hath bene said appeareth the vanitie of his second cauill where he saith that in steed of in all things we say amongst all or amongst al men The greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in all and the sentence being so read Mariage is honorable in all what else doth it sound but mariage is honorable in all men And this is indeed the true and proper translating of the words for we in reading amongst all do disaduantage our selues by not expressing literally the words of the Apostle For we know that that may be honorable amongst all which yet all are not capable of The calling of the minister and of the magistrate is honorable amongst all but yet all cannot be ministers and magistrates But the Apostle saith that mariage is honorable in all to signifie that it is a state of life which God hath instituted to be free for al men And that this is the true meaning of the Apostle appeareth by that that hath bin before said For if these words do serue to bereaue fornicators and adulterers of all pretence of excuse then they must be so taken as that fornicators and adulterers must vnderstand that they appertaine to them And how shall they vnderstand that the words do appertain to them vnles we take them in this sort that mariage is honorable in all men for otherwise they may haply say
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
of faith is sinne Why so because he hath not the faith and knowledge of him for whose sake he should do it For of whom shall he receiue reward Of him whom he hath not sought after whom he knoweth not whom he beleeueth not nor confesseth He shall receiue no reward of him but iudgement and wrath and condemnation For as nothing is delightsome to vs without light so is nothing delightsome or pleasing to God without the light of faith Onely this I will adde that God to such actions amongst the Gentiles gaue temporall rewards for temporall respects not to shew any approbation thereof in respect of himselfe to whom the doers thereof had no respect but onely to entertaine the liking thereof for the common good of mankind and for the maintenance of ciuill order and societie which God would vse to such ends and in such sort as pleased him for the benefit of his Church And therefore euen them who most excelled in the renowme and commendation of these vertues God sometimes gaue ouer temporally also to such ends as to the world seemed vnworthie to their former life to shew that he stood not in any sort bound to them for the vertues if we so call them wherein they had not respected him in that he would neither be the defender of them in this world nor the rewarder of them in the world to come 17. W. BISHOP 2 Obiection God hath commanded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall Free vvill by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord vvill not commaund any man to do that which he is no way able to do Answer M. Perkins answereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commandeth that vvhich vve be not able to performe but that vvhich vve should do Then I hope he vvill admit that he vvill enable vs by his grace to do it or else hovv should vve do it God surely doth not bind vs by commaundement to any imposble thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweete and his burthen easie Mâ—th 1â— Iohn 5. And Saint Iohn vvitnesseth that his commandements are not heauie He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tie any man by lavv to do that vvhich he vvas altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth R. ABBOT Where they obiect that God commaundeth all to beleeue and repent and therefore that all haue Free will to do that which he commandeth M. Perkins answereth that the argument is not good because God by such commandements doth not shew what men are able to do but what they should do though of themselues they cannot do it Which answer why M. Bishop calleth obscure I know not but that his head haply fell out to be somewhat cloudie when he came to consider of it Yet he replieth then I hope that he will admit that he will enable vs by his grace to do it or else how should we do it We will admit that God by his grace enableth whom he thinketh good to do his commaundements for the state of his life so farre as he thinketh good and to them onely the yoke of Christ is sweete and his burthen easie and his commandements not grieuous because of him a Aug. de perfect iustitia Cui grauia sunt intelligat se nondum accepisse donum quo grauia non sint they receiue a gift whereby they become not grieuous vnto them And to these the vse of the law and commandements doth properly beloÌ„g which God did not deliuer as exspecting that any man could fulfill the same b Ambr in Gaelat cap. 3 Lex ad hoc data est vt peccatores reos se scirent apud Deum Manifestatu enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt vt se excusare noÌ„ posseÌ„t sed quaererent misericordiam c. but thereby to bring men to the knowledge of sinne and of condemnation thereby due vnto them that by this meanes he might moue them whom he would call to apprehend that meanes of saluation which he had promised in Iesus Christ who by his spirit giuen vnto them c Rom. 7.22 delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but by the rebellion of the law of sinne are holden backe in this life from attaining to the perfect righteousnesse of the law To the rest the law is a conuiction of sinne no helpe of righteousnesse whilest God d August de bono perseuer cap. 14. by vnsearchable but iust iudgement denieth to them that grace which to others he vouchsafeth because e Rom. 9.18 he sheweth mercie to whom he wil and whom he wil he hardeneth Albeit that man is vnable to fulfill the law it is not any default of God but of man himselfe and therefore there was no cause why f August de peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit siquid erit si non diuinitus iubeatur vt non sit Et iteruÌ„ Quomodo non vetatur peâ— iustitiam si peccatum est the iust God should diminish any thing of the rule of righteousnesse though vnrighteous man had by sinne disabled himselfe of the performance thereof the righteousnesse of God I say required that God should iustifie himselfe from seeming to approue any sinne by the defect of the commaundement howsoeuer man could not iustifie himselfe from sinne by the keeping of it But of the end of Gods giuing the law and the possibilitie of keeping it there will be occasion afterwards to entreate more largely and therefore with this briefe answer I referre that point to his due place 18. W. BISHOP 3. Obiect If man haue no Free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answer supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne 3. Pet. 3. cannot chuse but sinne For by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affoordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so chuse whether he will sinne or no and consequently hath Free will to sinne or not to sinne And that example of a bankrupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditors who content not themselues with his repentance without repay of their money as God doth Now concerning the force of this argument heare Saint Augustines opinion De duab animab cont Manich. in these words Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthie of dispraise or punishment which doth not that which he cannot do for saith he do not