reputed with men who account no sinne at all but either in the performance of the act or in the resolution and purpose of the will We fall not into sinne that is into any morall or actuall sinne into any outward sinne euen in the like sort as S. Iames saith that o Iam. 1.15 concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth foorth sin when yet he did not meane but that concupiscence also it selfe is sinne as shall afterwards appeare 3. W. BISHOP Now to the second O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne how this may be drawne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text which he can find to proue S. Paule to take sinne there properly Now I will proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence It is not I that do it all sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paul ergo Secondly out of those words I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was no sinne properly The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that walke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dwelling in them if they walke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sinne properly For the wages of sin is death that is eternall damnation R. ABBOT Now to the second saith he and when he hath done saith nothing of it but putteth it ouer to the handling of the argument and therfore there will we also examine his examination But though he shift off the one circumstance with ignorance and the other with saying nothing yet as if he had very effectually done what he pretendeth he inferreth that not one poore circumstance of the text could be found to proue that S. Paule tooke sinne there properly marry he will bring vs diuers to proue that he taketh sin improperly Wel then let vs see what these diuers proofes be we doubt they are like his answers the one very bad and the other starke naught First he will proue it by the former part of the sentence It is not I that do it All sinne saith he is committed properly by the person in whom it is but this was not done by S. Paule ergo But we deny his minor proposition and it is altogether absurd and senslesse How should concupiscence do any thing in S. Paule which is not done by S. Paule Can the accident of the person be an efficient cause of any thing by it self without the person The accident is but the instrument of the person and what the accident doth the person doth it by the accident And therefore accordingly S. Paule saith a Rom. 7.14.23 I am carnall sold vnder sinne I do that I would not the law of my members leadeth me captiue to the law of sinne I in my flesh serue the law of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my self in my mind serue the law of God and in my flesh the law of sinne This S. Austine well obserued b August de verb. Apost Ser. 5. Adhuc concupisco vtique etiam in ipsa parte ego sum Non enim ego alius in mente alius in carne Sed quid igitur ipse ego Quia ego in mente ego in carne ex v troque vnus homo Igitur ipse ego ego ipse mēte seruio c. Euen in that part that lusteth it is I also for here is not one I in the mind and another in the flesh Why doth he say I my selfe but because it is I in the mind and I in the flesh euen one man of both these Therefore I my selfe euen I my selfe in mind serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne But yet though being but one and the same person he diuideth himselfe as it were into two parts being in part renewed and in part yet continuing old And hereupon he saith It is not I that do it that is not I according to that that is renewed in me and yet I according to that whereby I am still carnall and sold vnder sin not I according to the inner man wherein I delight in the law of God and yet I according to the flesh whereby I am still captiue to the law of sinne of which flesh I say not I because I account my selfe that that I ioy to be and which I shall euer be not that which though it be my selfe yet is that I would not be and which I labour not to be and therefore striue to destroy and put off as being without it to liue for euer c Ibid Mens regit caro regitur magis sum ego in eo quo rego quà m in eò in quoregor I may rather say I in that wherein I rule then in that wherein I am ouerruled therefore I say it is not I that do it and yet it is I in both M. Bishop therefore by his first circumstance proueth iust nothing and euen as little proueth he by the second Which he taketh out of those words d Ver. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing and after I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind Hereof he argueth thus Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that was seated in the flesh ergo it was not sinne properly Which is the same as if a man would argue thus that the true Pope hath his consistorie chaire in Rome but the Pope that now is hath his consistorie in the Laterane Church therefore he that now is is not the true Pope For what is flesh as the Apostle speaketh thereof but a part of the soule the soule it selfe so farre as yet in part it is not regenerate What is M. Bishop so absurd as to thinke concupiscence to be seated in the flesh as the flesh is diuided against the soule Nay the soule it selfe hauing cast off the yoke of obedience to God and betrayed it selfe to the temptations of the diuell for the gratifying and pleasing of the flesh is become a seruant to that that should haue bene a seruant vnto it and being abiected to sensuall and carnall and earthly desires is wholy called by the name of flesh to whose seruice it doth addict it selfe Thus saith Origen that e Origen de princip lib. 3. cap. 4. Anima cùm crassioris sensus fuerit
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
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
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
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
paint it out euen in the regenerate with such names and termes as doe plainely conuict it to be sinne He calleth it a De nat gr cap. 38. Vitium vitiosae affectionis appetitum vice lust of vitious affection b De nupt concup li. 1. cap. 31. Vitiosa concupiscentiae vitious concupiscence c Epist 54. Ab omni vitiositate vitiousnes or corruption and what doth vitiate defile corrupt the soule but only sinne He calleth it d De nup. con lib. 1. cap 29. In hoc mâ—â—bo Et cap. 31. Vbi est morbidus carnis affectus Ab capeste morboque sanâ—ta a disease a diseased affection of the flesh a pestilence e De Temp. Ser. 45. Vulnus tabeÌ„ Et contr Iul lib 6. cap. 7. Quodam operante contagio id est concupiscentia affectu a wound and contagious filth and what other disease or pestilence or wound and contagion of man is there but onely sinne He calleth this law of sin f De Temp. ibid. Legem foedam legem miseram a filthy law a miserable law not for that it hath a being by it selfe to be filthy and miserable but because we by it are in our selues filthy and miserable which nothing can cause but onely sinne He calleth it g Contr. Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Annon est malunis quis neget esse malam Et ibid. cap. 7. Qualitat mala De nup. concupis li. 1. ca. 25. Affectio malae qualitatis an euill euill concupiscence an euill qualitie an affection of euill qualitie and what euill qualitie is there of the soule what spirituall euil but onely sin He calleth the first motions and affections thereof h Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. Ciuile bellum interiorum vitioruni Aduersus ingenerata vitia bellum gerunt Vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus Desideria stulia noxia inward vices vices borne and bred in vs vices from the guilt whereof we are freed foolish and hurtful desires i De nupt concup lib. 1. ca. 25. Vitiosa desideria Et cap. 27. Desideria mala turpia vitious desires euill and filthy desires k In Ioan. Tr. 41. Jllicitae concupiscentiae in carne tua vnlawfull concupiscences and how do these termes agree to them if they be no sinne He calleth it l De Ciuit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 25. Illa concupiscentialis inobedientia qua in moribundis membris habitat a lustfull disobedience and saith that m Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. lib. 6. cap. 8 supr sect 7 it is an iniquitie that the flesh lusteth against the spirit though the guilt thereof be acquitted and all n Rom. 5.19 disobedience and o 1. Ioh. 5.17 iniquitie is sinne He saith that p Contr. Iulian. lib. 4 cap. 2. Desiderij malimatuÌ„ est etiamsi et non consentiatur there is euill in an euill desire though a man consent not to it for euil And wheras there are two sorts of euils q Tertul. cont Marcion lib. 2. mala peccatoria vltoria euils of sin and euils of punishment and reuenge that we may know that in naming concupiscence euill he meaneth an euill of sinne he citeth the words of Hilarie that r Contr. Iulian. lib. 2. ex Hilar. in Psal 118. Samech Ipsis Apostolis verbo licèt fidei iam emundetis atque sanctificatu non deesse tamen malitiam per conditionem communis nobis origenis docuit dicens Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though the Apostles were cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith yet our Sauiour teacheth that there was not wanting in them euilnesse ilnesse by the condition of our common originall in that he saith If you being euill do know to giue good gifts vnto your children Where very euidently we are taught that of Originall sinne there remaineth still in the regenerate such an euill as wherby they are still euill so that though they be Å¿ Epi. 54. Ipse Dominus quos dicit bonos propter participationem gratiae diuinae eosdem etiam malos dicit propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam vbi nihil omnino peccabitur good by participation of the grace of God yet they be still euill by reason of the vices of humane infirmitie till all be healed à vitiositate from corruption c. Now though sometimes the name of euill be otherwise vsed then of sinne yet neuer is a man called euill by any euill but that that is sin Crosses and afflictions are euils but by these euils or for these euils no man is called euill But concupiscence is such an euill as whereby a man is euill and for which the regenerate man is still truly called euill and therefore is a sinfull euill an euill that is truly and properly a sinne Therefore Saint Austine maketh it an euill in the same kind and nature as sinne is euill when he saith t Cont. Julian lib 6. ca. 5. Quis ita insaâ—uâ— demens qui cùm peccata maia esse fiteatur neget esse malam concupiscentiam peccatorum etiaÌ„ si aduersur eam concuâ—â—scâ—ntiam spiritu peccata concipere ac pareri non sinatur Tale porrò ac tam magnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non teneret in morte per traheret in vltimam mortem nisi eius vinculuÌ„ in illa quae fit in baptisme peccatorum omnium remissione solueretur Who is so mad as that confessing sinnes to be euill he will deny the concupiscence of sinnes to be euil albeit by reason of the spirit lusting against it it be not suffered to conceiue and bring foorth sinnes And to take away all exception and at once to strike the matter dead he addeth that it is such and so great an euill as that onely for being in vs it should hold vs in death and draw vs to euerlasting death but that the bond thereof is loosed in baptisme by the forgiuenesse of all our sinnes euen as he had said a little before that it should not onely be in the faithfull but also greeuously hurt them but that the guilt thereof which had bound vs is loosed by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Which onely words might suffice to declare vnto vs S. Austines minde that he neuer thought but that concupiscence is sinne in that meaning wherein we here dispute of sinne For if it be such an euill as that saue onely that the guilt thereof is pardoned it should greatly hurt vs and so hurt vs as that it should draw vs vnto euerlasting death it cannot be denied to be truly sinne because nothing could bring vs to euerlasting death but onely sinne And yet more fully to shew this and to prooue against Iulian the blot and staine of Originall sinne remaining after baptisme he alledgeth further out of Hilary u Contra Iulian. lib.
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
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
the grace of God he saith which Pelagius also would say but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed that m Arist de mundo Cic. de Nat. Deer Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit Neminem nisi inuante Deo talem fuisse creuoÌ„ dum est neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct so that Aristotle and Tully and such other acknowledging the same must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians concluding by imitation of the Apostles words that n Aug de nat grat cap. 2. Seâ—er uniturum iullâ—â—a sutilla fâ—dâ— assiâ—â—s Christi resurrectious instâ—tans cego Câ—â—ssâ—â— gratis â—â—â—â—us est if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ then Christ died in vaine And againe that o Ibid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti euâ—cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere to affirme that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect But by all this we see that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne Which being condemned in the p Frosp de lib. arbit Ostendere volun inter boni mali contrarius suasiones ita omnem hâ—minem proprie discretiom esse commissum â—t câ—â—mplus a Deo praesidij quà m a Diabolo fis periculi Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning q Coster Enchirid cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cogâ—tatione concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vtiâ— peccatum consentiat quae sua libertate motiones has omnes admittere potest reijcere tia sunt in nobis dâ—umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds and knocketh at the doore of the heart and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace whether sudden or more constant which do beate and knocke at the hart but so as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said r August Epist 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est c. Libertate naturali si vult facit si non vult non facit that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent and to make good that that I haue before affirmed that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare 6. W. BISHOP Now the verie point controuersed concerning Free will M. Perkins hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Author is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul which are commonly alledged against Free will R. ABBOT This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians that a Aug. ep 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis id est expropria voluntate quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of God but that this we haue of our selues that is to say of our owne will which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts For thus you haue M. Bishop all this while affirmed that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done This you all inculcate beate vpon that that when God hath wholy done his part it is in mans will either to make or marre and so do plainly teach with Pelagius that God doth helpe b Idem de grat Certisti to it Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae our naturall power that we may be able to consent and will but actually to consent and will is left still free to our owne will and choise And thus M. Bishop you your selfe informe vs when propounding the first part of the question Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it you hold affirmatiuely that by Free will we assent vnto grace hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same Whether this be so or not is the point and we resolue with S. Austin c Idem ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat sid etiam velle operatioperatur in nobis that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke but also worketh in vs to will and to worke he doth not so offer vs grace as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it who d De praedest sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt
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
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
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
not foorth except it conceiue So then saith M. Bishop it is not sinne of it selfe But we deny his argument for a mother bringeth foorth a woman and yet she her selfe is a woman also A woman bringeth not foorth a woman except she first conceiue and yet she is a woman before she do conceiue and sinne bringeth not foorth sinne except by consent it first conceiue and yet it is sinne before conception There is nothing in Saint Austins words but standeth well with that that before hath bene said that concupiscence being the habite of sinne doth by gaining the consent of the will bring foorth actuall and outward sinnes which is the true meaning of that place of Iames. And that he did not otherwise conceiue but that concupiscence is sinne M. Bishop might very well haue seene if he had but read the words a few lines before the place which he citeth where speaking of the same being in vs he saith z Jbid. Non tan tùm inesset verùm granitèr obesset nisi reaetus qui nos obstrinxerat per remissionem peccatorum solutus esset It should not onely be in vs but also greatly hurt vs but that the guilt thereof is acquitted by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes We would haue M. Bishop tell vs how it should hurt vs if it be not sinne for we suppose that there is nothing in man that can hurt him but onely sinne especially the hurt being such as S. Austine anone after speaketh of a Tantum quis inest pertraheret ad vltimanâ— mortem to draw vs onely by being in vs to euerlasting death The place of Cyril affirmeth the being of lust b Cyrilâ—â— Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 51. Feruens cupiditas ante peccandi actum insidet ante peccandi actum before the actuall sinne but hath nothing for M. Bishops turne to proue that lust also is not sinne nay in the words immediatly following he proueth that it is sinne affirming that c Vt hoc anigmate perdiscamus nullo nos pacto mundos vnquam futuros nisi omnem turpeÌ„ ex animo cupiditaetem cijciamus by circumcision we should learne that we shal not be cleane vnlesse we cast out of our mind all filthy lust For if lust it selfe do make vs vncleane it must needes be sinne because nothing can make a man vncleane but onely sinne That which M. Perkins addeth to illustrate this point Such as the fruit is such is the tree was very fitly spoken to the matter in hand For the fruite hath it whole nature and qualitie from the tree neither is it any thing but what it is by that that it receiueth from thence If therefore the actions of concupiscence be sinne concupiscence which is the tree must needes haue the nature and condition of sinne But M. Bishop answereth that not concupiscence but the will of man is the tree Which is all one as if he should haue said that not the will of man but the will of man is the tree For it hath bene before shewed that concupiscence is nothing else but the corrupted will of man which doth not bring foorth either euill or good indifferently but is of it selfe an enticer only vnto bad vntil God do create it anew and by his owne hand do worke in it to will that that is good In a word the holy Scripture as on the one side it calleth the motions of concupiscence d 1. Pet. 2.11 the lusts of the flesh so it calleth also the effects deeds of those lusts the workes of the flesh thereby shewing that concupiscence signified by the name of e Gal. 5.9 flesh and importing the corruption of the whole mind and will of man is rightly said to be the tree or euill root whence all euill workes and all wickednesse do spring 7. W. BISHOP Lib. 5. contr Iulian. cap. 3. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I answer that S. Augustine in more then twenty places of his works teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly wherefore when he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne in which sence concupiscence may be termed sinne but it is so called very seldome of S. Augustine Lib. 6. cap. 5. but more commonly an euill as in the same worke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renew a man perfectly so farrefoorth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgment but may be called euil because it prouoketh vs to euill To this place of S. Augustine Tract 41. in Ioan. I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his fourth reason where he saith that sin dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answerserueth that sin there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in baptisme all sinnes and iniquitie is taken away and that there is left in the regenerate only an infirmitie or weaknesse R. ABBOT That place of Austin doth very pregnantly shew that concupiscence is truly and properly called sinne and giueth a reason thereof out of the true nature of sinne which before hath bene declared a August contr Julian lib. 5. ca. 3. Sicut coecitas cordis peccatum est quo in Deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid coeci cordis errore committitur itae concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione coÌ„sentientis vel contagione nascentis As blindnesse of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby man beleeueth not and the punishment of sinne wherewith the pride of the heart is iustly reuenged and the cause of sinne whilest any euill is committed by the error of the heart so blinded so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit desireth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedience against the rule of the mind and the punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the desert of him that obeyed not and the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth vnto it or by infecting of him that is borne of it Concupiscence then is sinne as blindnesse of heart is sinne But
vs our trespasses but that therefore we do not say so because we beleeue that they are alreadie pardoned and forgiuen vnto vs. Now it is one thing to say that we aske not forgiuenesse thereof because it is forgiuen alreadie another thing to say as M. Bishop and his fellowes do that it is such in it selfe as needeth no forgiuenesse Whereby it plainely appeareth that they wholy abuse Saint Austin and wrest him to farre other purpose and meaning then was intended by him And yet this is a thing whereof he himselfe also made some doubt He propoundeth it as his owne priuate opinion m In Psal 118. conc 3. QuantuÌ„ quidem ego sapere possum So farre as I can perceiue saith he it is so It seemeth to me so n De perfect iusti prope fineÌ„ Quod nisi fallor non esset opus dicere Nisi fallor if I be not deceiued it is so and dareth not as he saith o Non andeâ— reprehendere quanquam nec defendere valeam reprehend them who did affirme that iust men might in this life be so farre without sinne as to be free from consent to any desires of sinne who because they should haue nothing else for which to say forgiue vs our trespasses must needs say so for the very first motions and lusts thereof And surely we dare not altogether assent to Austin in this behalfe because he cannot conceiue but that the acts and motions of concupiscence being new from day to day must be accounted new trespasses from day to day and therefore from day to day giue vs occasion to say forgiue vs our trespasses Yet doth he aduantage the Papists no whit at all because by his very question hereof it appeareth that he doubted not but that euill concupiscences are in themselues such as for which we should say forgiue vs our trespasses when propounding whether for euill concupiscences we pray so vnto God he maketh the ground of his question this because in Baptisme they are alreadie pardoned And thus I hope I haue by this time made it appeare to M. Bishop that S. Austin in this point was no Papist and that though in the signification of a word he differ from vs yet in the very matter resolued the same that we do and that both he and the rest of the Fathers of the Church plainely agree with vs that concupiscence in the regenerate hath the proper nature and condition of sinne But yet he will not yeeld because he hath yet somewhat further to alledge out of the Fathers for the proofe of that he saith And first he alledgeth Chrysostome saying p Chrys ad Râ—hom 13. Illi affectus peccatum haudquaquam erant sed illorum immoderatio effraenata hoc efficiebat Verbi gratia vt vnum aliquem affectuum illorum pertractemus Concupiscentia peccatum quideÌ„ non est at cum ea â—â—â—dum non seruat c. tum res ea in adulterium crumpit non ab ipsa quidem concupiscentia sed ab illius immodica cupiditate Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes For example Concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then lo it is adulterie not in respect of concupiscence but in respect of the excesse and vnlawfull riot of it But here he playeth the iugler againe and by equiuocation meerly abuseth his reader For Chrysostome speaketh of passions as they are naturall and by God implanted in man in his creation and common to all men and not of passions as they are the remainder of Originall sinne in the regenerate There were passions in Christ anger sorow feare and such like yet in Christ there was no sinne And thus doth Chrysostome speake of concupiscence which for distinction sake should rather be translated desire as it is a naturall affection not as it is a humane corruption as it is Gods creature not as it is mans default as it is q Ibid. vnus aliquis affectuum some one of the affections not in that sort as we question it as it is the common disorder of them all The distinction of concupiscence which Tertullian vseth serueth fitly in this place that there is r Tertullian de Animae cap. 6. Rationale quod animae à primordio est ingenttum à rationali videlicet authore Irrationale posterius intelligeÌ„dum est vt quod acciderit ex serpentis instinctu atque exinde â—â—oleuerit coadoleuerit in anima ad instar iam naturalitatis c. non ex ea natura quae à Deo est sed ex illa quam diabolus induxit c. Non semper ex irrationali censenda sunt indignatiuâ— concupiscentiuum c. concupiscence reasonable and vnreasonable Reasonable he calleth that which is naturall which from the beginning was wrought in the soule by God the reasonable author and maker thereof Vnreasonable he saith is that which befell by the instinct of the Serpent and thenceforth crew into the soule and became in a sort naturall not of that nature which is of God but of that which the diuell hath brought in Concupiscence as it importeth the naturall act of desiring he rightly affirmeth to haue bene in Christ and that in vs of it selfe it is no sinne And thus is Chrysostome to be vnderstood when he saith that affections are not sinne of themselues but that it is the vnbridled disorder thereof that causeth sinne Thus as he saith concupiscence referred to the naturall desire of the male to the female is of it selfe no sinne because it is the worke of the God of nature But our question here is of that concupiscence or the remainder of that concupiscence which grew by the instinct of the serpent whereby all our desires are by another nature growne disordered and euill which disorder we say in part continueth still in regenerate and is not by M. Bishop as yet freed from being sinne The place of S. Bernard answereth it selfe Å¿ Bernard ser de sex tribulat Peccatum inforibus est nisi ipse aperias non intrabit appetitus in corde prurit sed sub te est nisi spontè cesseris non notebit Sinne is at the doore but vnlesse thou open it shall not enter in If sinne be at the doore why doth M. Bishop denie it to be sinne What he saith first sinne is at the doore he repeateth againe in these words lust tickleth at the heart If lust tickling at the heart be sinne at the doore how doth he conclude by this place that lust is no sinne He saith that M. Perkins often citeth S. Bernard against them and therefore he may be somtimes alledged for them but if he do alledge him no better then here he hath done his labour shall be better saued then so idlely bestowed But he doth not onely cite him impertinently but also very lewdly For in that very sermon is it wherein Bernard so describeth concupiscence as before
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
was impossible that God should lie we might haue strong consolation which can be but very weake yea none at all so long as we hang it vpon any other thing It is therefore a wicked presumption to hope for Saluation by vertue of our owne doings but the presumption that groweth of faith is a commendable presumption h Ambros de Sacrament lib. 5. cap. 4. Praesume non de operatione suâ— sed de Christi gratia c. Bona praesumptio It is a good presumption saith Ambrose to presume not vpon thine owne worke but vpon the grace of Christ Such a presumption S. Austin teacheth i August in Psal 85. Quicquid est circae te vel inte vnde possit praesumâ—re abijce à te tota praesumptio tua Deus sit Whatsoeuer there is about thee or in thee to presume of cast it from thee and let God be thy whole presumption or presume wholy vpon God Namely in that sort as S. Ambrose teacheth by occasion of Dauids words k Psal 119.116 Receiue me according to thy word l Ambros in Psa 118. Ser. 15. IntoleraÌ„dae praesumptionis videretur Deo dicere suscipe me nisi promissum eius adiungeret hoc est vt auderemus ipse feeiâ—â—i tuo te chirographo conuenimus It were a matter of intollerable presumption saith he to say to God Receiue me but that he addeth the promise of God as if he should say Thou hast caused vs to presume we challenge thee vpon thine owne bond This is the presumption of true faith whereby we withdraw our eyes from our selues and cast them wholy vpon God assuredly beleeuing that we shall receiue because we beleeue in him that promiseth Therefore Gregorie saith m Greg. Magn. in Ezech. hom 22. Per praesumptionem gratiae vitae caniant iusti iudicium quod ti iusti omnes pertimescunt By presuming of grace and life the righteous sing of that iudgement which all the vnrighteous are afraid of Let M. Bishop then learne that there is a godly presumption of Saluation and eternall life which because it cannot arise of any sufficiencie of our workes must necessarily be grounded vpon faith alone Wherein notwithstanding faith receiueth comfort and strength by the good fruits and effects of grace in the feare and loue of God in faithfull care and conscience of duty towards God and men because albeit of themselues they cannot be presumed of yet being fruits of faith euen in their beginnings imperfections are n Bernard de grat lib. arbit Occuliae praedestinationis indicia future foepâ—citatis praesagia tokens of Gods secret election foretokens of future happinesse so that a man o Idem epist 107. Vocatus quisque per timorem iustificatus per amorem praesumit se quâ—que esse de numerâ— beatorum called to God by feare and framed to righteousnes by loue presumeth that he is of the number of them that shal be blessed M. Bishop is not acquainted with true faith and professeth that he knoweth not whether he haue any feare or loue of God and therfore no maruell that he is a stranger to this presumption do take that to be an vnlawfull presumption which indeed is nothing but true faith 6. W. BISHOP To these I will adde two or three others which M. Perkins afterwards seekes to salue by his exceptions as he tearmes them To his first exception I haue answered before The second I will put last for orders sake and answer to the third first which is The Catholikes say Pag 56. we are indeed to beleeue our Saluation on Gods part who is desirous of all mens Saluation very rich in mercie and able to saue vs but our feare riseth in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sins depend vpon our true repentance Vnlesse you do penance ye shall all perish Luke 13. And the promises of Saluation is made vpon condition of keeping Gods commaundements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements Againe No man shall be crowned Math. 19.2 Tim. 2. except he combat lawfully Now we not knowing whether we shall well performe these things required by God at our hands haue iust cause to feare lest God do not on his part performe that which he promiseth vpon such conditions To this M. Perkins answereth That for faith and true repentance euerie man that hath them knoweth well that he hath them To which I replie that for faith being rightly taken it may be knowne of the partie that hath it because it is a light of the vnderstanding and so being like a lampe may be easily seene but true repentance requires besides faith both hope and charitie vvhich are seated in the darke corners of the vvill and cannot by faith be seene in themselues but are knowne by their effects vvhich being also vncertaine do make but coniectures and a probable opinion so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith Proue your selues whether you be in faith or no. 2. Cor. 13. Because we accord that it may be tried by vs whether we haue faith or no although I know well that Saint Pauls words carrie a farre different sence But let that passe as impertinent To the other 1. Cor. 2.12 That we haue receiued the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God What things these are which the spirit reuealeth to vs S. Paul teacheth in the same place That which the eye hath not seene nor eare hath heard c. God hath prepared for them that loue him but to vs God hath reuealed by his spirit All this is true but who they be that shall attaine to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared God onely knoweth and by his spirit reuealeth it to verie few And will you learne out of S. Ierome that ancient Doctor the cause why In 3. caput Ion. Therefore saith he it is put ambiguous and left vncertaine that while men are doubtfull of their Saluation they may do penance more manfully and so may moue God to take compassion on them R. ABBOT The condition of repentance is required not as whereby we worke our Saluation but whereby we seeke it and that not by the keeping of the commandements wherein we all faile but in Christ alone by faith in him whence followeth a measure of keeping Gods commandements and of striuing lawfully vnto him not as any proper cause of Saluation but as parts and tokens and preparations of and to that Saluation which we receiue and haue by Christ alone Now here M. Perkins bringeth in the Popish Doctors affirming that we cannot be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that which we suppose our selues to haue M. Perkins answereth that he that doth truely repent and beleeue knoweth that he doth so To this M. Bishop replieth that faith being rightly taken may be
your Saluation with feare and trembling There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy writ wherein the Holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our Saluation out of which I thus frame my argument No man must stand in feare of that of which he is by faith assured But the faithfull must stand in feare of their Saluation Ergo they be not assured of it by faith The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before the Maior is manifest there is no feare in faith he that feareth whether the thing be assured or no cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto Dubius in fide infidelis est Put the case in another article to make it more euident He that feareth whether there be a God or no do we esteeme that he beleeueth in God So he that feareth whether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian hath he a true faith You must needs answer no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saued or no can haue no faith of his Saluation R. ABBOT The place of S. Iohn doth fully ouerthrow that which M. Bishop laboureth to build inuincibly prouing that reuolters and renegates wholy falling away from Christ were neuer of the faithfull though for the time outwardly they held profession with them For if they had bene of vs saith he they would haue continued with vs therein implying this rule that they that once are of the faithfull do certainly continue with them so as that they neuer wholie and finally depart from them For as falling starres were neuer starres indeed though they seemed to be starres so apostataes and backsliders were neuer faithfull indeed though they seemed so to be But here Maister Bishop answereth If they went out from vs they were before with vs. Be it so but yet as the glosse saith a Thom. Aquin. in Ioan. ca. 2. ex glossa Erant de ecclesia numero non merito sacramentorum perceptione non charitatis communione by tale and account not by woorth by participation of sacraments not by fellowship of loue This place then proueth that men may depart from the profession of the faith of Christ but it confirmeth not his assertion that the faith of any doth euer faile that is truly faithfull in the profession of the faith of Christ And therefore it is but one of his iuglers tricks to make his Reader beleeue that the place confirmeth his assertion when in truth it doth directly contradict it If those reuolters had had true faith Saint Iohn would not haue said They were not of vs for he is of the faithfull whosoeuer is indued with true faith But saith he S. Iohns meaning is that such were not of the number of the elect and this is S. Austines exposition And we acknowledge S. Austines exposition to be true b August de bono perseuâ—â—â—a 8. Non erant ex eis quia noÌ„ erant secundum propositum vocant non erant in Chr sto electi ante constitutioneÌ„â—undi non erant in eo sort in consecuti non erant praedestinauit secundum proposituÌ„ eius qui vniuersa operatur They were not of them because they were not called according to purpose because they were not elect in Christ before the foundations of the world because they had not obtained any lot or portion in him because they were not praedestinate according to the purpose of him who worketh all things But because they were not such therefore they were neuer truly faithfull For if they were not called by purpose then did they neuer truly beleeue because c Jdem de praed sanct cap 16. Qua vocatione sit credens by that calling it is that a man doth beleeue Now d Jâ—â— p. 17. Quos praedestinauit ipsos vocauit illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum Non ergo alios sed quos praedestinauit ipsos vocauit nec alios sed quos ita vocauit ipsos iustificauit nec alios sed quos praedestinauit vocauit iustificauit ipsos giereficauit c. by this calling God calleth no other but whom he hath praedestinate therefore onely the predestinate do beleeue And no other doth God iustifie but whom he hath called with that calling therefore onely the elect are partakers of iustification and if only the elect be iustified then all that are iustified do certainly perseuer because the elect do neuer fall away Now if backsliding reprobates were neuer partakers of iustification then were they neuer of the body of the faithfull howsoeuer in outward appearance they seemed to be And this the same S. Austine very notably confirmeth when he saith of reprobates e Cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 5 cap. 3. Jstorum neminem adducit ad poenitentiam salubrem spiritualem qua homo in Christo reconciliatur Deo siue illis ampliorem patientiam quà m electis siue non imparem praebeat None of these doth God bring to spirituall and healthfull repentance whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God whether he yeeld them patience for longer or shorter time And as he excludeth them from true repentance so doth he also from forgiuenesse of sinnes saying that f Cont. aduersar seg prophet lib. 2 ca. 11. Qui noÌ„ omnium sicut iste au sedeorum quos ante praesâ—â—on praedestinauit delicta dimittit God forgiueth the sinnes not of all but of them whom before he foreknew and predestinated Origen yet goeth further and saith that g Origen cont Cels lib. 7. Conceditur cognitio Dei duntaxat his qui ad hoc praedestinati sunt vt cognito Dei dignè viuant the knowledge of God meaning the true and effectuall knowledge of God is graunted onely vnto them who are hereto predestinate that knowing God they may liue worthy of him Now if reprobates neuer haue any true knowledge of God if they be secluded from repentance faith iustification forgiuenesse of sinnes then these things are proper onely to the elect which do certainly perseuer and our assertion is true that where there is true repentance faith iustification knowledge of God there infallibly followeth perseuerance to the end Saint Iohn therefore when he saith They were not of vs as he meaneth that they were not of the elect so he meaneth that they neuer were of the number of true beleeuers neuer true members of Christ or of the spirituall body of the Church which if they had bene he concludeth for vs that they should haue so continued and not in that sort haue vtterly fallen away Therefore doth Saint Austine expound the words of them h August de corrept grat ca. 9. Filij Dei propter susâ—eptaÌ„ vel temporaliter gratiaÌ„ dicuntur a nobis nec sunt tamen Deo who for grace temporally receiued are of vs called the children of God but yet are not so to God affirming plainly that with God they are not children though we call them so because they seeme no
in the not imputing thereof but also in h Cap. 6.6 destroying the body of sinne and restoring in vs the image of God i Ephe. 4.24 in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth he hauing giuen himselfe k Tit. 2.14 to purge vs to be a peculiar people vnto himselfe and l Ephe. 5.27 to make vnto himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing And all this Christ will effect vnto vs but he will do it according to his owne will not according to Popish fancie All this is now in fieri non in facto esse it is begun and in doing but it is not yet finished and done it shall be fully perfected at the resurrection of the dead In the meane time he bringeth vs not to perfect righteousnesse in our selues nor giueth vnto vs a full immunitie from sinne that he may take away from vs all occasion of reioycing in our selues that as Saint Austine noteth m August de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 13. Vt dum non iustificatur in coÌ„spectu erâ—s viuens actionem gratiarum semper in dulgentiâ—e ipsius debeamus siâ— ab illa primâ— caâ—sa omniuÌ„ vâ—ticrum id est ae tumore superbâ—e sancta humilitate scruemur whilest no man liuing is found iust in the sight of God we may alwaies owe thankesgiuing vnto his mercie and by humilitie may be healed from swelling pride and n Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Vt scâ—amus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed pro misiricerdiae sua saluos nos fecit that we may know as Saint Bernard saith at that day that not for the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercie he hath saued vs. Now therefore we doe no wrong to Gods goodnesse wisedome iustice in our iustification as Maister Bishop fondly chargeth vs because we teach iustification in the same sort as God himselfe hath taught it vs inferring sanctification as an immediate and necessarie effect but not conteining it as an essentiall part We hold sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in this sence that the one cannot be without the other and that no man is iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ who is not also sanctified by the spirit of Christ but we denie sanctification to be necessarie to iustification in Maister Bishops meaning as to be any cause or matter of it As for the place of Luther wretchedly falsified by him the true purpose of it onely is to shew the worke of Gods grace to be irreuocable in them vpon whom he hath set the marke of his election and hath iustified them by faith in Christ to whom as Saint Austine saith o August Soli. loq cap. 28. Quibus omnia cooperantur in bonuÌ„ etiam peccata ipsa euen their very sinnes doe worke for good and thereof is made as it were a triacle and preseruatiue against sinne so that as Bernard saith p Bernard de triplici cohaer clauor vincul glutin Of Certaintie of Saluation Sect. 9. though Dauid be branded with the blot of horrible sinnes and Peter be drowned in a depth of denying his Maister yet there is none that can take them out of the hand of God who because he will preserue them therefore preserueth their faith and continueth in them his spirit of sanctification and though by occasion they fall yet they neuer so fall but that q 1. Iohn 3.9 his seede remaineth in them and r Psal 37.24 his hand is vnder to lift them vp againe Now because we affirme the inward sanctifying of the heart to be alwaies an infallible consequent of iustification there is no place for that obiection of his that we make the righteous man like to sepulchers whited without with an imputed Iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder The imputation of righteousnesse both outwardly and inwardly is our iustification before God and by sanctification the iustified man both outwardly and inwardly becommeth other in quality then he was before so that although sinne in part be still remaining to lust and rebell yet it is brought into subiection that it raigneth not and being checked and resisted that it may not bring forth fruit a man is not by it reputed full of iniquitie and disorder But of this sufficient hath bene said Å¿ Sect. 17. before by occasion of the same cauill in his epistle to the Ring Here as he giueth further occasion we tell him that that remainder of sinne in the regenerate is couered with the mantle of the righteousnesse of Christ and so S. Austine as we haue seene before calleth it t August de nupt concup lib. 2. ca. 34. peccatum tectum sinne couered or hidden But saith he it is madnesse to thinke that any thing can be hid from the sight of God We answer him that God seeth it well enough with the eye of his knowledge but by reason of that couerture u August in Ps â—1 Noluit aduertire Tecta quare vt non videâ—â—tur Quid erat Dei videre peccata aâ—si puâ—ire peccata will not see it with the eye of his iudgement he seeth it with a discerning but seeth it not with a reuenging eye euen as it is said x Numb 23.21 He seeth no iniquitie in Iacob nor beholdeth transgression in Israel But he demaundeth Why doth he not deface it and wipe it away and adorne the soule with grace c. He hath his answer before I will here quit him onely with Saint Austins words y Augus â—â—nat Câ—â—grat cap. 27. riot agit Deus vt â—aâ—ct onâ—â—a sed agit tuâ—licio suo nec ordinem sanaâ—di accipit ab aegreto God is in hand to heale all but he doth it at his owne discretion and receiueth not of the sicke man an order for his cure Againe he asketh Hath not Christ deserued it We tell him ye Christ hath deserued it and for his merits sake it shall be done but we must expect the time that God hath appointed for the doing of it Christ hath deserued for vs to be wholly freed from mortalitie corruption and death as before was sayd but mortalitie corruption and death yet continue still When mortalitie corruption and death shall be abolished then shall sinne also wholly and for euer be taken away Last of all he demaundeth Is it because God cannot make such iustice in a pure man I answer him out of Tertullian z Tertul. aduers Praxeâ—in Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac senteÌ„tia vtamuâ— quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Potuit Deus pennis hominem ad volanduÌ„ instruxâ—sse non tamen quia potuit statim fecit c. Probare apertè debebis ex Scripturâ—s If we will so abruptly in our presumptions conceiue opinion we may faine what we list of God as if he had
yet are reputed iust and righteous for his sake and for the Righteousnesse that is in him To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in and the place quoted He omitted to answer to Anselme because the place was not quoted but why did he ouerpasse the other place cited directly to the point but because he intendeth nothing but treacherie and falshood and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth The words of Hierome are as cleare as the sunne c Hieron in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit vt nos efficeremâ—r iustitia Dei in ipso non nostra nec in nobis Christ being offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that vve might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him not ours nor in vs. Where it is euident that the Righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is not any Righteousnesse that is in vs but it is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs euen as our sinne was imputed vnto him Now then it should seeme that it was not M. Perkins his vaine glosse to make this comparison but it was some likelihood thereof in the text that made all these to conceiue thereof as M. Perkins did As touching the other proposition But Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he saith that it also is false and denieth that Christ vvas made sinne by imputation But how then if not by imputation Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sinne But how was he made a sacrifice for sinne if not by hauing sinne imputed vnto him The ancient writers well obserued in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law that the sacrifice for sinne was sometimes called by the name of sinne As where Moses saith d Leuit. 4.29 He shall lay his hand vpon the head of the sinne that is of the sinne offering and he shall slay the sinne that is the sacrifice for sinne Now because they found the name of sinne to be thus giuen to the sacrifice for sinne therefore where it is sayd of Christ that he was made sinne for vs they tooke the meaning to be this that he was made a sacrifice for sinne Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing because there is yet question to be made why the sacrifice for sinne should it selfe be called by the name of sinne Surely it could be for no other cause but because the sinne of the man for whom it was offered was imputed to the dumbe beast in figure of Christ and it was to die as if it had committed the sinne Therfore the man that had sinned was appointed e Leuit. 1.4 to lay his hand vpon the head of his offering as it were there to lay his sinne So saith Theodoret f Theod in Leuit quaest 1. Qui victimam offerebat imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat He that brought the sacrifice layed his hands vpon the head thereof as to lay vpon it his owne workes for which he offered the sacrifice Thus doth God himselfe expresse the meaning of that ceremonie * Leuiâ— 16.21 Aaron shall put his hands vpon the head of the Goate and confesse ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their trespasses in all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the goate so the goate shall beare vpon him all their iniquities Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sinne it followeth that the sinne of them for whom he was sacrificed was layed vpon him and imputed to him Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith that g Origen in Leuit lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suuÌ„ Christ layed the sinnes of mankind vpon his owne bodie And thus the Scripture teacheth vs h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray c. and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquities of vs all i 1. Pet. 2.24 He hath borne our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree Thus Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour Christ saying k Hieron in Psal 87. Irâ—m protellam furoru tui quâ— in gentibus effâ—surus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to power forth vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes How are our sinnes layed vpon Christ how did he beare them how hath he taken them vpon him but by hauing the same imputed vnto him Therefore Saint Austin saith l August in Psal 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit vt iustitiam suam nostâ—anâ— iustitiam faceret He made our sinnes his sinnes that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse God made him sinne that is saith Elias Cretensis m Elias Cretens in Gregor Nazianzen Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sinne But Chrysostome goeth yet further not onely n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. he made him sinne that is he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner but also o Ibid. Iustum fecit peccatorem vt peccatores faceret iustos he made the iust a sinner saith he that he might make sinners iust All which speeches can no otherwise be made good but by graunting the imputation of our sinnes to be layed vpon Iesus Christ especially the last which seemeth verie hardly spoken but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speake to signifie this imputation as shall appeare further hereafter in the eleuenth Section Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austine to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the iustice or Righteousnesse of God there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against vs. For we also say that the iustice of God is meant not that whereby God himselfe is iust but whereby he iustifieth vs. For Christ needed not for himselfe to be made vnder the lavv so to performe the Righteousnesse thereof for his owne Iustification before God being otherwise simply and absolutely iust but what he did he did it for our sakes that we thereby through faith in him should be iustified in Gods sight And this iustice or righteousnesse we acknowledge to be giuen vnto vs by Gods free liberality and bounty euen as Christ himselfe is giuen vnto vs and therefore are we said therein p Rom. 5.17 to receiue the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse Which cannot be vnderstood of inherent iustice because we do not yet receiue the abundance of that gift but only q Cap. 8.23 the first fruits it being such as that S. Austine saith thereof so long as we liue here that r August de ciuit Dei li. 19. ca. 27. Jpsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum it rather consisteth in
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
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
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
he will yet this must alwayes stand good that faith in the first instant of the being of it gaspeth vnto God by prayer as the thirstie land and together therewith receiueth blessing of God God tieth not himselfe to M. Bishops order but where he giueth faith in the gift thereof he beginneth with it the whole effect and fruit of faith As there is no flame without light but in the beginning of the flame there is ioyntly a beginning of light and yet in nature the flame is before the light so is there no faith without iustification and sanctification and in the first act of faith ioyntly we are iustified and sanctified albeit in order of nature faith is precedent to them both Thus are the speeches vnderstood that he alledgeth out of Austin and thus they are true and make nothing at all to serue for the purpose to which he alledgeth them No more do those other examples that he bringeth of the baptisme of the people conuerted by Peters sermon of the Eunuch and the Apostle Paul He proueth thereby that there was some time betwixt their beleeuing and their being baptized but proueth not that there was any time betwixt their beleeuing and their being iustified For he must vnderstand that we do not tye the iustification of a man to the act or instant of his baptisme and of all these do affirme that they receiued the sacrament of baptisme as Abraham did the sacrament of circumcision After iustification q Rom. 5.11 he receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Euen so did these receiue the signe of baptisme as the seale of forgiuenesse of sinnes and of the righteousnesse of faith which they had embraced and receiued before they were baptized We reade of Cornelius and his companie that r Act. 10.44.47 the holy Ghost came on them they receiued the holy Ghost when they were yet vnbaptized and doth M. Bishop doubt but that they were iustified Constantine the Emperour was not baptized Å¿ Euseb de vita Constant lib. 4. till neere his death and shall we say that till then he was neuer iustified Valentinian was t Ambros de â—bitu Valentia not baptized at all and yet Ambrose doubted not of his iustification Verie idlely therefore and impertinently doth M. Bishop bring these examples and gaineth nothing thereby to his cause I omit his penance in steed of repentance only as a toy that he is in loue withall It is the plaine doctrine of their schooles u Tho. Aqu. p. 3. q. 68. ar 3. in corp Et qui baptizatur pro quibuscunque peccatis noÌ„ est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda hoc enim esset iniuriam facere passioni morti Christi quasi ipsa non esset suffiâ—iens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizatorum that no penance is to be inioyned vnto men in baptisme or that are to be baptized for any sinnes whatsoeuer because that should be a wrong to the passion and death of Christ as if it were not sufficient for full satisfaction for the sinnes of the baptized Seeing therefore S. Peter in the place alledged expresly directeth his speech to them that were to be baptized M. Bishop and his fellowes would forbeare there to translate doing of penance but that poore men they are afraid they shall be all vndone vnlesse they make the Scripture say somewhat by right or by wrong for doing of penance Whether in those dayes there were talke of applying Christs righteousnesse appeareth I hope sufficiently in this discourse The other fault which M. Perkins here findeth with the Romish doctrine is that they make faith nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart manie good spirituall motions M. Bishop putteth in by grace onely to delude the Reader because he vnderstandeth hereby no other grace but the same that Pelagius did as before hath bene said But hereof M. Perkins rightly said that it is as much as if they should say that a dead man onely helped can prepare himselfe to his resurrection Not so good Sir saith M. Bishop but that men spiritually dead being quickened by Gods spirit may haue many good motions I answer you say true good Sir when a man is quickened by Gods spirit but can a man be quickened before he be quickned We suppose that the iustifying of a man is the quickening of him and not we onely but you also in the fiue and twentieth section following do hold that our iustification is the translating of vs from death to life Before iustification then we are not quickened nor receiue any infused or inhabitant grace of the spirit of life wherein spirituall life consisteth Therefore to auouch many good spirituall motions before iustification is to auouch grace without grace life without life the spirit without the spirit and a quickening of vs before we are quickened Which because it cannot be it is true that M. Perkins saith that by your doctrine you make a dead man prepare himselfe to his resurrection What you haue said in the question of Free will I hope hath his answer sufficiently in that place 21 W. BISHOP The third difference saith M. Perkins concerning faith is this Page 84. The Papists say that man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as the feare of God hope loue c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Well let vs heare some of them that the indifdifferent Reader may iudge whether they be of any moment or no. FIRST REASON MAny sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much Luke 7 47. whence they gather that the womaÌ„ there spokeÌ„ of had pardoÌ„ of her sinnes was iustified by loue Answer In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to moue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew that God had already pardoned them Reply Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundry places of holy writ iustification is ascribed vnto manie seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is onely spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beliefe in Christes power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercy that he would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate her selfe at Christes feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires
our good workes directly contrary to that which the Apostle defineth in the example of Iacob a Rom. 9.11 Before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not by works but by him that calleth it was said the elder shall serue the younger as it is written I haue loued Iacob and haue hated Esau b August Ench. cap. 98. Qua in re si futura opera vel bona huius vel mala illius quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed diâ—â—ret ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quastionem c. Where saith S. Austine if the Apostle would that either the good workes of the one or the euill workes of the other that were to come should be vnderstood he would not haue said Not of works but would haue said for the workes that were to come and so would haue put the matter out of question c IdeÌ„ epist 105. Ideo inquiunt Pelagiani nondum natorum alium oderat alium diligebat quia futura eorum opera praetudebat Quit istum aâ—utissimum sensum Apostolo defuisse non miretur The Pelagians said as he obserueth that of them being not yet borne God therefore hated the one and loued the other because he did foresee their workes to come Who would not wonder saith he that this wittie conceipt should be wanting to the Apostle But his resolution euery where is that Gods election is the cause of our good workes not the foresight of our good workes the cause why God elected vs. To that purpose he alledgeth the words of the Apostle d Ephe. 1.4 He hath chosen vs in him before the foundations of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him through loue e De praedest sanct ca. 8. Non quia futuri eramuâ— sed vt essemus Et cap. 19. Non quia futures tales nos esse praesciuit sed vt essemus tales per ipsam electionem gratiae c. not saith he because we would be but that we should be not because he foreknew that we would be so but that we might be so by his election of grace The like he obserueth of the same Apostles words concerning himselfe f 1. Cor. 7.25 Aug. epist 105. I haue obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithfull not for that the Lord did foresee that he would be faithfull but by his mercy made him so to be It were too long to alledge all that might be alledged out of Austine as touching this point but Maister Bishop hauing very nicely touched it deferreth the rest to the question of merits where he saith nothing directly to it It seemeth he was ielous of the matter and therefore was loth to wade too farre least it should too plainly appeare that Pelagius and he are both fallen into one pit 35. W. BISHOP The fourth argument A man must be fully iustified before he can do a good worke and therefore good workes cannot go before iustification True not before the first iustification of a sinner But good Sir you hauing made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction betweene the first and second iustification and hauing before discussed the first and the second now remaining and expecting you why did you not say one word of it the matter being ample and well worthie the handling Albeit you will not willingly confesse any second iustification as you say yet had it bene your part at least to haue disprooued such arguments as we bring to proue a second iustification Yee acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification but these degrees must be made downward of euill worser and worst for if all our sanctification and best workes be like vnto defiled cloutes and no better then deadly sinnes as you hold Pag. 76. else-where let any wise man iudge what degrees of goodnesse can be lodged in it Againe how absurd is that position that there is but one iustification whereby they take fast hold on Christs righteousnesse which can neuer after be either loosed or increased Why then do you with your brother Iouinian maintaine that all men are equally righteous If it so be let him that desireth to see you well coursed read S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory Lib. 2. con Iouin Epist 81. Epist 57. Hom. 15. in Ezech. At least we must needes vphold that a man is as iust and righteous at his first conuersion as at his death how godly a life soeuer he lead against which I will put downe these reasons following R. ABBOT If there can be no good workes before the first iustification of a sinner what shall we thinke of M. Bishops vertuous dispositions and works of preparation What are they vertuous and yet are they not good Nay he hath called them a Sect. 30. 32. before good qualities good dispositions good preparations and what were they good then and now are they not good Tell vs M. Bishop your mind are your works of preparation good workes or are they not good If they be not good then you haue spoken vntruly before in calling them good If they be good then it is vntruth that you say here that no good workes go before the first iustification of a sinner Either in the one or in the other you must needes confesse that you haue said amisse Now here he quarelleth with Maister Perkins as if he had said nothing to the matter in hand which is as he saith of the second iustification whereas Maister Perkins though noting their distinction of first and second iustification yet hath in hand wholy to exclude workes from iustification whence it must follow that they haue no place in any second iustification And the argument here propounded directly ouerthroweth his second iustificatioÌ„ though he would not see so much For if a man can do no perfect good works till he be fully iustified theÌ„ can he do no perfect good works till the second iustification be fulfilled For a man is not fully and perfectly iustified till he haue attained to full and perfect iustice Iustice is not full and perfect so long as any thing remaineth to be added vnto it There is still something to be added in their second iustification till it come to his full terme Therefore till then a man is not fully iustified Now the iustice that is not perfect if it be respected in it selfe cannot be pleasing vnto God It can therefore bring forth no good workes to merit at Gods hands There can therefore be no good workes whereby a man should merit their second iustification M. Bishop after his manner briefly reciteth the argument and hauing so done very scholerlike answereth to the conclusion graunting it in one sort when the premisses inferre it in another and yet braueth and faceth as if the matter were wholly cleare for him
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
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
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.
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
exact of euery man a temporall satisfaction answerable to the fault committed But this cannot be i Hieron in Esa cap. 53 lib. 14. Ne exparte veritas ex parte mendaciū◠eredatur in Christo least as S. Hierome saith in another case it be partly a truth and partly a lye which we beleeue in Christ For then as touching eternall punishment it shall be a truth that Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes but as touching temporall satisfactions it shall be a lye and we shall be said to be the propitiation and attonement for our owne sinnes Which because it is blasphemous and wicked to affirme neither hath the Scripture taught vs any such diuision betwixt Christ and vs therfore we must confesse that in name of satisfaction for reconcilement vnto God we do nothing for our selues but Christ only both temporally and eternally is the satisfaction for our sinnes Christ did not onely beare the infinite wrath of God to acquit vs of eternall punishment but according to the words of the Prophet cited by the Euangelist k Esa 53.4 Math. 8.17 He tooke vpō him our infirmities and beare our sicknesses that is our temporall punishments which what doth it import but that in respect of temporall punishments also Christ is our Redeemer Christ is our satisfaction vnto God And if not so why do we then pray to God to be deliuered from temporall calamities and afflictions for Christes sake Nay see how wickedly this deuice is framed The bloud of Christ serueth not to acquit vs from temporall punishments but the bloud of S. Peter doth and the bloud of Paul and the bloud of the Martyrs these all are helpfull to free vs from temporall satisfactions They pray by one Saint against the toothach by another against the falling sicknesse by another against the plague c. their merits are auaileable in this behalfe but the merit of Christ auaileth nothing And yet they tell vs that the conclusion of all their praiers is Per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. But why do they thus bring in the mediation of Christ if Christ in this respect haue done nothing for vs If Christ haue left the burden of temporall satisfactions to lie wholy vpon vs why do they pray by him and through him to be disburdened thereof This the Church of the faithfull hath alwaies done and in all times The Church of Rome therefore dealeth vnfaithfully to retaine the words of the faithfull and to giue checke to the meaning of them by denying Christ to be our Redeemer from that wrath of God whereby temporall afflictions and punishments are laid vpon vs. As for vs we resolue that as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam to answer that in sauing which the other had done in destroying hath made satisfaction to God for both so that the faithfull penitent soule beleeuing receiuing in Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes beleeueth it selfe to be perfectly reconciled vnto God reckoneth not of any further satisfaction to be made vnto him Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth that Christes satisfaction is of infinite value therfore that our satisfactiō is not to supply his But if it be of infinite value why doth he restraine abridge the effect thereof in respect of them to whom the infinite value of it doth belong why doth he make the value therof in respect of the temporall punishments of sin altogether idle of no vse and if it might haue freed vs from doing satisfaction for our selues why doth it not He giueth vs reasons that by the smart therof we may be feared and made carefull to auoid sin that by suffering we may be cōformed as mēbers to Christ our head You say wel M. Bishop but yet we heare nothing here concerning satisfaction We require a reason of the assertion of our satisfactions for that Christ we say hath yeelded a full satisfaction for vs you tell vs of being frighted from sin made cōformable vnto Christ which are things that stand very well without any matter of satisfaction The Scripture teacheth vs these vses of the sufferings of the faithfull but it saith nothing to vs concerning satisfaction But for the better vnderstanding of this whole matter it is to be obserued that the temporal calamities euils of this life are of thēselues and in their own nature the punishments of sin the effects of Gods curse the beames of his euerlasting fury wrath the forerunners of his dreadful iudgment preparations to death death it self the vpshot of all the rest as it were a gulfe swallowing vs vp into feareful darknesse and vtter destruction both of body soule Now Christ being l Iohn 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world in taking away our sins taketh away consequently the effects of sin because the cause being remoued the effects cannot remaine But in sin as hath bene before declared we are to consider both the corruption and the guilt of which the guilt being taken away the corruption may stil remaine and the effects of sinne haue reference to both these Being then reconciled vnto God through Iesus Christ by the not imputing of our sins we see that the temporal afflictions and grieuances of this life are stil continuing lying vpon vs. Hereupon the question is our sins being forgiuen in what nature they continue We say not as satisfactions to the wrath of God in respect of the guilt of sin but as cautions and prouisions of his loue for the destroying of the corruption of it The guilt of sinne is the foundation of satisfaction and where no guilt is there is no satisfaction to be demaunded When therefore forgiuenes hath taken away the guilt there can be no requiring of satisfaction the afflictions thenceforth lying vpon vs are of another nature and to other ends vses then that either we should be said thereby to satisfie God or that God should be said thereby to satisfie himselfe of vs. The vses thereof the Scripture noteth m Rom. 6.6 the destroying of the body of sin n Heb. 12.10 the making of vs partakers of his holinesse o 2. Cor. 4.16 the renewing of the inner man from day to day p Col. 1.12 the making of vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light q 1. Cor. 11.32 We are chastened of the Lord when we are iudged that we should not be cōdemned with the world r Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. cap. 15. Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt vel ad emendanda peccata velad exercendam probandamque iustitiam vel ad demōstrandā vitae huius miseriā vt illa vbi erit beatitudo vera atque perpetua desideretur ardenriùs instantiùs inquiratur Vide in Ioan. tract 124. They serue saith Austine
for the reforming of our sins for the exercise and triall of our righteousnesse for the setting forth of the misery of this life that that life where shal be true and euerlasting blisse may both more feruently be desired and more instantly sought for These reasons he giueth why the punishments of sinne as touching the matter of them continue still in this life after the forgiuenesse therof but of satisfaction not a word Yea being occasioned to speake directly to the point by the Pelagians obiecting to him that ſ Aug de peccat merit remiss lib. 2. ca. 33. Qui dicunt si peccat◠mors accidisset non vtique post remissione peccatorūmoreremur non intelligunt quomodo res quarū reatū ne post hanc vitam obsint Deus soluit tamen eat ad certamen fidei sinit manere vt per illas erudiamur exerceamur proficientes in agone iustitiae if death had come by sin then after forgiuenes of sinnes we should not die he answereth thus They vnderstand not that God suffereth the things the guilt whereof he releaseth that they may not hurt after this life yet to remaine in this life for the fight of faith that thereby we may be instructed and exercised profiting and growing in the fight of righteousnesse The guilt of death then and of all other temporall calamities is taken away but yet these things continue not as matters of satisfaction but as meanes of instruction for the framing of vs vnto God He goeth on and saith that it may be as well said if for sinne it were said to man In the sweat of thy browes shalt thou eate thy bread and the earth shall bring forth vnto thee briars and thornes why after forgiuenesse of sinnes doth this labour remaine and why doth the ground of the faithfull bring forth briars and thornes Againe if for sinne it were said to the woman In paine and sorow thou shalt bring foorth how is it that after forgiuenesse of sinnes faithfull women still bring foorth with the same paines All these cases and the like he cleareth in this sort t Ibid. cap. 34. Respondemus dicentes ante remissionem esse supplicia peccatorū post remissionem autem certamina exercitationesque iustorum Wee answere that before forgiuenesse they are the punishments of sinnes but after forgiuenesse they are the fights and exercises of the iust VVhere wee see that being drawne to answer precisely to this matter he denieth them after forgiuenesse to be punishments of sinne howsoeuer both he and we are woont in common speech to terme them so because originally and naturally they are so Therefore is there commonly that difference made betwixt the afflictions of the faithfull and the vnfaithfull that u Origen in Genes hom 16. Quod iustu exercitiū virtutis est hoc iniustis pena peccati that which is to the iust the exercise of vertue as Origen saith is to the vniust the punishment of sinne that x Tertull. Apologet ca. 41. Omnes seculiplage nobis fortè in admonitionē vobis in castigationē à Deo obueniunt the plagues of the world as Tertullian saith are to the one for punishment to the other for admonition and aduertisement So can Thomas Aquinas say when occasion serueth that y Thom. Aquin. 12. q. 114 art 10. ad 3. Temporalia mala infliguntur impijs in paenam inquantum per ea non adiuuantur ad consecutionē vitae aeternae iustis autem qui per huiusmodi mala iuuātur nē sunt paenae sed magis medicinae temporall euils are inflicted vpon the wicked for punishment for that they are not thereby helped for the obtaining of eternall life but to the iust who are thereby helped they are not punishments but rather medicines So then they are not punishments they are no satisfactions where sinnes are forgiuen but they are referred to other end If they be satisfactions the proper and onely vse of them in that nature is ex parte ante in respect of time past to giue recompence for offence formerly committed and whatsoeuer else is alledged is meerely accidentall but the proper and onely vse of afflictions where sinnes are forgiuen is ex parte post in respect of time to come to keepe vs from sinne and to helpe forward our sanctification towards God But M. Bishop hudleth and confoundeth all together and by termes of the true vses of afflictions deliuered in the Scripture deceiptfully coloureth his matter of satisfactions deuised beside and against the Scripture Let him speake distinctly as the Scripture doth and then he must say that that which concerneth the guilt of sinne and belongeth to satisfaction is laid wholy vpon Christ that it may be true which the Prophet saith z Esa 53.5 The chastisement of our peace was laid vpon him and by his stripes we were healed but that which is laid vpon vs after forgiuenesse by Christ is onely de futuro to weaken and weare away the power of sinne and in death which is the last of these afflictions vtterly to destroy it Now therefore whereas he saith that we must be conformable vnto Christ as members to our head he notably abuseth the pretence thereof to the singular dishonour of Iesus Christ He hath told vs before that we must be a Of Merits Sect. 16. like vnto Christ in meriting and here he telleth vs that we must be like vnto Christ in satisfying but what must we be like vnto Christ in those things wherein consisteth his being Christ wherein standeth his being our Redeemer our Sauiour our high Priest and Mediatour vnto God By meriting and satisfying for vs it is that Christ is our Christ our Iesus and Sauiour If therefore we be like vnto him in meriting and satisfying what hindereth but that as he is in common Iesus and a Sauiour for all so we also should be said euery man to be a Iesus and Sauiour for himselfe Which because it is impious to affirme and cannot be auoided if it be true which he saith let him learne to know that we are to be like vnto Christ in his image not in his office in act of conuersation not in effect of satisfaction and redemption in that that he is simply according to himselfe not in that that he is by dispensation for vs. We must suffer as he hath suffered but not suffer for our selues or one for another as he hath suffered for vs. We must walke in obedience to God as he hath walked but not to merit by our obedience for our selues as he by his obedience hath merited for vs. These are lewd and Antichristian deuices seruing to iustle Christ out of his place by a pretence of conformitie betwixt him and vs. M. Bishops conclusion therefore is without any ground that Christ hauing satisfied the eternall punishment of sinne hath left a temporall satisfaction thereof to be performed by vs. As for the words of the Apostle which he citeth for some proofe thereof
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
to sinne albeit the sinnes that are already committed he in mercie blotteth out if conuenient satisfaction be not neglected Here is satisfaction first and thereupon the blotting out of sinne but M. Bishop telleth vs of the blotting out of sinne first and of a satisfaction required after Why doth he wilfully abuse his Reader to make shew of prouing that to which he alledgeth nothing The thing that he should proue is that God remitting the sinne and the eternall punishment doth reserue the making of a temporall satisfaction and he bringeth in Austine requiring conuenient satisfaction for the remitting of the sinne His argument then if we will frame it must be this We must vse conuenient satisfaction vnto God for the obtaining of the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Therefore after that our sinnes be forgiuen vs we are still to make a temporall satisfaction vnto God which if it be not a good one we may take him to be starke naught Of the name of satisfaction I shall speake further in the last section here it is enough briefly to obserue that the conuenient satisfaction spoken of by Saint Austine is no conuenient argument for Popish satisfaction The other place cited from him is a flat deniall of satisfaction after this life e Homil. 5. Cùm de hoc seculo transierimus nulla compuÌ„ctio vel satisfactio remanebit Some reade vel aliqua satisfactio which must be resolued thus Non vlla compunctio vel satisfactio aliqua remanebit or else the diuisioÌ„ leaueth place to compunctioÌ„ repeÌ„tance after this life which opinioÌ„ Austine there inueyeth against and M. Bishop himselfe here disclaimeth When we are gone out of this world there will not remaine any compunction or satisfaction M. Bishop saith that there remaineth satisfaction though there remaine no compunction but S. Austine saith there remaineth neither compunction nor satisfaction But although M. Bishops whole drift tend to that that I haue sayd yet I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue here how pretily he circumuenteth himselfe After this life saith he there is no place left to compunction that is contrition of heart neither consequently to confession or satisfaction If because there is no place for compunction in this life therfore there be no satisfaction after this life why doth he tell vs in the beginning that after this life there is satisfaction to be made in purgatory if we die before we haue fully satisfied here why do they make men beleeue that for the dead satisfaction may be made by them that are aliue There is satisfaction he saith after this life and he saith there is no satisfaction after this life and thus indeed knoweth not what to say But yet he telleth vs that S. Austin thereby acknowledgeth that before we go out of this world there is place both for compunction and satisfaction and so that place saith he is rather for vs. Wel but what he gaineth in the scabberd he loseth double in the dagger If Purgatory sink into hell they are in a wofull case It is Purgatory satisfaction specially that they haue their liuing by Now against Purgatory satisfaction he giueth vs this argument where there is no place for compunction there is no place for satisfaction But in Purgatory there is no place for compunctioÌ„ Therfore there is no place now left for Purgatory satisfaction As for satisfaction in this life in such sort as S. Austin speaketh of it we denie it not Satisfaction is nothing else with him but true repentance as shall be shewed hereafter and we preach repentance not according to the illusions of Popery but according to the truth of the word of God The next words are cited out of Chrysostome for which is noted Prooem in Esaiam Others citing the same work do set downe what they cite as ex Hypomnemate in Esaiam But the words are by my copy in his third homily de Poenitentia and they do indeed irrefragably ouerthrow M. Bishops satisfactions f Chrysost de poenit hom 3. Neque mihi dixeru permultum peccauâ— quomodo saluâ—ri possum Tu nequâ— sed Dominus tuus potest atque ita potest vt tua deleat peccata Sicenim delet peccata Deus vt neque eorum vestigium maneat In corporibus quâ—dem id non est ita sed quanquaÌ„ millies conetur medicus creatrix remanet Deus autem sic delet vt neque cicatrix neque cicatricis supersit indi iuÌ„ non vestegium quodquaÌ„ sed post poenae liberationeÌ„ iustitiam inserit peccanteÌ„ coaequalem facit non peccanti Extinguit enim peccatum atque id non esse facit nec fuisse Say not vnto me I haue sinned how shall I be freed from so many sinnes Thou canst not but thy God can yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall remaine no print of them Which thing befals not the body for when it is healed there remaines a scarre but God so blotteth out sinnes as that there remaineth no scarre nor token of scarre no print or signe at all but after deliuerance from punishment he giueth thee iustice and maketh the sinner equall to him that hath not sinned for he extinguisheth sinne and maketh it not to be yea as if it had neuer bene Which words are apparently spoken of actuall sinnes g Aug. de nupt concup lib. 1. cap 26. Eorum peccatorum quae manere non possunt quoniam cum fiunt praetereunt reatus tamen manet c. Reus est donec reatus ipsius indulgentia remittatur The act whereof is past as S. Austine saith with the time wherein they are done but the guilt remaineth till by pardon it be remitted Now God so remitteth it saith Chrysostom as that no print thereof remaineth If no print thereof remaine if it be as if it had neuer bene how doth M. Bishop then tell vs that after forgiuenesse there remaineth still a guilt of temporall punishment This is the point why did he not answer to it why doth he turne his speech from actual sinnes whereof the place is meant to originall sinne whereof it cannot be meant because though he tell vs that originall sinne remaineth not yet he cannot denie but that some scar or signe thereof remaineth in the concupiscence of the flesh But Chrysostome denieth the remaining of any scar or signe which can no otherwise be true but only in actuall sinnes wherof nothing but the guilt remaineth and which by remission is perfectly done away But that originall sinne though the guilt be remitted yet as touching the corruption continueth still hath bene sufficiently shewed before in the handling of that question As touching the place of Ambrose I will not gainsay that which M. Bishop answereth Ambrose saith as M. Perkins alledgeth h Ambr. in Luc. lib 10. cap. 22. Lachrymas eius lego satisfactionem non lego I reade of Peters teares but his satisfaction I reade not but satisfaction is not there taken in that
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
Perkins doth that in giuing almes as we ought we do but our dutie and that to say that by almes-deeds we may satisfie for our sinnes is the same as to say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another But yet it concerneth them to sticke hard for the maintaining of this deuice for in all the ports of Rome there is not a ship that hath brought in more rich lading then this hath done For hereby they haue had the commaundement of mens purses their goods and lands and whilest they haue borne them in hand that from necessary vses they must take somewhat for the redeeming of their sins they haue made them rob their wiues their children posteritie and friends to bestow vpon holy Church as they called the gifts which they craued for themselues By this pretence like f Exod. 10.15 the Grashoppers of Egypt they deuoured all that was greene vpon the earth whatsoeuer was delightsome and pleasant they found meanes to make it theirs And hence came those rich endowments of religious houses men vpon conscience of sinne sparing no cost in false hope to find some comfort thereby as g Answer to the Epist Ded. sect 31. before was said And this point of satisfaction was so much the more willingly entertained because they that were loth to trouble themselues with fasting and prayer yet found helpe enough hereby for that h Thom. Aquin suppleÌ„ q. 15. art 3 ad 3. Eleemosyna aliorum vices supplere potest inquantum alia satisfactionis opera per eleemosynam quisque sibi mercatur quodammodo in ijs quibus eleemosynam tribuit almes may supply or serue in steed of the rest inasmuch as by it a man in some sort buyeth for himselfe the other workes of satisfaction in them to whom he giueth almes This is the wonderfull vertue of the almes that is enioyned by a Popish Priest that when a man neither fasteth nor prayeth yet it maketh other mens fastings and prayers serue the turne for the remission of his sin And this was the notable cosening deuice of those holy votaries to make men beleeue as before hath bene mentioned that they had a facultie to transport their merits and satisfactions to the vse of them that were beneficial vnto them verifying in themselues that which the Apostle S. Peter had prophesied of them i 2. Pet. 2.3 Through couetousnesse with fained words they shall make merchandize of you But M. Bishop here in malice to the Iesuits quite passeth by religious houses as if the almes of satisfaction did not belong to them Howsoeuer he be outwardly pacified yet manet alta mente repostum it is neither forgotten nor forgiuen if he knew which way to worke his will As for Schooles Colledges Hospitals Chappels the building of them if it be in the true faith of Christ is a gracious and godly worke but when they are so done they are done as testimonies of our thankfulnesse and dutie to God not as satisfactions for our sins Now although he haue hitherto proued nothing as touching satisfaction yet presuming that he hath so done he ioyneth to that supposed proofe the testimony of Cyprian saying that k Cypr. de Eleem. Nec habebat quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas atque imbecillitas faceret nisi iteruÌ„ pietas diuina subueniens iustitiae misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret vt sordes post modum quascunque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus our frailty and weaknes could not tell what to do vnlesse the mercy of God helping vs had by shewing vs the workes of iustice and mercy opened vs away for the preseruing of our saluation that by almes-deeds we clense or wash away whatsoeuer filth of sin we contract after baptisme Which words of Cyprian if we construe them in rigour as they sound do containe a most dangerous and vnchristian assertion and such as all men rightly minded do abhorre that by Christ all our sins are forgiuen in baptisme whatsoeuer we haue done but that whatsoeuer we sinne afterwards is to be purged and cleansed by our selues Whereof it must follow that we who are baptized in infancie haue no further benefite of Christs redemption but that we receiue then for the freeing of vs from the bond of originall vncleannesse Yea and if the way wherby after baptisme we are to be cleansed from our sinnes be almes in what case must they be who onely receiue almes and haue none to giue and therefore want that meanes for the forgiuenesse of their sinnes But the true doctrine of the Gospel setteth Christ before vs not onely in baptisme but afterwards also to be l Ioh 1.29 the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the world S. Iohn being baptized speaketh of himselfe amongst others and saith it to them that are baptized m 1. Ioh. 2.2 If any man sinne we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes The true confessioÌ„ of which point of faith S. Austin deliuereth in saying that n August cont 2. epis Pelag. li. 3 ca. 6. Caro Christi veruÌ„ est vnicum sacrificium pro peccatu non solùm his quae vniuersa in baptismate diluuntur verumetiam his quae post ex huius vitae infirmitate surrepuÌ„t propter quae quotidiè vniuersa in oratione ad DeuÌ„ clamat Ecclesia Dimitte nobis c. et dimittutitur nobis per singulare sacrificiuÌ„ pro peccatis the flesh of Chrst is the true and onely sacrifice for sins not onely those which altogether are washed away in baptisme but those also which afterwards steale vpon vs by the frailtie of this life for which the whole Church crieth dayly in prayer to God forgiue vs our trespasses and they are forgiuen vs by that onely sacrifice for sinnes We learne here another maner of lesson then Cyprian there teacheth that after baptisme not the sacrifice of our almes but the onely sacrifice of the bodie of Christ is the remission of our sinnes M. Bishop must giue vs leaue rather to beleeue Austine speaking according to the Scripture then Cyprian speaking directly against the Scripture And therefore wee aunswer him as the same Austine did the Donatists when they alledged an Epistle of Cyprian against him o Cont. Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31 Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriaÌ„ cuÌ„ eius quaeslibet literas à canonica diuinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus c. Et cap. 32. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor quia literâ—s Cypriani non vt canonicaâ— haebeo sed eas ex canonicis considero quod in eis diuinaruÌ„ scripturaruÌ„ authoritati congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non conguit cum pace eius respuo We do Cyprian no wrong to distinguish any writings of his from the authoritie of holy Scripture We are not bound to the authoritie of this epistle or sermon
one that carieth any shew or semblance to that for which he citeth them Such is the notable imposturage and cosinage of these false harlots in laying together huge companies of the places of the Fathers to blind the eyes of simple men who are not able to discerne whether they be applied right or wrong I haue pointed at this matter before but it commeth here more fully to be declared M. Bishop in the beginning telleth vs thus We are not here to treate of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly but of such priuate penance which is either enioyned by the Confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sins past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatory c. Mark that which he saith gentle Reader that satisfaction is not here meant of publike penance for notorious offences but only of priuat penance and that for sinnes past and already pardoned That thou mayst the better vnderstaÌ„d this secret of theirs thou art to obserue that in sin they affirme two things a Bellar. de paen lib. 4. cap. 1. Cum homines in DeuÌ„ peccant amicitiaÌ„ simul iustitiaÌ„ violant Ac pro amicitia reformanda noÌ„ potest homo Deo satisfaceremam satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessariâ— indiâ—â—get acceptatio autem amicitiaÌ„ praesupponit Et praeterea vt satisfactio sit aliquo modo ad aequaeâ—â—tatem oportet vt sicut offensio habuit infinitatem quandaÌ„ ex parte obiecti sic habeat satisfactio infinitateÌ„ aliquam ex parte principij satisfacientis Proinde requiritur vt opera satisfactoriae fiant à spiritu Dei homineÌ„ inhabitante siue ab ipso homine vt membro Christi ac filio Det iam per gratiam charitateÌ„ effecto c. the violation of amitie betwixt God and vs and the violation of iustice For the renewing of amitie they say that a man cannot satisfie because satisfaction must haue acceptance with God and acceptance presupposeth amitie and friendship Againe satisfaction must haue some kind of equalitie in respect of the offence for which the satisfaction is made That there may be such an equalitie it is necessary that as the offence hath a kind of infinitie in respect of the obiect which is God so the satisfaction haue a kind of infinitie in respect of the originall whence it hath beginning It must therefore proceed from the spirit of God dwelling in man or from man made by grace and charitie the member of Christ and child of God When therefore a man by mortall sinne hath expulsed from himselfe grace and charitie he must first vpon his contrition and confession be reconciled and haue his sinne forgiuen and afterwards must make satisfaction for the same sinne For they will haue vs thinke that though God be content to be friends with vs and in that respect to forgiue the sinne yet he will haue satisfaction made to his iustice for the wrong and trespasse that we haue done him Thou mayst not wonder that they be very earnest in the assertion of this matter because vpon this ground Purgatory standeth and consequently the whole reuenue of the Popes pardons and of all their obsequies and deuotions for the dead Now this being the point of their defence that God hauing forgiuen and pardoned the sinne there remaineth a satisfaction to be made by temporall punishment which of all the Fathers by him alledged speaketh any thing to that effect He hath taken them all out of Bellarmine but therin see the honesty and fidelity both of Bellarmine and him peruse them and consider of them again again and what doest thou find sounding to the proofe of their assertion The Fathers speake of a satisfaction for the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sins but of a satisfaction to be made when the sin is forgiuen they say neuer a word yea they neuer imagined any such thing The church of Rome denieth that to be properly a satisfactioÌ„ which the Fathers call by the name of satisfaction and knew no other but that yet that satisfaction they alledge for the proofe of their new deuised satisfaction Yea Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that b Bellar. de poen lib 4. ca. 1. Si veteres Patres interduÌ„ actionibus humanis tribuere id videntur vt DeuÌ„ ex inimico amicum reddant atque adeò pro expianda culpa satisfaciant interpretandi sunt dâ— satisfactione ex congruo non ex condigno where the Fathers do seeme to attribute to the actions of men to restore amitie with God and to satisfie for the remission of the sinne they must be expounded of satisfaction ex congruo not ex condigno So had he said before that with the Fathers in that case the words of c Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. Vbi poenitentia dicitur meritum pretium satiâ—factio redemptio pro peccato de merito c. ex congruo accipienda sunt merit price satisfaction redemption must be taken in that sort And yet whereas all these Fathers alledged speake of price satisfaction redemption for the remission of the sin he himselfe bringeth them to proue d Lib 4. cap. 9. satisfaction de condigno after the remission of the sinne To speake of them briefly in order as he reporteth them the first testimonie out of Tertullian concerneth publike penance the whole book being written thereof as e Beat. Rhen. in argum lib. Tert. de poenit Beatus Rhenanus sheweth in the argument of the same booke and as by the author himselfe appeareth in that he speaketh of such a repentance as is f Tertul de poen Quicquid mediocritas nostra ad poenitentiaÌ„ semel capessendam perpetuò continendaÌ„ suggerere conata est omnes deditos Domino spectat but once to be had after baptisme which was so ordered by the Church in publike penitencie but in priuate neuer neither wold M. Bishop pleade so hard for it if it were so Now publike penitency was a satisfaction to obtaine forgiuenes and so here Tertullian plainly expresseth calling it g Ibidem Quà m stultuÌ„ poenitentiam non adimplere veniam delictorum sustinere hoc est pretiuÌ„ non exhibere ad merceÌ„ manuÌ„ emittere Hoc enim pretio Dominus veniam addicere instituit c. a folly not to fulfill penance and yet to expect pardoÌ„ affirming the one to be the price for the other and that God hath set the pardon at this price This then being a price for the pardon cometh not within the compasse of our question which is of a satisfaction when the sin is pardoned Origens purpose in the same place alledged is by the example of the deliuerance of the Israelites when they called vpon the Lord to shew that the Lord deliuereth a man to aduersary powers h Origen in lib. Iudic. hom 3. Vt
the same here by writing and not by word of mouth He had heard there was some text or other there for his purpose but neither did he well know it nor had leisure to seeke it out The words of the Apostle are these I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered vnto you Now we conceiue M. Bishops meaning though his vnderstanding being very muddie failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it The Apostle forsooth giueth to vnderstand that he first deliuered vnto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing but by word of mouth And what of that Doth it therefore follow that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proued any doctrine of the new If this do not follow his allegation is bruite and bootlesse and he shooteth wholy beside the marke The Apostle professeth to haue deliuered what he receiued of the Lord but what he receiued of the Lord was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets For the outward signes of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck bringing forth f Genes 14.18 bread and wine for the corporall refection of Abrahams armie as the heauenly Melchisedeck should bring forth bread and wine for the spirituall refection and comfort of the sonnes of Abraham As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signes it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to haue bene euidently foretold in holy writ namely that Christ should die for our sinnes and should rise againe from the dead to become a light and saluation vnto vs the Apostle himselfe instructing vs the end thereof to be g 1. Cor. 11.26 to shew the Lords death till he come Here was then no neede to flie to vnwritten tradition but of this institution the Apostles words stand good that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come And thus the fathers and namely h Tertull. adu Marcion per tot Tertullian to shew against the Marcionites that there is but one God of the old and new testament and not two Gods aduerse one to the other as those heretikes blasphemously affirmed do set downe the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old and the fulfilling of the one in the other but of traditions in the new testament according with traditions in the old they neuer spake a word which yet in that cause had bene very needfull if there had bene any such But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding vpon will tell vs perhaps that whatsoeuer he had in hand his meaning in the alledging of this place was simply to proue the Apostles approuing of traditions And if he tell vs so surely we will not denie but that it is indeede full simply done The Apostle saith that he first deliuered the institution of the Sacrament by word of mouth What must we therefore thinke that it was not afterwards cōmitted to writing The contrary appeareth in that we see it here written by himselfe What is there here then to hinder but that as the Sacrament first deliuered by word was afterwards committed to writing so all other points of Christian doctrine faith though deliuered at first by word and preaching yet were afterwards set downe in writing and deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures And if nothing hinder as indeede there doth not then let him vnderstand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for traditions vnwritten To fill vp the measure of his folly he telleth vs yet further that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth downe the contentious Scripturist with the custome of the Church saying If any man lust to striue we haue no such custome Where a man might oppose him very hard if he should aske him why those words of the Apostle do not belong to the Traditionist as well as to the Scripturist We know his dreames are very strong but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist he himselfe cannot well tell Againe it would be knowne of him what custome the Apostle affirmeth here We heare him saying We haue no such custome but we do not heare him saying We haue a custome And therefore M. Bishops alledging of these words in behalfe of customes of the Church may well make vs thinke that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to haue to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customes when he tooke not to be contentious to be an vnwritten tradition and custome of the Church So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feete wanting strength to carie him so farre as he is desirous to go and because the Apostles doctrine was neither according to vnwritten traditions nor customes but according to the Scriptures onely we learne that neither tradition nor custome but Scripture onely must beare sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church 16 W. BISHOP Hitherto I haue confuted what M. Perkins brought against Traditions Now to that which he saith for them in our behalfe First saith he the Catholikes alledge * 2. Thes 2.15 Where the Apostle bids the Church to keepe the ordinances which he taught them either by word of mouth or by Epistle Hence they gather that besides the written word there be vnwritten traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed M. Perkins Answer It is likely that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul wrote to any Church and then some things needefull to saluation might be deliuered by word of mouth but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles Reply Obserue first that insteede of Traditions according to the Greeke and Latine word they translate * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinances euer flying the word Tradition where any thing is spoken in cōmendation of them But if any thing sound against them then thrust they in the word Tradition although the Greeke word beare it not See for this their corruption and many other a learned Treatise named The Discouerie of false translations penned by Maister Gregory Martin a man most singularly cōuersant in the Greeke and Hebrew tongues Secondly is it not plaine dotage to auouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer he wrote Surely if none of his other were written before it yet his first to the same Church must needes haue bene written before it But let vs giue the man leaue to dreame some-times To the point of the answer that all was written after in some other of his Epistles which before had bene deliuered by word of mouth How proueth M. Perkins that the man hath such confidence in his owne word that he goeth not once about to proue it Good Sir hold you not here that nothing is needfull to be beleeued which is not written in the word Shew vs then
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
Church nor Councell can define any thing but as shall be pleasing to the Pope The Church cannot erre the Councell cannot erre but the reason is because the Pope cannot erre Set aside the Pope and the Church may erre and the Councell may erre but the Pope onely cannot erre This is a drunken fancie witlesse senslesse such as the auncient Fathers neuer imagined or dreamed of nay vnworthy whereof there shold be any question whether those godly Fathers approued it or not If we would argue froÌ„ the temporall state as M. Bishop doth what state is there or hath bene that maketh one man Iudge and interpreter of all lawes He nameth it to haue bene so in the old Testament amongst the Iewes but either he knoweth not or impudently falsifieth the storie in that behalfe For the law of Moses did not make the high Priest alone a Iudge but onely as elsewhere it is expounded l 2. Chro. 19.11 the chiefe of them that were appointed Iudges for al matters of the Lord. There was a whole Councell to which those causes were referred and by common consultation and iudgement things were agreed vpon and the sentence accordingly pronounced by the Priest He had not to say I determine thus or thus but as we haue example in the Gospell he said m Mat. 26.66 What thinke ye as being to haue consent of the rest before he could giue a sentence Therefore Moses setteth all downe in the plurall number as of many n Deut. 17.8.9 If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and aske and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement and thou shalt do according to all that they of that place shall shew thee According to the law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do c. Onely because the sentence in common agreed vpon was pronounced by the Priest as the chiefe therefore it is added o Ver. 12. And the man that shall do presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest as touching matters of the Lord or to the Iudge as touching ciuill causes for we see these two plainely distinguished each from other that man shal die Now if God would not in that small kingdome haue all to depend vpon the iudgement of any one how improbable is it that to one should be committed a iudgement of all matters of the Lord throughout the whole world And how do they make it good that any such power or authoritie should belong vnto him They tell vs much of Peter but we find not that attributed to Peter which they ascribe to the Pope neither do they giue vs any warrant froÌ„ Christ that that is descended to the Pope which is attributed to Peter Surely if Christ would haue had the Pope to succeed in Peters place the Popes should haue bene qualified as Peter was But we see the contrarie for amongst all the generations of men since the world was it cannot be shewed that euer there was such a succession of rake-hels and hel-hounds such monsters and incarnate diuels as haue bene amongst them men that haue giuen themselues wholy to the diuell as their owne stories do report Heretikes Apostaties Atheists dogges most vnworthy of all other to haue the Sunne shine vpon them or the earth to beare them Alphonsus de Castro said once though afterwards he was made to vnsay it p Alphâ—nsâ—â—e Castro lib. 1 ca 4 contra haeres CuÌ„ consâ—â—t plâ—â—res corâ—â—â— adâ—â—â—sse illâ—teratos vt Graâ—â—â—atram penitùs ignoraÌ„t qui fit vt sicras literas interpretari pâ—â—sâ—â—t Thus it was printed twice at first but after for thâ— Popes credit he was instructed to leaue it out When as it is certaine that many Popes are so vnlearned as that they are vtterly ignorant of their very Grammer how can it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures Surely very vnlikely it is and who doth not see it to be the most certaine and ineuitable danger of the Church that the moderation thereof and the detennining of the faith should be committed to one but specially to such a one Gregorie Bishop of Rome saw it well when the Patriarch of Constantinople making claime to be vniuersall Bishop he gaue this for one reason against that vniuersalitie for that q Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 32. Vniuersa Ecclâ—sia quod absit à statu suo corruâ—t quando is qui appellâ—tur vâ—â—uersaelis cadit Et lib. 6 Epâ— 24. if there be one to be vniuersall Bishop in his fall must be the fall of the whole Church And that God by the multitude of the ouerseers of his church hath prouided for the safetie thereof Cyprian well obserueth who one where affirming that r Cipria de simp Praelat Episcopatus vâ—â—â—â— est câ—â—â—â—â— a singulis in sâ—â—â—dum pâ—â—â— tâ—â—â—tur the office of Bishopricke is but one whereof euery Bishop fully hath his part and therefore signifying that none hath therein to challenge prerogatiue aboue another addeth further in another place that Å¿ Idâ—â—â— lib. 3. Ep. 13 〈…〉 erâ—â—runt c. vt si quis ex hoc coâ—â—â—â—io haereâ—â—◠〈◊〉 gregeÌ„ Christ â—â—cerare vâ—stare tâ—â—â—rit saâ—ueni 〈◊〉 caererâ— quasi pâ—â—teres vtilâ—s 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cordâ—s 〈◊〉 Dominicâ—s 〈…〉 therefore the corporation of Bishops consisteth of many that if any one of this Colledge or company shall assay to bring in heresie and to rend and waste the flocke of Christ the rest shold helpe and as good and compassionate Pastors should gather the Lordes sheepe into his fold This prouision of God Antichrist the man of sinne the Bishop of Rome being to bring the abhomination of desolation into the church of Christ hath defeated and made voide challenging to himselfe alone an vniuersall power and authoritie of iudgement ouer the whole Church and vnder pretence thereof deuising and establishing in the Church whatsoeuer he list to the dishonour of God to the peruerting of the faith of Christ and to the destruction of infinite soules making a meaning of the word of God to serue his turne that nothing which he saith or doth may seeme to be controlled or checked thereby To this purpose they haue bewitched the world to entertaine this paradoxe which in the old Christian world was neuer heard of that t Hosius de expresso Dei verbo Siquis habeat interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae de aliquo loco Scripturae etiaÌ„si nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum Scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbuÌ„ Dei if a man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture albeit he neither know nor vnderstand whether and how it agreeth with the words of the Scripture yet he hath the very word of God And in like sort do our Rhemish impostors labour to perswade their Reader that u Rhem. Testam Argument of
marriage was then taken to be a doctrine pernicious to the Church and the world could not brook the hearing of it Some priuate persons were intangled with the conceit of it but it was most hainously taken when it came publikly to be defended And albeit Siricius then Bishop of Rome a superstitious vnlearned man the first for ought appeareth that sought to giue way in the Church of Rome to the dregs and filth of Montanus which that Church had before condemned albeit I say this Siricius with some few of his owne packe had giuen sentence against Iouinian yet so little did his sentence auaile with the rest of the Cleargie as that Hierome found himselfe much aggrieued at their taking part against him His words are plaine f Ibid. sub initio Si seculi homines indignantur in minori gradu se esse quà m virgines miror clericos monachos continentesid noÌ„ laudare quod faciunt Castrant se ab vâ—â—ribus suis vt imitentia virginum castitatem et idipsum volunt esse maritatas quod virgines Though secular men thinke much that they are put in lower place then virgins yet I maruell that Priests and Monkes and continent persons do not commend that which they do They containe themselues froÌ„ their wiues that they may imitate the chastitie of virgins and wil they haue it that married women are the same that virgins are Hereby it plainly appeareth that howsoeuer in practise they had yeelded to the decree of Stricius and to those fancies which then were somewhat growne as touching single life yet they retained still the same iudgement and opinion of doctrine that virginitie and mariage for themselues made no difference at all with God howsoeuer the one be more conuenieÌ„t then the other for auoiding the distractions and troubles of our present life For the rest look to the place before mentioned which I hope wil giue thee satisfactioÌ„ as touching this whole matter As for Luthers mariage he had grounds sufficient whereupon to satisfie himselfe in that behalf and better were it for a great number of M. Bishops copesmates to do as Luther did then to practise that filthinesse which vnder colour of continencie they now do 11. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins hath an argument that shall neuerthelesse demonstrate the vow of perpetuall chastitie to be intollerable For saith he this vow is not in the power of him that voweth for continencie is the gift of God who giueth it not vnto all but vnto whom he will when he will and as long as he will And if we obiect that by prayer and fasting the gift of continencie may be obtained of God he answereth that it cannot because it is not necessary to saluation We reply that it is necessarie for all them that haue vowed chastitie And be it so that God giueth it not vnto all yet doth he certainly giue it to some for otherwise they cannot keepe their vowes but to the dishonor of God and to their owne damnation should breake them And we onely teach that some such who haue vowed chastitie could keepe it so that the argument is very childish and too too weake to leade any wise man away from the holy and auncient doctrine of the Church R. ABBOT A very simple remonstrance doth M. Bishop here giue vs to M. Perkins his demonstration The ground of the argument is this that to make a vow of that which by ordinary prouidence of God is not in our power and wherein we haue no assurance of the extraordinary gift of God is an intollerable presumption a wilful tempting of God and a seeking to bind his gifts to the headlong rashnes of our fancies What is he but a mad man that wil make a vow to go vpon his head or to flie in the aire or a Iosu 10.12 to stay the Sun as Iosuah did or b Exod. 14.21 to deuide the sea as did Moses or c 1. King 17.1 to stay the raine as Elias did or d 2. King 6.6 to make iron swim as Elizeus did Now of continencie we are taught that it is a speciall gift of God Our Sauiour Christ expresly telleth vs e Mat. 19.11 All men cannot receiue this thing but they to whom it is giueÌ„ Therefore f August de lib. arb ca. 4. Quibus non est datum aut nolunt aut non implent quod volunt they to whom it is not giuen either haue no wil to it or fulfill not that which they are willing to Saint Paul saith g 1. Cor. 7.7 Euery man hath his proper gift of God one thus and another thus and shal he that hath receiued his gift one way vow the performance of that which belongeth to another gift which he hath not receiued But say they the gift is to be obtained by fasting praier Yea but seeing praier also is the gift of God how can he presume that God wil giue him grace to pray for the obtaining of that other gift who hath wilfullyvowed without God and hauing receiued no gift wherupoÌ„ to vow Surely they to whom it is not giuen sometimes haue no will to it as we see before in S. Austins words and how can they faithfully pray for that whereto they haue no will But it is true here which Solomon saith h Prou. 20.25 It is a snare for a man after the vowes to make inquirie first to vow and then to be to seeke and to learne for the keeping of it And what doth fasting and prayer obtaine of God whatsoeuer we list to aske Shall we vow to do as Moses and Iosuah and Elias did as I said before and then think by fasting and prayer to obtaine it Saint Austin rightly saith i Augus de verb. Dom ser 53. Aliquando Deus propitius negat quod petis God in mercy somtimes denieth that which we ask because he thinketh it not conuenient for vs or he hath determined otherwise k Idem epist 34. Bonus Dominus qui non tribuit saepè quod volumus vtquod malimus attribuat God is gracious saith he who oftentimes giueth not what we desire that he may giue vs that which we will like better when he hath giuen it Thus Saint Paul though l 2. Cor. 12.8 he besought to be eased of that sting of the flesh the messenger of Satan which buffetted him yet obtained not what he desired Therefore M. Perkins very wel obserueth that there are two sorts of the gifts of God some common to all and therefore necessary because he hath determined not to bring vs to saluation without them as are repentance faith forgiuenesse of sins sanctification of the spirit which as God first giueth so to our faithfull prayers he yeeldeth the increase thereof Other gifts there are which God hath intended to be proper and peculiar to some and whereof he maketh not others partakers because the want therof is no hinderance to their saluation as are
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