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
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
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
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
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
me the grace of Christ Surely that should haue bene no fault though it had bene much greater if he had continued one of them But what would they haue said if Beza had done as g Bale Act. Rom Pontif. in Iulio 3. Ioannes à Casa their Archbishop of Beneuentum did who wrote an Italian Poeme in commendation of Sodomie and printed it at Venice professing himself to be delighted with that horrible filthinsse and that he knew no venerie but that or as h Jbid. in Sixt. 4 ex Orat. Heur Agipp ad Loua Pope Sixtus the fourth who built a Stewes at Rome for the exercise of that vnnaturall and monstrous lust How many such filthy dogges are there found amongst the Romaine Sages who yet with them must go for sacred and holy Fathers whilest Beza for a few verses written when he was yet but a boy must be subiect to their reprochfull malice all his life yea and after his death also But the thing that troubleth M. Bishop indeed is that Beza became a turncoate for that he cast off the liuerie of Antichrist the badge cognisance of the man of sinne and betooke himselfe to the profession and seruice of Iesus Christ Well and happie were it for him if he had turned his coate in the like sort if he had put on the garment of Christ crucified which though it might seeme base in the eyes of the proud harlot of Rome yet should make him glorious in the eyes of God and yeeld him acceptation before him Now the Articles of our religion set downe by M. Perkins he calleth the hotchpotch of all those new religions because he well knoweth that we on all sides agree in the maintenance of these Articles and therfore are indeed but one religion Whereby the Reader may easily conceiue how idle his obiection is of diuisions and subdiuisions But of this hotchpotch he hath tasted and by this time it hath made his stomach very sicke and I beleeue will cast him into a disease from which he will neuer be able to recouer againe Of the religion in these articles expressed he confesseth that it can admit no reconcilement with the Church of Rome but he liketh not the reason which M. Perkins alledgeth of the impossibilitie of this vnion His reason is because they of the Romaine Church haue razed the foundation and though in words they honour Christ yet indeed do turne him into a PseudoChrist and an Idol of their own braine Against this reason M. Bishop alledgeth the explication that M. Perkins maketh of his Reformed Catholike to be any one that holds the same necessarie heads of Religion with the Romane Church wherto is added by M. Perkins which M. Bishop omitteth Yet so as he pares off and reiects all errors in doctrine whereby the same religion is corrupted Hereupon M. Bishop asketh Can there be a more necessarie head of religion then to haue a right faith in Christ which is very clerkely and well applied and sheweth him to be a man of deepe insight into dark points Surely to haue a right faith in Christ would not be vnderstood for a head of religion but for the whole effect in a manner and substance of it M. Perkins by necessary heads of religion vnderstandeth those generalities and principles whereof there is no question betwixt the Church of Rome and vs which for the points that he handleth he hath set downe vnder the name of our consents in the beginning of euery question These he will haue his Reformed Catholike still to hold with them but to detest the absurdities and errors which they teach in the deduction and application of these generalities Therefore he doth not say as touching those principles that they raze the foundation but the razing of the foundation consisteth in the indirect vse and applying thereof There is a generalitie doctrine to which Heretikes accord and vnder the cloud whereof many times they couer their heresies euen as the Pelagian Heretikes hid the poison of their heresie vnder the acknowledgement of the grace and helpe of God but be wrayed the same notably when they were vrged to specifie what they meant by the same grace So doth the Church of Rome acknowledge the incarnation of Christ his passion death and resurrection his ascension and intercession at the right hand of God but in assigning the vse and effect of all these things and the rest they make Christ in a manner no Christ at all M. Bishop therefore might easily haue seene but that he was willing to shew either his ignorance in not vnderstanding or his learning in cauilling that M. Perkins might well say without any contradiction that the Church of Rome had razed the foundation and yet wish his Reformed Catholike still to hold those necessarie heads of religion which still remaine in the acknowledgement and profession of the Church of Rome Now M. Perkins g ueth foure instances of their iustling of Christ out of his place The first standeth in the Popes vsurping of the spirituall kingdome of Christ by changing his commandements and adding to them by taking vpon him to open and shut heauen to whom he will by binding mens consciences with his decrees But M. Bishop telleth vs that Christs giuing of these faculties to the Pope doth most highly recommend his singular bountie towards his followers and is no derogation to himselfe Which he telleth vs vpon his owne word but as for me I haue read ouer the new Testament diuers times and yet could I neuer light vpon any place where Christ hath made any mention of the Pope or of any faculties that he would bestow vpon him We reade of Antichrist the man of sinne that i 2. Thess 2.4 he should sit in the temple of God and take vpon him to commaund as God but we find not that Christ did euer appoint any man to execute any such place Out of doubt Christ would somewhere or other haue spoken of it if he had intended any such course But M. Bishop taketh it to be a great glorie to Christ to haue a Vicar here vpon earth with a triple Crowne clothed like Diues in purple and fine linnen and faring deliciously euery day bespangled with gold and besparkled with Iewels and caried about like an Idoll vpon the shoulders of men hauing Emperours and Kings and Princes to attend him to hold his stirrop to powre him water to kisse his foot and all at his deuotion either to set them vp or to pull them downe yea hauing power ouer heauen and earth and Purgatorie the onely spite is that he hath no power to keepe himselfe from hell and that he should make lawes and giue dispensations against Gods lawes and like a Lord of misrule turne all things vpside downe O what a goodly matter had it bene that Christ should haue made all his seruants like Popes here in the world and all other people vassals and tributaries vnto them what a golden world would that haue bene
the abilitie which the wil naturally hath grace offereth and being accepted yeeldeth only an assistance and helpe for the accomplishment of the work Which he implieth in that he saith that the worke proceedeth principally of grace not wholy but principally onely because grace first occasioneth and beginneth the same whereas otherwise they make Free will parallel-wise and as it were side by side concurre with grace to the effecting of that whereto it tendeth Yet he will not haue vs thinke that they require some outward helpe onely to the will to ioyne with grace or that grace doth but as it were vntie the chaines of sinne wherein our will is fettered and then will can of it selfe turne to God when indeede he cannot well tell what he would haue vs thinke We heare him and his fellowes talke of inward mouing and inward fortifying but in truth they make all this inward but onely outward because they still deny that grace worketh that intrinsecall act of the will whereby it first applieth it selfe to God and do leaue g Andrad vt supra Homini semper liberum relinquitur diuinae operationi praebere impedimentum eamque vel amplecti vel repudiare the will of man to make vp the worke of grace by that that meerely and naturally is his owne In respect whereof Costerus compareth grace h Coster vt supra Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis vt ea vti possit non vti retinere abijcere quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur sin minus poterit eum remouere to a staffe in a mans hand which at his owne will he either vseth for his helpe or throweth away still excluding that worke of God whereby it is wrought in the will to will and receiue the grace of God and not to reiect the same The necessitie of which worke herein plainly appeareth for that man as touching spirituall life i Ephes 4.18 the life of God is wholy dead and therefore as the dead man hath no facultie or power left whereby to do any thing for himselfe for recouerie of life againe but his life and the life of all his parts must wholy and newly be put into him so man hath nothing left in nature whereof with any helpe whatsoeuer he can make any vse to returne to God againe but this life must wholy and newly be wrought in him by the grace and power of God Now in this point M. Bishop stutteth and stammereth and knoweth not how or what to say Man he saith is but halfe dead not starke dead and by and by after he is halfe dead in his naturall powers of vnderstanding and will but touching supernaturall workes he may in a good sence be likened to a dead man and yet presently saith againe that in this state there is a naturall facultie of Free will which is able being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified to effect and do any worke appertaining to saluation Whereby he wholy ouerthroweth the comparison of a dead man because where there is remaining an actiue power that needeth onely to be stirred vp and strengthened there cannot be affirmed the state of death But the Scripture pronounceth man absolutely dead The k Iohn 5 25. dead shall heare the voyce of the Sonne of God and they that heare it shall liue l Epes 2 1.5 Col. 2.13 Ye were dead in trespasses and sinnes not m Luk. 10.30 halfe dead like the man that descended from Ierusalem to Iericho to whom S. Ambrose more fitly resembleth man falling after Baptisme m Ambros de poeâ—tit lib. 1. cap. 10. and in the state of grace but plainely o Mat. 8.22 dead like p Iohn 11.39 Lazarus foure dayes dead and now stinking in his graue in whose raising vp was q Aug in Ioan. trail 49 Surrexes protessit Jn vâ—roquâ— potentia Domin erat non vires mortut the power of Christ not any strength of the dead man so as that the recouering of a man to faith and spirituall life is by r Eâ—nes 1.19 the same working of the mightie power of God which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Which if M. Bishop did acknowledge according to the plaine euidence of holy Scripture he would not thus halt betwixt grace and Free will but would confesse that whatsoeuer the will doth in the worke of saluation the same is fully and wholy wrought therein by grace But now he doth but dally with the name of Grace as Pelagius the heretike did onely to hide the venime and poyson of his false doctrine Å¿ August cont Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 37. Gratiae vocabulo frangens inuidiam effensionemque decliâ—ians to abate the hatred and auoid the offence that should otherwise arise against him And no otherwise doth the councell of Trent which he alledgeth for his warrant the doctrine whereof is the very same with the Pelagian heresie being taken with those corrections and limitations wherewith Pelagius and his followers did abridge and explaine themselues For they denied not a necessitie of the grace of God Pelagius himselfe plainely saying t Pelag. apud Aug. ibid lib. 1. cap. 31. Liberum arbitrium habere nos dicimus quod in omnibus bonu operibus diuino semper adiuuarur auxilio We say that we haue a Free will which in all good workes is alwayes assisted with the helpe of God u Cap. 33. Lâ—berum sic confitemur arbitrium vt dicamus nos indigere Dei semper auxilio We so confesse Free will as that we say that vve alwayes stand in need of the helpe of God x Cap. 35 Epistota nostra consitetur nos omnino nihil boni facere â—asse sine Deo We can do no good at all without God y Cap. 37. Inuemeni nos ita hominis laudare naturam vt Dei semper gratiae addamus auxilium We so prayse nature as that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God And that we may see that he first trod the path for the councell of Trent to follow he sticketh not to pronounce z Cap. 1. A thema qui sentit vel docet gratiam Dei qua Christus vinit in hunc munâ—um peccatores siluâ—s facere non solum per singulas horas aut per singula momenta sed etiam per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam qui hanc conantur auferâ—e paenas sortiuntur aeternas Anathema to euery one that thinketh or saith that the grace of God whereby Christ came into this world to saue sinners is not necessarie not onely euery houre and euery moment but to euery act of ours and they that go about to deny it shall be punished for euer So doth the Pelagian heretike affirme to Hierome a Hieron adis Pelag. lib. 3. Suâ—t plerique nostrorum qui omina quae agimus dicant fieri praesilio Dei There
quod est etiam poena peccati Nam quando tale est vt idem sit poena peccati quantum est quod valet voluntas sub dominante cupiditate nisi fortè si piae est vt oret auxilium c. which is onely sinne and is not also the punishment of sinne For in that sinne which is also the punishment of sinne how little is it that the will can do against concupiscence or lust hauing dominion ouer it and therfore by reason hereof a man cannot do that that he should do neither can he but do that that he should not do which yet ceaseth not to be a sinne and subiect to punishment because he hath purchased this condition to himselfe by the merit of a former sinne For Adam had it in his power not to sinne and yet did sinne by doing that which he ought not to do and was in his power and libertie not to do and for this cause was giuen ouer as a prisoner to sinne that thenceforth he could not do what he ought to do nor could chuse but do what he should not do Therefore the same Austin asking if that rule that he hath set downe be true how f Ibid. Cur paruuli tenentur rei Respondetur quia ex eius origine tenentur qui non fecit quod facere potuit diuinum scilicet seruare mandatum infants become guiltie and are so holden answereth that it is by being borne of him who did not that that was in his power to do In a word man is not worthie of punishment for not doing that which he cannot do except he haue disabled himselfe for the doing of it but if he haue disabled himselfe as indeed he hath by the first sinne then is he iustly punished both for not doing that which he once could but now cannot do and for doing that which he once could but now cannot chuse but do Which being a case very euident and sundrie times deliuered by S. Austin in retracting the like places against the Manichees may we not wonder at the absurd folly of this man who for conclusion braueth in his termes as if he had caried the matter very cleere when indeed like an ignorant cauiller he himselfe vnderstandeth not what he saith We respect not what natural sence doth teach to shepheards but we cannot but thinke him an ill shepheard ouer the flocke of Christ who taking vpon him to be a doctor of Diuinitie is so ignorant in a principle of religion which by the word of God euery shepheard should know God make him wise to see his owne folly and then he will submit himselfe in obedience to that truth which now in his ignorance seemeth vnto him a strange light of a new Gospell CHAPTER 2. OF ORIGINALL SINNE 1. W. BISHOP M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLVSION Pag 28. THey say naturall corruption after Baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre forth it is abolished In Originall sinne are three things First the punishment which is the first and second death second guiltinesse which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment third the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltinesse in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenesse to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For first we say that after Baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of Originall sinne is taken away Rom. 8.1 For there is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that are in Christ Iesus For the second that is guiltinesse we further condescend and say that it is also taken away in them that are borne anew For considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltinesse is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person But of this more hereafter Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things First that the verie power and strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate Secondly that this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euerie actuall sinne past So far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is Indeed it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed to the person And in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Hitherto M. Perkins Annotations vpon our Consents First vve say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadilio but there lurketh a serpent in that caueat that the guiltinesse of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltinesse of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltinesse belonging to it Who can denie this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be pardoned the guiltinesse of it is also remoued frō it selfe Againe what Philosophie or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendor being pardoned for his offence the offence in it selfe remaineth guiltie as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in it selfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senslesse imaginations be these Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Can there be two contraries in one part of the subiect at once Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time Is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost content to inhabite a bodie subiect to sinne All which must be granted contrarie to both Scripture and naturall sence if we admit the fault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other odde corner Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the heart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrarie vnto
the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued R. ABBOT It was not M. Perkins intent here to set downe any exact or formall description of Originall sinne but onely so to touch it as might serue to leade him to the point that was to be disputed of But out of that which he saith it ariseth that originall sinne is a common guilt of the first sinne of man inferring as a iust punishment an vniuersall distortion and corruption of mans nature and euerlasting destruction both of bodie and soule Concerning the matter therfore he propoundeth three things in Originall sinne to be considered the sinne the guilt and the punishment Where M. Bishop being like a man of glasse afraid of being crackt where he is not touched would for more assurance giue vs a note and I warrant you it is a wise one We say not saith he that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it Where he putteth me in mind of a speech that I haue heard concerning an outlandish Mathematicke Reader whose tongue hauing out-runne his wits and making a discourse of he knew not what asketh his hearers at length Intelligitisne Do ye vnderstād me they answered him No. Profectò nihil miror saith he neque enim ego intelligo meipsum Marrie I do not maruel for neither do I vnderstand my selfe Such a lecture doth M. Bishop here reade which no man else vnderstandeth nor he himselfe If he had vnderstood what Originall sinne is and that concupiscence being a part of Originall sinne is also a punishment thereof corruption of nature which is one part arising from the guilt of the first sinne which is the other part he would not so vnaduisedly haue denied that the punishment of Originall sinne is also a part thereof especially finding S. Austin in so infinite places affirming that concupiscence is in such sort a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne and of what sinne but that which Adam in person committed by action and is ours originally by propagation But that either this punishment of Original sinne which is the corruption of nature or the following punishment thereof which is the first and second death should be called expulsion of Originall sinne we lacke some Oedipus to resolue vs sure I am that M. Bishop vnderstood not what he said nor can giue vs anie answer to make it good Such learned men haue we to do with which are so deepe in their points that they know not what they say Now he that vttereth such riddles himselfe might easily pardon another man in a speech though distasting to him yet in it selfe verie easie to be vnderstood What a stirre doth he make at that that M. Perkins saith that in the regenerate the guiltinesse is remoued from the person but not from the sinne in the person The meaning is plaine that the sinne is pardoned to the man regenerate and therfore cannot make him guiltie but yet in it self and in it owne nature it continueth such as that setting aside the pardon it were sufficient still to make him guiltie and to condemne him as shall be afterwards auouched out of Austin to euerlasting death The pardon acquitteth the man but yet it cannot alter the nature of the sinne it setteth a barre against the effect but take away the barre the cause is as strong as it was before His idle and wast words and fighting with a shadow I let passe if he were not a senslesse man that that M. Perkins saith in the plaine meaning thereof would neuer seeme to him any senslesse imagination But he goeth further How can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed Why M. Bishop what hindereth I pray you Can there be two contraries saith he in one part of the subiect at once And why not What hath not his Philosophie taught him that contraries are incompatible onely in their extremes Did he neuer reade that contraries when they striue to expell one another do it not in a moment but by degrees and though one be stronger then then the other yet the weaker stil hath that latitude which the strōger hath not gained Thus are there in the regenerate man a Rom. 7.23 the law of sinne and the law of the mind the former rebelling against the latter b Gal. 5.17 the flesh and the spirit the one contrary to the other as the Apostle speaketh and that in one part of the subiect as shal appeare Can there be light and darknesse in the vnderstanding saith he Why did M. Bishop neuer reade of c Zephan 1.15 a darke day or will he reason therof if it be day it cannot be darke or if it be darke it cannot be day And if he can see that light and darknesse may meete together in a day can he not see that light and darknesse may also be together in the vnderstanding One where our Sauiour Christ commēdeth the light of his Disciples d Matth. 13.16 Blessed are your eyes for they see another where he condemneth their darknesse e Mark 8 18. Haue ye eyes and see not By light of vnderstanding Peter saith f Matth. 16.16 Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Blessed art thou Simon saith Christ for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee but my Father which is in heauen The same Peter by and by also bewrayeth darknesse of vnderstanding giuing Christ occasion to say vnto him g Ibid. vers 23 Get thee behind me Satan for thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men h Orig. in Mat. tract 3. Contraria sibi adhu erant in Petro veritas mendaecium De veritate dicebat Tu es Christus c. Ex mendacio dixit Propitius tibi esto c. Contraria erant adhuc in Petro There were contraries as yet in Peter saith Origen truth and falshood he spake by truth one way he spake by falshood another way In a word the Apostle telleth vs that i 1. Cor. 13.9.12 we know but in part we prophecie but in part we see through a glasse darkly or as the maisters of Rhemes translate it in a darke sort How can that be but that there is still some darknesse in the vnderstanding which yet in part hath receiued light He goeth further Can there be vertue and vice in the will at the same instant Yes M. Bishop for whatsoeuer is wanting of perfect vertue k August epist 29. Id quod minus est quà m debet ex vitro est ex vitio est saith S. Austin it is by reason of vice So long therefore as there is not perfect vertue there is vice remaining together with vertue The inner man wherein is the will of man is renewed as the Apostle telleth vs from day to day S.
Austin verie rightly argueth thereof l August de peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 7. Qui de die in dieÌ„ reneuâ—â—ur nondum totus est renouatus inquantum nonduÌ„ est renouatus intantum adhuâ— in vetustate est that he that is renewed from day to day is not yet all renewed and therefore in part he is old stil Now from what is he renewed but from vice and whereto is he renewed but to vertue If then the will be not yet wholy renewed to vertue then vice as yet in part remaineth with vertue in the will from whence as yet in part the will remaineth to be renewed Therfore our wil carieth vs still contrarie wayes m Idem in Ioan. tract 81. Alâ—ud volumus quia sumus in Câ—risto aliud volumus quia sumus adhuc in hoc seculo One way we will because we are in Christ another way we will because we are still in the world Therfore the Apostle calling the Corinthians Saints yet anone after telleth them that they are carnall and walke like men Therefore our Sauiour saith to his Disciples one where n Iohn 15 3. Ye are cleane by the word that I haue spoken vnto you Another where he saith o Math. 7 11. You being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children Yet againe Can the soule be truly conuerted to God saith he and as truly auerted from him at one time No M. Bishop but yet in the soule conuerted to God remaineth a part of that infection whereby p Gen. 19.26 Lots wife being gone out of Sodome looked backe to the place from whence she came so that q August Enchirid cap. 64. Sic spiritu Dei excitantur tanquaÌ„ filij Dei profâ—tiuÌ„â— ad DeuÌ„ vt etiam Spiritu suo maximè aggrauante corruptibili corpore taÌ„quam siâ—â— hominum quibusdam moribus â—umanis deficiant ad seipsoâ— ideb pecceÌ„t the children of God albeit they be moued by the spirit of God and as the children of God do go forward towards God yet by their owne spirit as the children of men through some humane motions they fall backe to themselues and thereby commit sinne Therefore they of whom we cannot doubt but that they were conuerted vnto God yet found somewhat in themselues for which they saw that they had cause stil to pray r Psal 85.4 Lament 5.21 to be conuerted Againe Is Christ saith he agreed to dwell with Belial We answer him No Å¿ 2. Cor. 6.15 there is no agreement betwixt Christ and Belial and therefore doth Christ come to dwell in vs that Belial may be dispossessed driuen out And therfore t Bernard in Cantic Serm. 6. Vbi peccatum remittitur ibi proculdubio diabolus de corde peccatoru expellitur Et Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 8. Expulsio daemoniorum est remissio peccatorum c. where there is by Christ forgiuenesse of sinnes the diuel without doubt is expulsed out of the heart of the sinner But yet there remaine still the venimous feedes of his planting u August de nat grat cap. 66. Certamen est aduersus tentatorem de ipsa coÌ„tra nos necessitate pugnantem a necessitie of sinne by the aduantage whereof this tempter fighteth against vs x Bernard in Cantic Ser. 58. Velu nolu intra fines tuos habitat Ieâ—usaeus subiugari potest sed non exterminariâ— will we nill we this Iebusite for the time dwelleth within our borders he may be subdued but he cannot vtterly be destroyed Last of all Is the holy Ghost saith he content to dwell in a bodie subiect to sinne Againe we answer him No for y Rom. 6.12 sinne doth not reigne in the bodies of the faithfull that they should be subiects vnto it in obeying the lusts thereof z August in Ioan tract 41. Quamdus viuit necesse est esse peccatum in meÌ„bris iuis For so long as they liue sinne must needs haue a being in them it is tempting it is entising it neuer ceasseth vrging and prouoking froÌ„ day to day but yet a Rom. 8.2 the kingdome thereof is abolished because the law of the spirit of life hath freed them from the law that is the kingdome and power of sinne and of death But if he meane subiect to sinne of the hauing of sinne then the Apostle telleth him b Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne c Vers 23. a captiue vnto the law of sinne that is in my members so that d 1. Ioh. 1.8 if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. So then some of his collections we denie not being consequents of our doctrine but his owne vaine and idle amplifications the rest that are direct to the point we affirme as I haue declared and whatsoeuer his naturall sconce conceiueth thereof the Scripture iustifieth that the fault and deformitie of sinne though not in former degree remaineth in a man renewed and endued with Gods grace And what doth he thinke of himselfe I maruell is he a man renewed and endued with Gods grace What and no fault no deformitie of sinne remaining in him no spot no wrinkle We wonder that a troupe of Angels cometh not from heauen to applaud him and to conuey him as a great iewell out of the world But had he grace to know himselfe he would soone perceiue that this fault of sinne is not penned vp in an odde corner of him but possesseth all his corners and spreadeth it selfe as an infection ouer the whole man And surely he that well considereth this booke of his will be of opinion that doubtlesse there is some deformed matter in him that could yeeld so much absurditie and vntruth as he hath contained therein As for his Remember he telleth vs that we shall meete with it againe and therefore I will referre it to his due place 3. W. BISHOP Let vs now come vnto the difference which is betweene vs. The Catholikes teach that Originall sinne is so far foorth taken away by Baptisme that it ceasseth to be a sinne properly the effects of it remaining are an imperfection and weakenesse both in our vnderstanding and will and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferiour appetite vnto reason as was and would haue bene in Originall iustice which make the soule apt and readie to fall into sinne like vnto tinder which although it be not fire of it selfe yet is fit to take fire yet say they that these reliques of Originall sinne be not sinnes properly vnlesse a man do yeeld his consent vnto those euill motions Maister Perkins teacheth otherwise That albeit Originall sinne be taken away in the regenerate in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after Baptisme not onely as a want and weakenesse but as a sinne and that properly as may be proued by these reasons 1. Rom. 7. S. Paul saith directly It is no more
one poore circumstance to that purpose I would haue him to examine these First that by the law the Apostle saith he knew concupiscence to be sinne For it is sinne properly whatsoeuer by the law is conuicted to be sinne Secondly that it wrought death vnto him and nothing but sinne could make him to find himselfe thereby in case of death Thirdly that he saith sinne that it might appeare sinne wrought death in me thereby affirming that by working death it did appeare to be that indeed which in name it is called as Oecumenius expresseth those words q Oecumen in Rom. cap 7. vt quod est totum in toto fiat manifestum that all in all it might be made manifest to be that that it is Fourthly he saith that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this sinne was exceedingly a sinner by the commandement for so the words are according to the originall and so saith Irenaeus by allusion to that place that Å¿ Iren. lib. 3. cap. 20. Lex testificans de peccato quoniam peccator est the law did testifie of sinne that it was a sinner Now sinne is not a person in it selfe that it should be sayd to be a sinner but hereby is signified what man is by this sinne namely of concupiscence and that is exceedingly a sinner But a man cannot be a sinner but by that that is properly sinne therefore concupiscence making a man a sinner by the first motions thereof euen without consent is properly a sinne And thus much for circumstances of the place 4. W. BISHOP Now to M. Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That which was once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these Ergo. The Maior which as the learned know should consist of three words containes foure seuerall points and which is worst of all not one of them true To the first that which remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence was neuer a sinne properly but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God the which is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that which was principall in Originall sinne doth not remaine in the regenerate neither doth that which remaineth make the person to sinne which was the second point vnlesse he willingly consent vnto it as hath bene proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sinne but hath not power to constraine him to it as M. Perkins also himselfe before confessed Now to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne how doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sinne if all the guiltinesse of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Originall sinne is not taken away from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne Now to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinne make a man miserable a man may be called wretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace with God and so subiect to his heauie displeasure that which maketh him miserable in this sence is sinne but S. Paul taketh not the word so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this world from which we should haue bene exempted had it not bene for Originall sinne after which sort he vseth the same word â— Cor. 15. If in this life onely we were hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fewest wordly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument R. ABBOT M. Perkins his proposition consisteth of foure points M. Bishop saith that of those foure points there is not one true Which if it be so it was M. Perkins good hap to light vpon such an aduersarie as of foure seuerall points all as he saith vntrue is not able to disproue one The first point is that Concupiscence was once properly sinne which M. Perkins presumed as agreed and granted because the question betwixt vs and them is of Concupiscence after baptisme as if in the vnbaptised there were no question but that concupiscence is sinne But M. Bishop here altereth the state of the question telling vs that Concupiscence was neuer properly sinne and thereby shewing that he doth but colorably alledge and meerely abuse S. Austin who before Baptisme in no sence denieth but that Concupiscence is truly sinne and continually affirmeth it to be so And thus he maketh the Apostle wholy to dally in naming sinne sinne where there is no sinne indeed neither after Baptisme nor before But that which hath bene sayd both of the nature of sinne and of the circumstances of the Apostles text to proue that Concupiscence after Baptisme is sinne doth much more proue that the same is sinne before Baptisme and it shall yet further appeare if God will in that that followeth In the meane time here we are to obserue how M. Bishop falsly charging M. Perkins with foure vntruths in his argument in declaring the first of those foure doth himselfe deliuer foure vntruths indeed Concupiscence saith he was neuer properly sinne but onely the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntarie auersion from the law of God Where first he erreth in that he maketh Originall iustice to consist onely in the integritie of the will and the forme of sinne to stand onely in the auersion of the will from God by the losse of the same Originall iustice whereas Originall iustice was in truth the integritie of all the parts of man not subiecting the flesh to the mind and the mind to God but the whole man to God the image whereof is set forth vnto vs in the commandement a Mat. 12.30 Luk. 10 27. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy mind with all thy soule with all thy thought and strength The forme of sinne therefore is not onely in the auersion of the will but in the auersion of any part or power or facultie of the soule if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God it is the sinne of man Now because b August de perfect iustis Rat. 17. Cùm est aliquid concupiscentiae carnalis quod velcoÌ„tinendo fraenâ—tur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet bridled and restrained God cannot be loued with all the
soule for how can God haue all the soule so long as concupiscence hath any part therfore in the remainder of any matter of concupiscence there is sinne because c Ibid. Rat. 15. it is sinne when either there is not loue at all or it is lesse then it should be and it is lesse then it should be when it is not with all the soule Therefore doth S. Austin define sinne to be d Ad Simplâ—â— quaest 2. Est piccatuâ—a hominis mordinatio atque peruâ—rsita â—â—d est à prae â—amiore conditore auersio ad cond iâ—â—ife â—â—ra conuersio hominis inordinatio atque peruersitas a disordered and peruerted condition of man Of man he saith not only of the will of man and therefore if in man there be any disordered or mis-conditioned affection the same is sinne But concupiscence which is a rebellion of the law that is in the members against the law of the mind is a disorder in man and therefore necessarily must be holden to be truly sinne A second errour he committeth in that making concupiscence onely the materiall part of sinne he appropriateth it to the inferiour sensuall and brutish parts and faculties of the nature of man and to the resistance thereof against the superiour and more excellent powers of the will and reason and vnderstanding whereas concupiscence truly vnderstood importeth the vniuersall habite of auersion from God and a corruption spred ouer the whole man and defiling him in all parts and powers both of body and soule And therefore doth the Apostle expound the conuersation in or according to the lusts or concupiscences of the flesh to be e Ephes 2.3 the fulfilling of the will of the flesh and of the minde which he could not do but that concupiscence signifieth also the prauitie and corruption of the mind euen as the Apostle S. Peter also maketh it the fountaine of all f 2. Pet. 1.4 the corruption that reigneth in the world And thus amongst the workes of the flesh which are the fruits and effects and as it were the streame of that fountaine of corruption are reckoned those things which haue their proper seate and being in the highest parts of the soule as are g Gal 5 20.21 idolatrie heresie witchcraft enuie hatred pride which being acts of concupiscence and sinfull lust yet are so farre h August de cui Dei lib. 14. cap. 2 3. from being tied to the inferior parts of the soule which haue their occupation properly in the flesh as that some of them and that specially pride and enuie are noted to be the sinnes of the diuell who hath no communion or societie with the flesh and therefore in the name and nature of concupiscences are meerely the vices and corruptions of the mind Yea S. Austin acknowledgeth that i Idem Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Ipsae cupiditas nihil aliud est quam voluntas sed vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne and that the temptation of concupiscence is nothing else but k De bono perseuer ca. 6. Qui in tentationem suae mala voluntatis non insertur in nullam prorsus infertur Vnusquisque enim tentatur à concupiscentia sua c. the temptation of a mans owne euill will So saith S. Bernard l Bernard in Canâ— ser 81. Voluntate persisto agere contra legem Nam mea voluntas ipsa est lex in membris meis legi diuinae recalâ—itrans Mihi ipsi mea ipsius voluntas contraria inuenitur It is in my will that I continue to do against the law of God for mine owne will is the law in my members rebelling against the law of God mine owne will is found contrarie to my selfe Whereby it appeareth that concupiscence which is that rebelling law of sinne is a deprauation of the will also and not to be restrained to the brutish and sensuall affections of the inferiour part Nay Hierome noteth that it signifieth m Hieron ad Alagas quaest 8. Nos per concupiscentiam omnes perturbationes animae significatas putamus quibus maeremus gaudemus timemus concupiscimus all the passions or perturbations of the soule whereby we ioy or sorow feare or desire which are holden to be n August de ciuit Dei lib. 14. cap. 3. Origines omnium peccatorum atque vitiorum the originals and beginnings of all sinnes and vices which although Poets and Philosophers haue taken to arise of the flesh yet o Ibid. Non omnia vitae iniquae vitia tribuenda sunt carni ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum qui noâ— habet carnem Christian faith saith Austin teacheth otherwise that we are not to attribute these vices of euill life altogether to the flesh that is to the sensuall part least that of all the sinnes thereof we acquit the diuell because he is without flesh Another errour of his is that he maketh the priuation of Originall iustice and auersion of the will to be the principall matter of Originall sinne For the principall matter in Originall sinne is the p 1. Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Peccatum eos dicimus ex Adam originalitèr trahere id est eius reatu implicatos ob hoc poenae obnoxios deteneri guilt of Adams sinne q Bernard in aduent dom ser 1. Jn Adam omnes peccauimus in illo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes in whom we all haue sinned and in him haue all receiued the sentence of damnation For that must be accounted the principall which is the cause of all the rest and it is the guilt of the first sinne that is the cause of whatsoeuer further sinne originally cleaueth to vs which together with death it selfe is the punishment of that first sinne His fourth error is as touching the cure of Originall sinne which he maketh to be such as if Originall iustice were wholy restored and all auersion of the will from God wholy taken away Which is so palpably false as that we may wonder that he had so little feeling of conscience as that for shame he would write it to the world For if there be that cure that he speaketh of in the Baptized how is it that there is so little effect or token thereof How is it that after Baptisme there remaineth so great crookednesse peruersenesse of nature which we find commonly to be no lesse then from the beginning men haue complained of How is it that it is r Cyprian de Cardinal Christi operib in Prologo Ommno rarum est difficile fieri bonum facile pronum est esse malum haec sine magi stro sine exemplo doctrina statim à pubescentâ—bus annu imbuimur docemur so rare and hard a matter to be trained to goodnes so easie and ready a matter to become naught that to the one we attaine with much difficulty albeit
we vse al the good helpes thereto that may be vsed the other is so familiar to vs as that without any teacher without any example to instruct vs we can learne it of our selues Why doth he vtter these absurd paradoxes so contrarie to the common sence and experience of all men It is true that in Baptisme there is a medicine applied for the curing of this Originall maladie which medicine taketh effect according to the purpose of the grace of God It doth not by and by worke in all it worketh in some sooner in some later as he thinketh good to giue it effect by whom it was first applied Sometimes after many yeares he maketh the same workefull by his effectuall calling which from infancie hath lien as it were fruitlesse as if it neuer had bene done But when it doth worke it worketh not all at once it worketh but by degrees it hath still somewhat Å¿ 2. Cor. 4.16 to renew from day to day and neuer effecteth a full and perfect cure so long as we liue here This followeth afterward to be proued at large and therefore I will but briefly propound it in this place Now all these fancies hath M. Bishop vttered in answering the first point of M. Perkins his argument Let vs now come to the second point M. Perkins saith that concupiscence maketh a man to sinne M. Bishop saith it doth not make a man to sinne vnlesse he consent vnto it But the Apostle telleth vs that concupiscence doth make a man to do euill and it hath bene shewed that that euill is sinne euen before there be giuen any consent vnto it This euill consisteth in euill motions and thoughts t Ephiphan haer 64 Origen Obrepunt circa cor nostrum etiaÌ„ non volentibus nobis c. which arise in vs whether we will or not neither u Ambr. de fuga seculi lib. 1 ca. 1. Non in potestate nostra est cor nostruÌ„ â—ostrae cogitationes quae improuitò offusae mentem animuÌ„que confundunt atque aliò trahunt quà m tis proposueris c. Ipso in tempore quo cleuare mentem paramus insertis inanibus cogitationibus ad terrena plerunque deijcimur Et paulo prius vt quod studeas vi tare hoc cogites animoque voluâ—s are our harts and thoughts in our owne power for the auoiding therof but that euen vnawares they ouercast the mind and throw it downe to the earth whilest it is tending towards heauen and that runneth in the fancie which we make speciall labour to put out Yea oftentimes they grow to that absurditie and wickednesse as that we could not beleeue but vpon our owne experience that there were in vs so corrupt a spring as to yeeld so lothsome and filthie streames which make the true faithfull man ashamed of himselfe and to condemne himselfe in the sight of God howsoeuer nothing thereof appeare to the eyes of men But with M. Bishop these things are nothing he will neuer crie God mercie for any such because he hath therein done him no trespasse yea the Trent Councell telleth vs that herein is x Concil Trident Sess 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus nihil eos ab ingressu coeli ramoratur nothing that God hateth nothing that hindereth vs from entring into heauen Which seeing God requireth all the thought to be bestowed in his loue and thereby denounceth it to be a sinne to haue any of our thoughts wandering away from him these men would neuer thus affirme and teach but that y Rom. 11.8 a spirit of slumber hath closed their eyes that they see not that truth against which they haue resolued to bend themselues The third point of M. Perkins argument is that concupiscence intangleth a man in the punishment of sinne This M. Bishop saith is contrarie to that that he had sayd before that the guilt of Originall sinne is taken away in the regenerate But here is no contrarietie because in the continuall rebellion of concupiscence a mans conscience seeth punishment thereby due vnto him if God should require the same but yet by faith comforteth himselfe that it is remitted vnto him for Christs sake And that which M. Perkins spake he spake it out of the Apostles words who of concupiscence saith that z Rom. 7.13 it wrought death in him that is made him in himselfe guiltie of death and thus intangled him in the punishment of sinne although in Christ he saw deliuerance because a Cap. 8.1 there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Let M. Bishop therefore discharge M. Perkins of the lie and take the whetstone to himselfe as being farre more iustly due vnto him The last point of the argument is that concupiscence maketh a man miserable taken out of the words of the Apostle b Rom. 7.24 Wretched man or miserable man that I am who shall deliuer me from the bodie of this death or from this body of death M. Bishop hereto answereth that miserable is vnderstood two maner of waies either by being in disgrace with God or by reason of the danger of sinne and the miseries of this world But of the danger of sinne the Apostle acquitteth himselfe c 2. Tim. 4.18 The Lord will deliuer me from euerie euill worke and will preserue me vnto his heauenly kingdome and d Rom. 8.39 neither things present nor things to come shall separate vs from the loue of God As for the miseries of this world they are here drawne in by head and shoulders there being here no shew of any matter that should moue the Apostle thus to complaine in respect thereof But the thing is plaine that he calleth himselfe miserable as S. Austin plainely teacheth by reason of e Agust con Iulian lib 6. cap. 7. Noâ—nèâ—â—oncedâ—s hominem miseruÌ„ quicunque ille fuerit aduersus talem clamasse qu theatem velle adiacet mihi c. qua voluntas bona aut non ibi sit aut valere nihil possit an inward euill qualitie whereby the will being good could not auaile to do the good that he would He calleth himselfe miserable by reason of that from which he desired to be deliuered which is the body of death Now the body of death is that which before he hath called f Rom. 6.6 the body of sinne and elsewhere g Col. 2.11 the body of the sinnes of the flesh By the body of sinne is vnderstood concupiscence which is as a body consisting of many members and parts which are the diuerse lusts of diuerse sinnes and thereby is a body of sinnes euen consisting of all maner of sinnes For we may not here vnderstand the body properly as of the body which dieth as if the Apostle had desired a dissolution and end of life because h August de perfect iustit Rat. 17. De corpere mortis huius non omnis liberatur qui finit hanc vitam euery one that dieth is not thereby
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
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.
was sayd calling it a defilement a contagion a blot a pestilent poyson c. and saying thereof What can there be found in man cleaue from this blot free from this contagion thereby plainly conuincing that it is sin because as hath bin before said nothing defileth blotteth infecteth the soule but onely sinne S. Austin S. Cirill he saith haue bin cited alreadie I hope he hath had a full answer to those citations As for Hierome and Gregorie when we heare what it is that he will oppose out of them he shall haue our further answer but neither they nor Caluins confession do proue at all that approued antiquitie is wholly for them as he fondly presumeth without cause But now forsooth to hit the naile on the head If any saith he desire to know the founder of our aduersaries doctrine in this point let him reade the 64. heresie recorded by that ancient and holy Bishop Epiphanius And what shall he reade there Forsooth he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken away in Baptisme but are onely couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him which saith he is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Now he that had stood by him when he read this matter in Epiphanius might very well haue sayd to him Animus est in patinis your mind is on your mustard-pot ye reade ye know not what For that which he alledgeth of Proclus was not deliuered by Proclus but by Epiphanius is recorded out of a speech of Methodius a Catholike and godly Bishop against Proclus Yet this he thought a fit matter wherewith to delude his liege and soueraigne Lord hauing before mentioned it in his Epistle dedicatorie to the kings most excellent Maiestie in the answer whereof I haue set downe the words of Methodius at large and the heretical fancie of Proclus against which they were directed Now because the words to which he alludeth are the words of Methodius and approued by Epiphanius let it be remembred that Methodius and Epiphanius two ancient and holy Bishops haue taught that sinne is not taken away in Baptisme but is onely couered that is that sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed vnto him and so as M. Bishop himselfe confesseth haue taught iust the same that M. Perkins and the Protestants do now teach 10. W. BISHOP Now let vs come vnto the arguments which the Church of Rome as M. Perkins speakes alledgeth to proue Concupiscence in the regenerate not to be sinne properly 1. Obiect In Baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute remission of sinne Which being pardoned is taken quite away and therefore after Baptisme ceaseth to be sinne M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answer is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent in confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feete Iohn 13. for he is wholy cleane Take with this the exposition of Saint Gregorie the great our Apostle Lib. 9. Ep. 3â— He cannot saith he be called wholy cleane in whom any part or parcell of sinnes remaineth But let no man resist the voyce of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him whom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to he wholy cleane The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are we iustified and sanctified Epist ad Ocâ—â—num Psal 50. if any sin be left remaining in vs Againe if holy Dauid say Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter then snow how can the blacknesse of hell still remaine in his soule briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious bloud of our Sauiour to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost-through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence Rom. 5. so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie albeit other defects and infirmities do remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument stands insoluble Now to the second R. ABBOT This argument as it was long ago vrged by the Pelagians so in them long ago hath receiued a full answer It was rightly sayd by S. Austin to them a August cont 2. epist Pelag. li. 3. ca. 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus corrumpit fidem quisquâ— autem tam nunc tribuit quod quidem per ipsuÌ„ sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem Whosoeuer doth derogate or detract from Baptisme that which now we receiue by it corrupteth Christian faith but he that euen now attributeth to it that which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receiue cutteth of Christian hope We confesse that Baptisme doth seale vnto vs the full remission and forgiuenesse of all our sinnes that thereby we are engraffed into Christ to become members of his body and to be made partakers of his spirit that by the sanctification of the same spirit sinne may be destroyed and decayed in vs from day to day that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death perfect righteousnesse may thenceforth take place for euer at the resurrection of the dead But this doth not satisfie M. Bishop he will haue it that Originall sinne is not onely forgiuen in Baptisme but also quite taken away and therefore reiecteth M. Perkins answer that it is abolished as touching imputation but that otherwise it remaineth still Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin that b Cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Maliâ— quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo not it selfe but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptisme that c Ibid lib 6. ca. 8. Manet actu praeterijt reatu it remaineth as touching the actuall being but is taken away as touching the guilt Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poore one that thus directly crosseth S. Austins assertion and hath no further warrant but his owne bare word We haue examined
euill not without the euill it selfe And thus much in infinite places he giueth to vnderstand So farre therefore as sinne implieth guilt he denieth concupiscence in the regenerate to whom it is forgiuen to be any longer sinne because they are not thereby holden guilty and in this we gainsay him not because it is but as if he should say that though in it selfe it be sinne yet to the faithfull it is as if it were no sinne because it is not imputed for sinne whereto willingly we accord But the question is whether in it owne nature it be not such as that it should make guiltie saue onely that it is pardoned and that did S. Austine neuer deny as before hath bene proued he confesseth it to be c Ibid. vt suprae such an euill as should draw vs vnto euerlasting death onely for being in vs but that the guilt thereof is remitted Now this cannot be affirmed of any thing but that that is properly and truly sinne and therefore it cannot be doubted but that S. Austine did take concupiscence to be sinne according to the true and proper vnderstanding of the name of sinne This true and proper nature of sinne is before shewed to consist in a defect obliquity or swaruing from the law of God For the law of God is the true image and description and perfect rule of righteousnes and euery declining from the rule of righteousnesse is vnrighteousnesse and d 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne therefore euery declining from the law of God is sinne And this is so true as that e Pigh de peccat origin cont 1. PropriaÌ„ veramque peccati rationem Ioannes explicat peccatum est iniquitas c. id est obliquatio à rectitudine quae nobis lege praescribitur aut legu transgressio Pighius in his time a maine pillar of the church of Rome doth fully approoue it and maintaineth it with all his might that it is a true and perfect definition of sinne which S. Iohn hath set downe that sinne is the transgression of the law Now because the law requireth not onely outward actions but also the inward fixed disposition and quality of righteousnesse not onely workes of charity but also the inward habite of charity whence all such workes are to proceed it followeth that if there be a contrary quality or habite the same is sinne because it is a declining from the law Seeing therefore concupiscence not onely in the first acts motions of it but euen habitually is f August cont Julian lib. 2. defectus à iustitia a defecting or declining froÌ„ righteousnesse as S. Austine calleth it seeing it is a very habituall g Rom. 7.23 et 8.7 enmity and rebellion against the law of God all M. Bishops learning cannot auoid it but that it must necessarily be concluded to be sinne But yet to giue some shew of auoiding it he sendeth vs to Thomas Aquinas to learne of him now in the end of the world another forme and definition of sinne which is the deordination of the will so that howsoeuer other faculties and powers be distorted and corrupted yet we must thinke there is no sinne so long as there is an integrity and right disposition of the wil. Which position is absurdly false because the loue of God requireth h Deut. 6.5 Luc 10.27 all the heart all the mind all the soule all the thought and strength i August de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 22. Nullum ase riuulum duci extra patitur cuius deriuatione minuatur It endureth not that any streame should be drawen from it by the deriuing whereof it should any way be diminished But the will of man is not the whole man and therefore albeit there be supposed a rectitude and integrity of the will yet is not sinne hereby excluded if there be a defect or failing in any other part Yet that being graunted to M. Bishop he is no whit the neerer to his purpose hereby For if the deordination of the will be sinne then concupiscence is sinne because concupiscence is the deordination of the will For it hath bene before declared that k Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Jpsa capiditas nihil est aliud quam voluÌ„tas vitiosa peccatoque seruiens concupiscence is nothing else but the will of man corrupted and seruing sinne and therefore the remainder of concupiscence in the regenerate is nothing else but a remainder of the corruption of the will and according to that remainder a seruing of the law of sinne Whereas then he affirmeth that in baptisme the deordination of the will is taken quite away it appeareth hereby that he is wholly deceiued because so long as concupiscence remaineth so long still there remaineth in part a deordination of the will And indeed that rectifying of the will which he affirmeth is but an Idea a meere fantasticall speculation contrary to the common sight and experience of all men The defendour thereof sheweth a will naughtily resolued against conscience and truth All men find all men see and feele in themselues and others a great distortion a crosnesse a crookednesse and vntowardlinesse of will And if there be that cure and healing of the will of which he speaketh what hindereth that there is not perfect righteousnesse For l De spir eâ— lit cap. 35. Fieret perfecta iustitia si tanta adâ—ib retur voluntas quanta sufficii â—â—aerâ— there should be perfect righteousnesse saith S. Austine if there were so great will as sufficeth for so great a matter And that the will is lesse hereto then it ought to be m Epist 29. ex vitio est it is by reason of n De lib arbit lib. 3 ca. 14. Vitij nomen maximè solet esse corruptio Quod perfectioni naturae deesse perspexeris id vocas vitium a corruption an imperfection whereby there is somewhat wanting to the perfection of it And if there be still a corruption and a want of perfection in the will then the will is not yet fully rectified and because the will is not yet fullie rectified sinne remaineth still for sinne saith M. Bishop is the deordination of the will But it is further to be obserued that to the perfect rectifying of the will belong cleare light of vnderstanding and perfect delight of loue For o De peccat mer. et remiss lib. 2. cap 17. Nolunt homines facere quod iustum est siue quia latetan iustum sit siue quia no delectat TaÌ„to enim quodque vehementius volumus quantò certuis quà m bonum sit nouimus eoque delectamur ardentius Ignorantia igitur infirmitas vitia sunt quae impediunt vsluntatemne moueatur ad faciendum opus bonum vel ab opere malo abstinendum therefore haue men no will to that that is iust either because they know it not to be iust or because they delight not in it For so much the more earnestly do
occulitur quasi abeūtis absentia indicitur the presence of God coming to a man is when he becōeth known to him his hiding of himself is termed the absence of him as going away in neither of which we are able sufficiētly to cōceiue or cōprehend him Wherby we may see with how great discretiō this place was brought to proue that gods work in mās repētāce is not certainly known to him Now therfore the word of God is warrant to a faithful man to assure himself of his Saluatiō For it biddeth him to d Mar. 1 15. beleeue the Gospell the Gospell is that e Ioh. 3.15.16 whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life He is therefore to beleeue that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life He is therfore to beleeue of himself that because he beleeueth in Christ he shall haue euerlasting life Or if he do not beleeue of himselfe beleeuing in Christ that he shall haue euerlasting life he beleeueth not the Gospell that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall haue euerlasting life And thus the strength of M. Bishops argument is very feeble neither is it onely vaine in it selfe but he hath dealt as absurdly in the handling of it 3. W. BISHOP The second is It is no article of the Creed that a man must beleeue his owne Saluation and therefore no man is bound there unto M. Perkins answereth That euerie article of the Creed containes this particular faith of our owne Saluation namely three First saith he to beleeue in God is to beleeue that God is our God and to put our trust in him for our Saluation Answer I admit all this and adde more that M. Perkins be no longer ignorant of the Catholike knowledge of the Creed that we must also loue him with all our heart and strength thus we vnderstand it more fully then he Yet find not out that thirteenth article Thou must beleeue thine owne particular Saluation For albeit I beleeue and trust in God yet not being sure of my loue towards him I am not assured of Saluation for as S. Iohn testifieth He that loueth not 1. Iohn 3. abideth in death So I answer to the second article named by M. Perkins that is I beleeue that God of his infinite mercie through the merits of Christs passion doth pardon all those who being heartily sorie for their sinnes do humbly confesse them and fully purpose to leade a new life that I my selfe am such a one I do verily hope because I haue as farre forth as I could to my knowledge performed those things which God requires of me but because I am but a fraile creature and may perhaps not haue done all that so well as I ought or am not so well assured of that which by Gods helpe I haue done I cannot beleeue it for in matter of faith as you shall heare shortly there can be no feare or doubt The like answer is giuen to the article of life euerlasting Mat. 19. I beleeue that I shall haue life euerlasting if I fulfill that which our Sauior taught the young man demaunding what he must do to haue life euerlasting to wit if I keepe all Gods commandements but because I am not assured that I shall do so yea the Protestants though falsly assure vs that no man by any helpe of Gods grace can so do I remaine in feare But saith M. Perkins the diuell may so beleeue the articles of the Creed vnlesse we do apply those articles to our selues First I say the diuell knowes to be true all that we do beleeue and therefore are said by S. Iames to beleeue but they want a necessarie condition of faith that is a godly and deuout submission of their vnderstanding vnto the obedience of faith and so haue no faith to speake properly Againe they trust not in God for Saluation nor indeuour not any maner of way to obtaine Saluation as Christians do and so there is great difference betweene their beleefe in the articles of the Creed and ours R. ABBOT To this argument M. Perkins iustly saith that the pillars of the Church of Rome do not vnderstand the Creed who hauing corrupted all points of Christian faith must needs frame the articles of the Creed to the same corruption Whether they were the Apostles or other after them that layed together this briefe of faith they intended not therein a narration of common historie but a profession of priuate hope And that may appeare by the phrase wherein they haue expressed this beleefe I BELEEVE IN GOD THE FATHER I BELEEVE IN IESVS CHRIST I BELEEVE IN THE HOLIE GHOST For well doth M. Perkins note that to say I beleeue in God is all one as to say I beleeue that God is my God and I haue an assured confidence and trust in him to be saued by his mercie M. Bishop mentioneth the answer in superficiall and generall termes that to beleeue in God is to beleeue that God is our God and to put our trust in him for our Saluation and in this sort admitteth it but to that purpose as M. Perkins spake it he will by no meanes admit it because so to admit it should be to graunt the point in question He can be content that we in common beleeue God to be our God by right of soueraigntie and authoritie but he will not endure that any man shall say as M. Perkins intended I beleeue that God is my God by affection of loue He will like well enough that we put our trust in him for our Saluation so as to looke to be saued by him if we be saued and haply to cary some probable opinion that we shall be saued but in no case will suffer vs to conceiue so of our selues as to say with the Apostle a 1. Thess 5.9 God hath not appointed vs to wrath but to obtaine Saluation by the meanes of Iesus as M. Perkins meant To beleeue that God is our God is to beleeue that he is our life our peace our strength our deliuerance and Saluation not only that he is these things in himselfe but that he is indeed the same to vs assuredly perswading our selues that because God is ours therefore whatsoeuer is his is ours that is for vs and for our vse his mercie his power his prouidence to watch ouer vs and to preserue and keepe vs to himselfe both in life and death This did God import when by his new couenant he bound himselfe to his heires of promise saying b Ierem. 31.33 I will be their God and they shall be my people whereupon they shall be emboldened to say c Esa 25.9 Lo this is our God we haue waited for him and he will saue vs we will reioyce and be ioyfull in his Saluation And thus doth S. Austin teach vs to make d August in Psal 32. conc 2. An temerè dicimus faciendo nobu Deum possessionem c. Dicat anima secura dicat Deus
heart that he followed Christ but onely to make a commodity to himselfe Of Simon Magus S Luke saith indeed that x Act. 8.13 he beleeued but so as that Peter perceiueth amidst his beleeuing that y Ver. 21.23 his heart was not right in the sight of God that he was in the gall of bitternesse and in the bond of iniquitie whereby it appeareth that his beleeuing was no more but z Occumen in epist Iacob cap. 2. Et de simplici assensu fidem dicere solemus a bare assenting as Occumenius calleth it to the doctrine of faith and not that true and effectuall beleeuing whereof we speake Such members of Christ doth he make doing wrong to Iesus Christ onely to hide his owne shame that he might not be thought to maintaine a wrong The like he affirmeth of all Arch-heretikes the first they were of the faithfull expresly contrary to that which S. Iohn saith a 1. Iohn 2.19 They went out from vs but THEY VVERE NOT OF VS for if they had bene OF VS they would haue continued with vs. Which being so plainly affirmed by the Apostle we may maruell that M. Bishop should say the contrary but that he hath harnessed his face and his conscience that it may be no blush nor scruple to him to auouch one lie for the vpholding of another What his exception is to that place of Iohn we shal see in the next section but one where he hath taken vpon him the answer of it 9. W. BISHOP But what need we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosengerman if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome Heres 82. lib. 2. cons. Iouin and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sinne and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slip at once a brace of other heresies these be his words And if by sinne one were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall errour of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedie left in Gods Church for their recouerie but must be left to God so saith M. Perkins for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurditie being graunted a thousand follow after But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet wherewith they begin their Common praier What houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ R. ABBOT We may here take knowledge of the absurd folly of this prater who hauing before chalenged M. Perkins for affirming that sinne is alwaies in the regenerate corrupting all his works goeth about here to lay vpon him an imputation of maintaining that the regenerate cannot sinne Surely both these cannot stand together and if M. Perkins hold the one he must needs be a stranger to the other But thus he bableth without feare or wit neuer regarding how one part of his speech hath coherence with the other As touching Iouinian if he simply taught that which Hierome and Austine affirme that the regenerate cannot sinne he erred greatly therein and we ioine with Austine and Hierome in the condemning of that opinion But if they did misunderstand his opinion and that he held onely this as in likelihood he did that the regenerate cannot finally and vtterly fall away by sinne or sinne that sinne which is vnto death a 1 Iohn 3.9 and onely meant as S. Iohn doth Whosoeuer is borne of God sinneth not neither can he sinne because he is borne of God he erred no whit at all nor affirmed any thing therein but what Hierome and Austine haue affirmed as well as he and M. Bishop knew well enough that it is this onely that M. Perkins deliuered not that the regenerate cannot or do not sinne whose fals we confesse to be very many and to themselues very grieuous from day to day but that the regenerate doth not so sinne as vtterly to be cut off from Christ that the faithfull man doth neuer finally or wholly fall away from the grace of God To which purpose S. Bernard saith b Bernard de implic haerint vincul c. Noâ—â— Dominus qui sunt etus propositum Dei manet immobile Et si horrendorum crimirum nos Dauid muritur etsi Maria Magdalene sep â— saemonijs cumulatur ets priaceps Apostolorum in profundum negationis submergitur non est tamen qui de manis Dei possit cruere The Lord knoweth who are his and the purpose of God abideth vnmoueable Although Dauid be branded with the brand of horrible sinnes although Mary Magdalen be fraught with seuen deuils although Peter the chiefe of the Apostles be drowned in the depth of denying his maister Christ yet there is none that can take them or pluck them out of the hands of God not that it is incident to the faithfull to walke in malicious and wilfull sinne but when by occasion or temptation he falleth the Lord c Luc. 22.61 looketh vpon him as he did vpon Peter that he may repent the d Psal 37.24 Lord putteth vnder his hand and lifteth him vp againe We see therefore how little trust is to be giuen to him who sticketh not to deliuer so manifest and apparant vntruth He is like the cariers horse that brooketh not to go out of his accustomed way we had had no booke of him if he had bene tyed to speake nothing but what is true Now M. Perkins for assertion of the perseuerance of the faithfull addeth further that if a man be a member of Christ he cannot be wholly cut off not so much as for a time much lesse for euer For if he could wholly be cut off for the time then at his returne he ought to be baptized againe which being absurd to affirme it followeth that a man cannot wholly be cut off In which confirmation M. Bishop saith that he hath let slip a brace of other heresies Where we may conceiue that he was mightily a-dreamed of heresies the night before he wrote this and they ranne so thicke in his head that he imagined euery man that he met with to be an heretike Surely M. Bishop if
he haue let slip a brace of heresies he hath let them slip out of your collars and therefore you must take them to your selues for his they are not You say by and by after that he bringeth in that of rebaptizing ex absurdo and if he bring it in as an absurditie then it is not likely that it should slip from him Full wisely therefore do you say that the common saying is verified in him one absurditie graunted a thousand follow after when the absurditie graunted is yours and not his that a man is wholly cut off from Christ hauing bene a member of his body whereupon he inferreth that there should then be a necessitie of rebaptizing as a consequence of your absurditie not as an assertion of his owne A man would scant thinke you well in your wits to handle a matter so crossely and vntowardly as you do As touching the matter albeit literally it be true that a man being wholly cut off frō Christ must necessarily be baptized to enter him againe yet in that sence wherein we here speake of cutting off from Christ namely concerning spirituall and inward grace I confesse ingenuously that there is no necessity of that consequence which Maister Perkins inferreth thereupon If a man be wholly cut off from Christ he hath no interest in Christ nor Christ in him the bond of baptisme is dissolued neither doth there stand any relation thereby betwixt Christ and him For if there stand any triall or bond betwixt Christ and him then is he not wholy cut off Supposing then a man after baptisme to be wholy cut off which cannot be till finall impenitencie haue for euer diuided him from the body of the Church but this yet being supposed there should be a necessitie of baptizing him againe to giue him admission into the societie of Christes Church For that this cannot be done by M. Bishops sacrament of penance he himselfe must needs confesse because their sacrament of penance is as they call it secunda tabula post naufragium and he that is so wholy cut off wanteth the first without which the second hath no place Or if he do not want the first if he do not want the title of baptisme then he is not wholy cut off which is the thing to be supposed The Church of Rome holdeth that baptisme leaueth in the soule indelebilem characterem a character or print that can neuer be disprinted But suppose the same to be defaced and disprinted and then I suppose that Maister Bishop will graunt that there is a necessitie to be baptized againe It cannot be saith he and so say we that it cannot be that a man baptized should wholy be cut off from Christ but that by outward calling Christ and his Church hath interest in him during life so as that by true repentance without any further baptisme he is restored againe yet vpon supposall it followeth which we haue said Now if Maister Perkins spake vpon this supposall it should so follow indeed but the drift of the matter in hand necessarily draweth vs to another vnderstanding For when we say that the regenerate man is neuer wholy cut off from Christ we meane it as touching inward and spirituall grace that it neuer so defecteth but that there is still e 1. Iohn 3.9 a seed thereof remaining that shall grow againe Yet if we suppose it to be true which the Papists say that inward grace of regeneration may be vtterly extermined for the time I do not conceiue that it should thereof follow that another baptisme should be needfull for being restored againe For by the mark of Christ first set vpon him Christ shal still stand entitled to him it shal be his sin in the meane time that he applieth not himselfe to him whose by right he ceaseth not to be And if a man in hypocrisie receiue baptisme so as that he becommeth not thereby at all the member of Christ yea and thenceforth for the time runne into Paganisme or heresie we will not hold that if he be afterwards truly conuerted he should need for the making of him a member of Christ to be secondly baptized but that baptisme before receiued now commeth to vse and effect and yeeldeth that spirituall fruit which it did import before So therefore though it be supposed that the grace of Christ in any man be vtterly razed and defaced yet shall it not follow that he shall be baptized a second time but baptisme before receiued shall returne to the same vse that it had before not by the counterfet Sacrament of pennance deuised by men but by true and faithfull repentance directed by God whereof not by a corrupted sentence as this cauiller obiecteth but by a true expressing of the Prophets meaning we say in the beginning of our Cōmon praier f Ezech. 18.21.22 At what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne from the bottome of his heart I will put all his wickednesse out of my remembrance saith the Lord. As for the Sacrament of penance it is a bastard salue of a false Surgeon it closeth wounds and healeth none but leaueth them to fester and corrupt vnto euerlasting death There is in it a speciall policie of Satan to hold men in opinion of forgiuenesse of sinnes where it is not that they may neglect to seeke it where indeed it is To come to an end of this matter whether way M. Perkins meant this cutting off from Christ wholy I will not precisely say but whether way soeuer he meant it it auaileth M. Bishop nothing at all if haply he did erre in inferring a necessitie on their part to maintaine an heresie or heresies of others by maintaining a peruerse opinion of their owne From which heresies of Anabaptists and Nouatians he well knew that we are farre enough onely he would name them that we might vnderstand that he had heard somewhat thereof 10. W. BISHOP But we must answer vnto that of S. Iohn They went out from vs 1. Ioan. 2. but they were not of vs for if they had bene of vs they would haue continued with vs. I answer If they went out from vs they were before with vs which confirmeth our assertion that men may depart from their faith and Christes profession but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect of which Saint Iohn was for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith or else by heartie repentance would haue returned vnto it back againe which is Saint Augustines owne exposition De bono perse cap. 8. And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes which M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there To which I will adde one taken out of the words of S. Paul Rom. 11.20 But thou by faith dost stand be not too highly wise but feare if God hath not spared the naturall boughes lest perhaps he will not spare thee neither Phil. 2.12 And againe Worke
whose meanes we are not reconciled vnto God to beleeue in the Sauiour which came to seeke and to saue that which is lost to beleeue in him that saith without me ye can do nothing This is the faith whereby we are saued and whereby all the faithfull haue bene saued from the beginning of the world To which purpose S. Austin againe saith h August de nat grat cap. 44 â—a fides iustes sanauit antiquos quae sanat et nos id est mediatoris Dei hominum hominis Iesu Câ—risti fides sanguinis eius fides crucis eius fides mortis resurrectionis â—ius The same faith saued the righteous of old that now saueth vs that is the faith of the man Iesus Christ the Mediator betwixt God and men the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection Thus by faith Abel in his lambe beheld i 1. Ioh. 1.29 the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world and thereby his sacrifice was accepted and in that respect is Christ called k Apoc. 13.8 the lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world But here M. Bishop vndertaketh to tell vs and therefore let vs heare of him according to the depth of his diuinitie what kind of faith that was which all they had who are sayd in Scriptures to be iustified by their faith And first he beginneth with Noe of whom it is sayd that l Heb. 11.7 he was made heire of the righteousnesse which is by faith But what faith was that He beleeued saith he that God according to his word and iustice would drowne the world and made an Arke to saue himselfe and his familie as God commanded him And what in the drowning of the world and making of an arke to saue himselfe did Noe consider nothing but the drowning of the world and the making of an arke to saue himselfe S. Austin calleth the Arke m Aug. cont Faust Manich. lib. 19 cap. 12. Sacramentum arcae in qua Noe domus à diluuio liberata est the sacrament of the Arke and in a sacrament or mysterie did the faith of Noe see no more but onely what his eyes did see n Chrysost in 1. Cor. hom 7. Mysterium appellatur quoniam non id quod credimus inituemur sed quòd alia videmus alia credimus In sacraments as Chrysostome saith we do not see that which we beleeue but we see one thing and beleeue another Noe then in the Arke did beleeue that which he did not see which what it was S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand when he maketh our baptisme the thing that o 1. Pet. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth the type and figure of the Arke which saith he saueth vs by the resurrection of Iesus Christ The Arke then was to him a figure and seale of the same whereof Baptisme is a figure and seale to vs p Rom. 4.11 a seale of the righteousnesse of faith of q Cap. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ to all and vpon all that do beleeue His deliuerance temporally was a figure of that spirituall saluation which both he and we haue by the washing away and forgiuenesse of our sinnes by the bloud and death and resurrection of Iesus Christ and in the beleefe hereof was it that he was made heire of the righteousnesse of faith In the second place Abraham is brought forth whose faith M. Bishop construeth to be no more but this that he beleeued that old and barren persons might haue children if God sayd the word and that whatsoeuer God promised he was able to performe Where if he had looked into the Apostles words with the eyes of a doctor of diuinitie he would haue found the seed there spoken of to be r Gal. 3.16 Christ as the same Apostle elsewhere expoundeth it Christ in person as the head and all the faithfull gathered as members into one bodie with him Å¿ August in Psal 58. Totus Christus caput corpus post Christus est toâ—um corpus Christi the head and the bodie making one whole Christ as S. Austin speaketh God promised vnto Abraham a seed wherein t Genes 15.2 all the nations of the earth should be blessed Herein God would make him u Rom. 4.13 the heire of the world and x Vers 16.17 a father of many nations not to that seed onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham that we may know that a spirituall seed is here to be vnderstood which should become the children of Abraham by y Vers 12. walking in the steppes of the faith of our father Abraham and so should be made partakers of the blessing with him The performance of all this promise of blessing to Abraham and all the nations of the earth stood vpon his hauing of a sonne which God had promised vnto him The barrennes of Sara the old age both of Abraham and her might seeme to denie all hope of hauing a sonne But yet Abraham rested secure in the affiance of the power of God not doubting but that God was able and would giue him a sonne of whom Christ should come to be vnto him that blessing that God had promised This was the thing that Abrahams faith respected and to which the Apostle referreth it speaking of a promise that was to be sure not to Abraham only z Vers 16. but to all the seed both of beleeuing Iewes and Gentiles who are also called a Heb. 6.17 heires of the promise to the performance whereof to shew vnto them the stablenesse of his counsell God bound himselfe by an oath that by two immutable things wherein it was vnpossible that God should lie his promise and his oath we might haue strong consolation which haue our refuge to hold fast the hope that is set before vs. Of what that old and barren persons may haue children if God say the word O base and abiect conceipt of so diuine and heauenly a matter Nay but of the blessing which as the Apostle noteth before God did sweare vnto Abraham and vnto that seed which he would multiplie vnto him by faith to be blessed together with him Thirdly he alledgeth the faith of the Centurion of which our Sauiour testifieth that b Mat. 8.10 he had not found so great faith in Israel And what was that faith Marrie saith he that he could with a word cure his seruant absent Say the word only quoth he and my seruant shall be healed But did he only beleeue that by saying the word Christ could cure his seruant Surely he beleeued somewhat else that made him to beleeue that he beleeued somewhat else that made him to say Lord I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c August de verb. Dom ser 6. Neque hoâ—â—ret â—um 〈…〉 He would
not thus haue sayd with so great faith and humilitie saith S. Austin but that he did alreadie beare Christ in his heaâ—â— Wâ— doubt not but he had conceiued of Christ that he was the Sonne 〈◊〉 God the Sauiour of the world and with this faith came vnto 〈◊〉 The profession of his faith is here mentioned according to the present occasion It followeth not that because the act of faith is no further expressed here therefore there was nothing further in his faith for his iustification towards God Yea we hope M. Bishop will not say that he could be iustified without beleeuing the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ which yet is not expressed here and therefore what doth he but absurdly and childishly to bring vs this example to shew what is meant by iustifying faith In the other places as touching beleeuing that d Mat. 16 16. Ioh. 20.32 Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God the question is what is meant by beleeuing that Iesus is Christ If no more but an act of vnderstanding barely to assent vnto it then the diuels professe as much e Mar. 1.24 O Iesus of Nazaret I know thee who thou art euen the holy one of God But that we may not make that beleefe a matter common to the diuell we must vnderstand it to be a compounded action not of the vnderstanding onely but of the heart of the will and affections as appeareth by the third place which to this purpose he citeth f Rom. 10.9 If thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and beleeue with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saued for with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse c. So to the Eunuch desiring to be baptized Philip saith g Act. 8.37 If thou beleeue with all thine heart thou mayest I beleeue saith he that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God Beleefe therefore in these speeches importeth such a beleefe as whereby Christ is to our heart that which we beleeue him to be whereby we beleeue to our owne vse and comfort that which we beleeue It is such a faith as desireth seeketh embraceth holdeth ioyeth in that which it beleeueth because therein it seeth and apprehendeth peace whereby we so beleeue that Iesus is Christ as that according to that we beleeue him to be we beleeue in him and put our trust and confidence in him This is implied in the words that Iesus is Christ that is the promised Messias and Sauiour in whom is promised vnto vs and in whom we looke to find blessing peace immortalitie and euerlasting life Notably to this purpose S. Austin saith h August in Psal 130. Hoc est credere in Christum diligere Christum non quomodo daemones creâ—ebant sed non diligebaÌ„t Christum ideo quamuis crederent dicebant Quid nobis tibi est fili Dei Nos autem sic credamus vt in ipsum credamus diligentes eum non dicamus Quid nebis tibi est sed potius diâ—amus Ad te pertinemus tu redimisti nos Omnes qui sic credunt tanquaÌ„ lapides sunt viui de quibus templuÌ„ Dei ad fiâ—aâ—um est tanquam ligna imputribilia quibus arâ—a illa compacta est quae in diluuâ—o merge non potuit This is to beleeue in Christ euen to loue Christ not as the diuels beleeued and loued not and therefore albeit they beleeued yet said What haue we to do with thee thou sonne of God But let vs so beleeue as that we beleeue in him louing him and let vs not say What haue we to do with thee but rather let vs say We belong to thee thou hast redeemed vs. All that thus beleeue are as liuely stones of which the temple of God is builded and as those neuer putrifying plankes and timber whereof the Arke was compacted that could not be drowned in the flood Such a faith must M. Bishop confesse to be meant in the places by him alledged that with Austin he may make a difference betwixt the faith of true Christians and the faith of diuels By this the answer is plaine to the last place which mentioneth only the subiect and matter of the Gospell but of the manner of beleeuing expresseth nothing Only in that it is said that Christ died for our sinnes there is implied a particular application of that which by the Gospell we beleeue as where the same Apostle saith i Rom. 4.25 He was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which we cannot be sayd truly to beleeue vnlesse we beleeue our selues to be redeemed and iustified from our sinnes by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ Now then we deny not but that the beleefe expressed in the articles of the Creed is that iustifying faith by which we must be saued yet not according to that historicall meaning which M. Bishop maketh of them but according to that true meaning of beleeuing in God which the Scripture teacheth whereby a man can truly say I beleeue in God which M. Bishop cannot tell whether he can say or not and therefore we are sure that he cannot say But though he cannot say it yet let him not repine at vs that can and if he list not to haue any part in that faith whereby he should apply to himselfe the righteousnesse and merit of Christ to the assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life let him leaue it vnto vs and we will ioy therein and make it indeed the corner stone of our religion because thereby Iesus Christ is our foundation and corner stone of whom we presume all things towards God who can presume nothing of our selues But at his conclusion of this point I could not but smile where mentioning this faith layed as the corner stone of our religion which the sycophant as the Popes parrot to speake what he teacheth him termeth irreligion he inferreth this being so what morall or modest conuersation what humilitie and deuotion can they build vpon it It made me call to mind the morall and modest conuersation of their Popes the humilitie and deuotion of the most of their Cardinals and Bishops the sweet and cleanly life of their Votaries both religious and secular and by them to consider what good fruits M. Bishops faith hath brought forth amongst them It made me remember a storie that I haue heard out of Boccace of a conuerted Iew of whom he that conuerted him would by no meanes heare that he should go to Rome fearing that the sight of the behauiour that he should see there would make him renounce Christianitie againe It made me thinke of the nobles of the Sultan of Babylon who seeing enormous behauiours so to abound at Rome refused to become Christians saying k Mâ—t. Parisan Henrico 2. Quia Romae tot scaturiunt enormitates dicebant Quomodo ex vno fonte aequa dulcis salsa poterit emanare Vbi
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
perfection of a man whereof if anie be wanting it is an imperfection so that a Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 11. ca. 22 Si vnum radatur supercilium quà m propemo duâ— nihil corpori quà m multuÌ„ detrahitur pulchritudini if but one ey-brow be shauen as S. Austine saith though in a maner nothing be taken from the bodie yet it causeth a great blemish vnto it Euen so is it in the iustified man faith onely is the seat and fountaine of spirituall life because as the quickening facultie power of the liuing soule dwelleth in the heart so Christ who is our life dwelleth in our faith or in our hearts by faith but yet we consist not spiritually of faith onely but many other vertues and graces are required to make vp the perfection of a Christian man to which as to the other members from the heart so from faith life is imparted and communicated that in them we may be aliue to God Thus then Ignatius saith not purposely of iustification but by occasion of commending faith and loue that b Ignat. epist ad Ephes for which M. Bishop following his maister Bellarmine misquoteth Ep. ad Philippâ—nses faith is the beginning of life c. Which maketh for vs altogether against him For if faith be the beginning of life then by faith we first liue By faith therfore we are iustified for to be iustified as M. Bishop confessed in the former section is to be translated from death Now as naturall birth draweth not only guilt but also corruption as hath bene before shewed so faith wherein is our new birth giueth not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes to iustification but also sanctification to holinesse and newnesse of life the summe whereof is charitie because charitie is the epitome and briefe of the whole law and herein further is accomplished our perfection towards God so as that faith and loue vnited and ioyned together do make perfect the man of God The place of Clemens Alexandrinus is the same and needeth no further answer With Chrysostome we say that faith alone sufficeth not absolutely though faith alone suffice to iustification Charitie and good workes are necessarie to the perfection of a iustified man but he is not by them made a iustified man Therfore the same Chrysostome saith of Abraham c Chrys ad Rom. hom 8. Fide saluarieum qui opera non habet nihil fortasse fue rit insolentiae eâ— verò qui rectè factis se conspicuum secerit non ex ipsis sed ex fide iustum fieri hoc scilicet admirabile est quod maximè fidei potentiam manifestat That a man that is without workes should he saued by faith it should be no strange matter but that he that hath made himselfe renowmed by his good works should yet not be iustified thereby but by faith this is wonderfull and doth greatly set forth the power of faith S. Austin in the place by him alledged if it were S. Austin auoucheth good workes to iustifie theÌ„ that are iustified that is to approue them iust but condemneth the auouching of any workes whereby to obtaine iustification and purposely in that place disputeth against it d August Hypognost lib. 3. Ex operibus noÌ„ iustificabitur omnis caro coram illoc quia iustitia Dei praeuentu misericordiae per fidem Iesu apparuit super omnes qui crediderunt Ideò subiungens inquit Iustificatè gratu per gratiaÌ„ Dei. Noli â—i praeponere opera propria neâ— exâ—â—â—eÌ„ gloriari quâ— ex operibus non c. By workes no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God because the righteousnesse of God by his preuenting mercy through the faith of Iesus Christ is apparent vpon all that do beleeue Therefore the Apostle saith we are iustified freely by the grace of God Put not thine owne workes before it nor glorie thereof because by workes no flesh shall be iustified before him If no workes go before iustification then M. Bishops cause as too weake must go to the wals because then we cannot be said to be iustified by workes for being iustified before we cannot be sayd properly to be iustified by workes that follow after and if neither by works before nor after then not at all It followeth therefore that when S. Austine saith in that place that men of God are iustified by good workes he must needes meane as Thomas Aquinas saith S. Iames doth e Thom. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 3. lect 4. quantum ad manifestationem iustitiae by way of manifesting and declaring that a man is iustified so as that contrarie to M. Bishops assertion they are only signes and tokens of a iustified man not any causes of iustification Therefore S. Austin saith againe anon after f Aug. vt supr Iustificatio per fideÌ„ Iesu Christi data est datur dabitur crâ—dentâ—bus Iustification hath bene giuen is giuen and shall be giuen to them that beleeue by the faith of Iesus Christ Now that which he saith in the words cited by M. Bishop he saith it not as to the Protestant but to the Pelagian heretike the brother of the Papist for affirming good works of mans free wil before the iustifying grace of God for which the iustifying grace of God is bestowed vpon him Which opinion S. Austin hauing confuted bringeth in the heretike obiecting thus g Ibid. Ergò inquies damnas opera liberi arbitrij bona quia dicis iustitiam ex operibus non deberi c. Thou wilt say Doest thou then condemne the good workes of free will in that thou sayest that righteousnesse is not due by workes If so why then doth the Apostle command vs to abound in good workes To which he answereth h Audi haeretice stulte inimice fidei veritatis Operae liberi arbitrij bona quae vt fiant praeparaÌ„tur per gratiae praeâ—entum nullo lib. arbitrij merito et ipso faciente gubernante perficiente vt abundent in libero arbitrio non damna mâ—â— quia ex his homines Dei iustificati sunt iustificantur iustifiâ—abuntur in Christo Damnamus verò authoritate diuina opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur ex his tanquâ—m meritis in Christo iustificari extolluntur Hearken thou foolish heretike and enemy of the true faith We condemne not the good works of free will which that they may be done are prepared by the preuenting of grace vpon no merite of free will and the same preuenting grace causing directing and effecting that they do abound in free wil because by such men of God haue bin are and shal be iustified in Christ But by diuine authoritie we condemne the workes of free will which are put before grace and are extolled for vs by these as it were merits to be iustified in Christ Where verie plainly by the name of the workes of free will he excludeth all workes before the grace of iustification from
being any causes thereof and onely in men of God who are first iustified that they may be meÌ„ of God affirmeth a iustification by works in that sence as S. Iames speaketh thereof which as I haue said is nothing else but a declaration and testimonie of their being formerly iustified by the faith of Iesus Christ In what sence he speaketh of free will it hath bene shewed before in the question of that matter and that he acknowledgeth no free will to righteousnesse but onely that that we do which is made free by the grace of God To the last place of S. Austin we willingly subscribe condemning them i De fide oper cap. 14. Si ad eam salutem obtinen dam sufficere solam fidem putanerint benè auteÌ„ viuere bonis operibus vâ—aÌ„ Dei tenere neglexerint who thinke that onely faith is sufficient to obtaine saluation and do neglect to liue well and by good workes to keepe the way of God which last words seruing plainely to open S. Austins meaning M. Bishop verie honestly hath left out We teach no such faith as S. Austin there speaketh of We teach onely such a faith as iustifieth it selfe alone but is neuer found alone in the iustified man neuer but accompanied with holinesse and care of godly life and therefore condemne those as spirits of Satan which teach a faith sufficient to obtaine saluation without any regard of liuing well The summe of our doctrine S. Austin himselfe setteth downe in the very same Chapter that good workes k Ibid. Sequâ—tur iustificatum non praecedunt iustâ—fâ—candum follow a man being iustified but are not precedent to iustification Now therfore in all these speeches there is hitherto nothing to crosse that which M. Perkins hath affirmed that nothing that man can do either by nature or grace concurreth to the act of iustification as any cause but faith alone Of works of nature there is lesse question but of works of grace of workes of beleeuers the Apostle specially determineth the questioÌ„ that we are not iustified therby as shal appeare M. Perkins further saith that faith is but the instrumentall cause of iustification as whereby we apprehend Christ to be our righteousnesse and neuer doth any of vs make faith the onely and whole cause of iustification in anie other sence We make not the verie act of faith any part of our righteousnesse but onely the merit and obedience of Christ apprehended and receiued by faith But by this meanes M. Bishop saith that faith is become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified But that is but his shallow and idle conceipt for the necessarie instrument especially the liuely instrument is amongst the number of true causes not being causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done Causa sine qua non is termed causa stolida otiosa a foolish and idle cause because it is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein It is not so with faith but as the eye is an actiue instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing c. so is faith also for iustifying and M. Bishops head was scant wise to make a principall instrument a foolish and idle cause But he asketh then whose instrument faith is and maketh his diuision that either it must be charitie or the soule of man without any helpe of grace We answer him that it is the instrument of the soule wrought therein by grace being l Ephes 2.8 the gift of God and m August de praedest sanct cap. 7. the first gift as before we haue heard out of Austin whereby we obtaine the rest and therefore whereby we obtaine charitie also so that his diuision goeth lame and neither is faith the instrument of charitie nor yet of the soule without grace but of the soule therein and therby endued with the grace of God R. ABBOT But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these words As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desart so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by onely faith Marrie M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brazen serpent so nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnesse and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is onely mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be stretched beyond the verie poynt wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the wildernesse stong with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brazen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authoritie or probabilitie R. ABBOT Similitudes M. Bishop saith must not be stretched beyond the verie point wherein the similitude lieth but Christ himselfe here directeth vs to conceiue wherein the similitude lyeth Christ himselfe expresseth that in their looking vpon the Serpent was figured our beleeuing in him What shall we then conceiue but as they onely by looking were cured of the sting so we onely by beleeuing are cured of sinne So S. Austin saith a Aug. in Joan. tract 12. Quomodo qui intuebantur serpeÌ„tem illum sanabantur à moâ—sibus serpeÌ„tum siâ— qui intueÌ„tur fide morteÌ„ Christi sanatur à morsibus peccato rum Attenditur serpeâ—s vt nihil vâ—leat serpens attenditur mors vt nihil valcat mors As they that beheld that Serpent were healed of the stinging of the Serpents so they who by faith behold the death of Christ are healed of the sting of sinne And againe A Serpent is looked vnto that a Serpent may not preuaile and a death is looked vnto that death may not preuaile In like sort doth Chrysostome expresse the similitude b Chrys in Ioan. hom 26. Illiâ— corporeis oculis suscipientes corporis sâ—lutem hic incorporeis peccatorum omnium remissionem consecuti sunt There by bodily eyes men receiued the health of the body here by spirituall eyes they obtaine forgiuenesse of all their sinnes So saith Cyril c Cyril id Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 20. Respicientibus in euÌ„ fide sincera aeternae salutis largitor ostenditur He is shewed hereby to be the giuer of eternall saluation to them that by true faith do looke vnto him d Theophyl in Joan.
cap. 3. Multo magis ad crucifixum respicientes credentes animae morteÌ„ effugituros He teacheth sayth Theophylact that sith the Iewes beholding the image of the brazen Serpent did escape death much more we looking vnto him crucified and beleeuing shall escape the death of the soule Thus they simply tooke the words of Christ and made the cure to consist as on the one side in looking so on the other side in beleeuing M. Bishop saith that the meaning is that men infected with sinne haue no other remedy then to imbrace the faith of Christ Iesus Well then if no other remedy then that is the onely remedy If that be the onely remedy then for remedy there is nothing necessary but onely that And if any thing else be necessary then the cure is not performed by that not to be ascribed vnto it for a cure cannot be said to be done by one thing when that doth not cure without another But as theâ—e to looking so here the cure is ascribed to beleeuing It is therefore to be ascribed to nothing but faith onely As for that which he further requireth by his corrections exceptions it is but a part of the cure which is performed by faith onely For whatsoeuer is necessary in vs to eternall life followeth of true and liuely faith and is ministred vnto vs in Christ Iesus when by faith we haue imbraced him e Acts. 15.9 Our hearts are purified by faith f Gal. 3.14 by faith we receiue the promise of the spirit and g Rom. 8.2 the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus deliuereth vs from the law of sinne and of death that it may neither preuaile against vs to condemnation nor any further reigne ouer vs in conuersation which being the gift of God is not to be alledged to impeach the free bestowing of the grace of God 28. W. BISHOP His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures As we are iustified freely not of the law not by the law Gal. 2.16 Luk. 8.50 not of works not of our selues not of the works of the law but by faith all boasting excluded onely beleeue These distinctions whereby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other But S. Pauls meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fasts nor any such like worke of the law which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iew and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith onely Wherefore say we as the excluding of works and boasting exclude not faith no more do they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S. Luke beleeue onely is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raising of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnesse was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtaine a myracle but not to obtaine iustification of which the question onely is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstance of the text and the iudgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a tast of the Fathers iudgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which De gra lib. arb cap. 7. thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the law thought him to say that faith sufficed a man although he liued euill and had no good works which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De praedest sanct cap. 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of works because faith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue iustly are by petition obtained By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the law and the workes done by our owne onely forces doth not meane to exclude good works which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace R. ABBOT If iustification be affirmed of faith denied to all other things it should seeme likely that the meaning of the Scripture is that by faith onely we are iustified M. Bishop answereth that those exclusiue speeches of the law and works of the law do no more exclude feare hope charity then they exclude faith it selfe because it is a worke of the law as well as any other vertue But yet the Apostle teacheth vs that the promise is a Rom. 4.16 therefore of faith that it may be of grace and b Cap. 11.6 if it be of grace it is not of works and therefore expresly seuereth faith from workes as elsewhere he maketh a distinction betwixt c Cap. 3.27 the law of workes and the law of faith so that M. Bishop in confounding faith with the works of the law speaketh flatly contrary to the Apostle For the faith of Christ though it be accidentally reduced to the law yet is not originally intended in the law because Christ who is the obiect of our faith is in order of nature consequent to the law For life is first propounded in the law which when it cannot be obtained there Christ is consequently giuen and offered vnto vs that we may haue life in him But we further tell him as before that we attribute not our iustification to faith
Yet we haue heard how Bellarmine maketh them u De iustificat lib. 2. cap. 17. quodam modo in some sort meritorious also and that their Schooles haue commonly receiued them so to be so that in this respect also they do but dally with the Apostle But tell vs M. Bishop are those vertuous dispositions of yours the workes of grace or onely of free will If they be of grace as you commonly foist in the name of grace in speaking of them what hindereth them from being meritorious seeing it is grace you say that addeth merit vnto workes If they be of free will then all workes of our owne forces be not excluded from iustification which before you say the Apostle intendeth If he say that free will is helped by grace let him tell vs what he meaneth therein by grace and we shall finde him a meere Pelagian heretike as before is said He goeth on further and saith that as the excluding of workes and boasting excludeth not faith no more doth it exclude the rest How so Marry faith is as well our worke and a worke of the law as any of the rest But that is false as we haue already seene and againe faith with vs doth not iustifie as a worke as both faith hope and charity do with them but onely as the instrument of our iustification to be apprehended and applied thereby All the rest saith he are of grace as well as faith But being before iustification how should they be of grace seeing before iustification there is no infused grace and why are they not meritorious as hath bene said Againe he saith that the rest are as farre from boasting of as faith But therein he flatly contradicteth the Apostle who affirmeth that x Rom. 3.27 boasting is not excluded by the law of workes but by the law of faith And the thing is plaine for he hath somewhat to boast of who doth any thing for which the grace of God is bestowed vpon him but in faith there is nothing to boast of because the act of faith is to beleeue that God doth all through Christ onely for his mercies sake it is it selfe wholy the gift of God and attributeth nothing to it selfe or to vs but all wholy vnto God But M. Bishop cannot be said to exclude boasting in as much as he must confesse as hath bene before said that his workes of preparation are intrinsecally the works onely of free will and doth make the free will of man in all the worke of iustification concurrent with the grace of God yea so farre as that man hath to glory that by his free will the grace of God taketh his due effect it being in his power either to accept or to refuse the same Whereas he excepteth against the place of S. Luke y Luk. 8.50 onely beleeue as nothing to the purpose he sheweth that he hath not learned rightly to conceiue thereof Let S. Austine teach him that z Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Nouerimus omnia miracula quae corporalitèr fecit valere ad admonitionem nostram vt percipiamus ab eo quod noÌ„ est transituruÌ„ neque in fine abituruÌ„ post Per ista teÌ„poralia quae videbantur aedificauit fidem ad illa quae non videbantur all the miracles which Christ did corporally do serue for our instruction that we may receiue of him that that shall not passe away nor go from vs in the end that by these temporall things which were seene he edified and builded faith to the things which were not seene Christ therfore yeelding here to faith onely a miracle for the recouery of bodily life doth instruct vs that to faith onely he also yeeldeth the work of his power for the raising of vs vp to the spirituall life of grace The man indeede was bid as M. Bishop saith to beleeue the raising of his daughter to life but therein he was bid also to beleeue that it is Christ by whom we are spiritually raised vp from death to life in being reconciled vnto God by the not imputing of our sinnes through the righteousnesse and merit of the same Iesus Christ imputed vnto vs. He saith that faith might be sufficient to obtaine a miracle but I answer him that that miracle was a benefit importing a further benefit and all the benefits of Christ are obtained in like sort so that our Sauiour Christ still referring them that seeke vnto him to faith for the obtaining of bodily health doth also referre vs to faith for the obtaining of soules health Now how his interpretation here deliuered agreeth with the text of Scripture the Reader I hope can well consider by that that hath bene said As for the places of Austin if his sight had not failed him I suppose he would not haue alledged them the one of them being nothing at all against vs and the other directly against himselfe We say a August de grat lib. â—â—bit cap. 3. God forbid that the Apostle should thinke that faith sufficeth a man although he liue euill and haue no good workes Nay we say further God forbid that he should thinke that there is any true faith in them that liue euill and haue no good workes We haue often enough said that a true iustifying faith is neuer separated from godly life and that faith that is without good workes is onelie called faith with men but indeede and with God it is not so In the other place Saint Austine bringeth in the Apostle saying b De praedest sanct cap. 7. that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes But how accordeth this with that that Maister Bishop saith that a man is iustified by his workes as well as by his faith By faith and not by works saith Saint Austine out of the Apostle both by faith and works saith M. Bishop out of his owne braines S. Austine giueth the reason c Ibid. Quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetreÌ„tur caetera qua propriè opera nuÌ„ cupantur in quibus iustè viuitur Because faith is first giuen by which the rest are obtained which are properly called works in which a man liueth righteously Wherby he importeth that faith is first giuen that thereby we may be iustified and thence follow good works in which we liue well according to his rules before deliuered d De fide et operib cap. 14. Sequntur iustificatum non praecâ—dunt iustificandum They follow a man being iustified they go not before to iustification e Epist 120. cap. 30. Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustifica mur noÌ„ quia praecesserunt iustificamur then they begin when we are iustified we are not iustified for them going before Then plainly it appeareth by S. Austines iudgement that iustification is the beginning of good works and if iustification be the beginning of good workes then by no meanes can it be said that good workes are any cause of
example of outward life To inward holinesse and purity the other part of the sentence is to be referred He that is holy let him be sanctified still that is let him adde to his sanctification let him be more and more renewed let him still be a Ephe. 4.22.24 putting off the old man and putting on the new let him still b 2. Cor. 7.1 clense himselfe from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit and finish or perfect his sanctification in the feare of God S. Iohn would not by both those speeches import one thing therfore seeing the latter without doubt importeth inward righteousnesse the other must needs be applied to outward workes As for that of Ecclesiasticus it is nothing to vs who admit no canonicall authority of that booke yet it prooueth nothing for M. Bishop nor against vs the words truly translated being these c Eccles 18.21 deferre not till death to be iustified that is put not off till death to repent to seeke forgiuenesse of thy sinnes according to that which in the former verse he hath said d Ver. 20. Humble thy self before thou be sicke whilest thou maiest yet sinne shew thy conuersion Here is nothing at all to prooue two iustifications in that sence that we here speake of as whereby a man being first iust becoÌ„meth more iust before the iudgement seat of God Increase growth of inherent righteousnesse we ackowledge and require in all faithfull Christians and his paines is idlely bestowed in the proofe thereof We know what our Sauiour saith e Iohn 15.2 Euery one that beareth fruit in me the Father purgeth that he may bring forth more fruit what S. Peter exhorteth f 2. Per. 3.18 to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ We teach men to say with S. Paul g Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect but one thing I do I forget that which is behind endeauour my selfe to that which is before and follow hard towards the mark c. We teach with S. Bernard h Bernard in Purif ser 3. In viae vitae non progredi est regredi In the way of life not to go forward is to go backward and againe i Epist 123. Nolle proficere est deficere not to increase is to decrease k Epist 91. Vbi incipis noâ—e fieri melior 〈◊〉 etiâ—m dâ—sinis esse iâ—â—us where a man beginneth not to care to be better there he giueth ouer being good at all He need not therefore to prooue this matter vnto vs who teach it much more faithfully carefully then they do The place of Iames prooueth no other iustification but what we confesse that is an approouing declaring of his faith and iustification His works are a testimony that the Scripture hath truly rightly said of him l Iam. 2.23 Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes Now M. Bishop should haue told vs in what other meaning it can be taken that S. Iames saith that in his workes the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse For if his workes were but the fulfilling of that Scripture how absurdly doth Maister Bishop go about to prooue in his workes an augmentation of that which by that Scripture is imported formerly to be done If his workes were but the fulfilling of that that was said of his iustification before how doth he thereby seeke to proue a second iustification Now the former testimonie of his iustification is to be considered which was long after Gods first calling of him m Gen. 12. seq when he had shewed his singular faith and obedience vnto God in going out of his owne country at the word of God when he had long called vpon the name of the Lord built many altars vnto him done him much seruice when he had long trauelled from place to place vnder his protection For after all this yet was he not iustified by his workes but onely of his n Gen. 15.6 beleeuing the Lord it is testified that it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse We would haue M. Bishop to tell vs whether Abraham before the time that this testimonie was giuen him were a iustified man or not he cannot deny it because Abraham had done many good works and he hath before said that there can be no good workes before the first iustification If he were iustified before then it appeareth that to a man already iustified not his workes but his faith is counted for righteousnes and because it cannot be thought that by one meanes he was iustified before and by another now it must needes be that as before to be iustified so now still being iustified his faith is counted to him for righteousnesse according as it is written o Hab. 2.4 The iust shall liue by faith Now if after he were iustified he did continue stil to be iustified by faith then to speake properly as we do of iustification in the sight of God there is one onely iustification whereby a mans p Rom. 4 5. faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse as the Apostle speaketh It must needes therefore follow that S. Iames speaketh of iustification in some other meaning then the Apostle S. Paule doth what that meaning is let him learne not of vs but of the auncient Church q Phot. apud Oecum in Rom. cap. 4. Non habuit Abrahâ—m opera absit Opera siquidem habuit vt si cum hominibus qui simul cum eo versabantur fuisset in iudicio constitutus facilè iustificatus fuisset illisque antepositus verum vt coram Deo ex suis operibus iustificaretur tanquam dignus aequalis sese praebens dignitatis cum ea quae inde praebebatur beneficentia dono nequaquam fuisset illam assecutus Vnde ergo bâ— dignus est habituâ— ex sola fide c. Solutio patet ex bu quomodo hiâ— quidem Paulus ex fide ait iustificatum fuisse Abraham diuus autem Iaâ—obus ex operibus Had Abraham no workes saith Photius God forbid Verily he had workes so as that if he had bene brought in iudgement with the men with whom he liued he had easily bene iustified and preferred before them but that by his workes he should be iustified before God as worthie of the dignitie kindnesse and gift that was yeelded vnto him he would neuer haue attained to it but he had it by faith onely Hereby saith he the resolution is manifest how Saint Paule saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and Saint Iames that he was iustified by workes Here is a plaine distinction and difference deliuered that Saint Paule saith that by faith only a man is iustified before God but that it is before men with men that S. Iames meaneth a man is iustified by workes And this
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
Bishops righteousnesse so perfect as that it faileth not in anie dutie which wee are bound to performe yea such as by which we merit euerlasting life Compare the one with the other gentle Reader and thou shalt see how well they agree S. Austine in the place alledged hath nothing at all concerning this text nothing at all concerning the righteousnesse of man Only he saith of the Angels that u August cont Priscill Origen ad Oros cap. 10. Cuius participatione iusti suÌ„t eius coÌ„paratione nec iusti sunt although by participation of God they be iust yet in comparison of God they be not iust Now if the Prophets words be to be taken as M. Bishop construeth them then this praier must be the praier of Angels as well as of men because by the testimonie of Austine which Euthymius also obserueth the very Angels themselues are not iust in comparison of God Now we do not any where finde that it belongeth to the Angels to pray in this sort and therefore it must be so vnderstood as is proper vnto men And that vnderstanding thereof the same S. Austine declareth to vs writing vpon that Psalme x Jdem in Psal 142. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videor producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam prauus inuenâ—or Howsoeuer I seeme to my selfe right and straight yet thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found faulty The words therefore import that not only by comparison but by rule of righteousnesse which God hath prescribed to man euery man liuing is found failing of righteousnesse in the sight of God euen as elsewhere he saith y IdeÌ„ de peccat mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QuaÌ„tuÌ„ ad integerrimam regulaÌ„ veritatis eius pertinet non iustificabitur c. According to the most entire rule of his truth no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight Which he declareth yet more plainly in his foresaid exposition vpon the Psalme when he teacheth that by the same defaults for which we pray daily vnto God forgiue vs our trespasses it commeth to passe that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight z IdeÌ„ In Psal 142. Dicant Apostoli dicant Dimitte nobis c. Et cùm eis dictum fuerit Quare hoc dicitu quae sunt debita vestra respondeant Quoniam noÌ„ iustificabitur c. Let the Apostles themselues say let them say forgiue vs our trespasses And when it shall be said vnto them why do ye say thus What are your trespasses let them answer Because no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Gregories minde is sufficiently plaine by that that hath bene said before For what though he say that the righteousnesse of men Angels is nothing in comparison of God Doth that import that there is nothing else meant by the Prophet when he praieth vnto God not to enter into iudgement with him By this then we may see the lewd consciences of these men in citing the authorities of the auncient Fathers He hath brought vs here a great company of their names for him when there is not one of them but speaketh expresly against him and the most of them in the selfe same places whence he alledgeth them But he telleth vs further that his exposition is taken out of Iob from whom he alledgeth these words a Iob. 9.2 I know truly it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified In which sort it is true that we also read the words in some of our translations but it is true also that the word of comparison is not at all found in the Hebrew text Therefore Arias Montanus translateth it ad verbum thus b Quid iustificabit se homo cuÌ„ Deo Why will a man iustifie himselfe with God Pagnine thus c Quomodo instificabit se homo cum Deo How will a man iustifie himselfe with God S. Austine also readeth to the same effect d Aug. de pece mer. remiss li. 2. ca. 10. QueÌ„ admodum iustus erit homo ante Deum How shall a man be iust before God Therefore these words of Iob haue nothing at all whereupon that exposition of his may haue any ground and though Iob had said that man in comparison of God is not iust or cannot be iustified yet it followeth not that that therefore should be all that Dauid meant in saying that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight And that appeareth by S. Austine in the place now alledged where bringing in the words of Iob e Iob. 20. If I shall call my selfe iust my mouth shall speake wickedly he expoundeth the same thus f August ibid. Si me iustum dixero contra iudicium eius vbi perfecta illa iustitiae regula me â—onmucit iniustum profectò impie loquetur 〈◊〉 meâ—â— If I shall call my selfe iust against his iudgement where the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth me to be vniust surely my mouth shall speake wickedly and in respect hereof saith that those words were vsed by Dauid Enter not into iudgement c. For this cause then are we taught so to pray because the perfect rule of righteousnesse prooueth vs to be vniust if God enter into iudgement with vs. By this place therefore we wholy ouerthrow the righteousnesse of man and do firmely prooue that no man liuing either generally in the course of his life or in any particular act or acts can be iustified before God if God call him to the trial of the precise perfect rule of righteousnesse and truth Yea if no man can be found iust in the sight of God then it must necessarily follow that no act of man can be found iust because the act must needes be according to the condition and quality of the man so that vnlesse a man be fully and perfectly iust no act fully and perfectly iust can proceede from him but must needes haue a staine of that sinne which bereaueth him of the title of a iust man 48. W. BISHOP One other ordinarie hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath Esay â—4 The which I haue alreadie rid to death in the beginning of the question of iustification where it was alledged The answer is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull such as the common sort of them were who had more sinnes then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stayned cloath Now this disprooueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free from all spots of iniquitie it onely prooueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnesse and made it like a stained cloath R. ABBOT He hath so rid this hackney of ours as that he hath pitifully
euer they were endued with true faith The next of his arguments is taken from the man that came to the wedding n Math. 22.11 not hauing on a wedding garment This argument he handleth very learnedly First he saith that this man had faith which because he knew we would denie therefore for proofe thereof he addeth that else he had not bene admitted to the table which signifieth the sacraments But this needeth as much proofe as all the rest nay it cannot be prooued at all For men are admitted to the sacraments by men and they are admitted for profession of faith when they that admit them cannot tell whether they haue faith or not For as Hilary saith o Hilar. in Mat. ca. 22. In fallendis hominibus plurimum artis solet habere simulatio Et paulò post Humana simplicitas difficilè fraudulentiam simulatae mentis intelligit hypocrisie is wont to vse much art to deceiue men and humane simplicity hardly perceiueth the fraud of a dissembling mind Many pretend that which is not in them and make profession of faith with the mouth when in the heart they haue no faith at all p Aug. in Psal 7. Postquam in tanto culmine nomen coepit esse ChristianuÌ„ creuit hypocrisis id est simulatio eorum qui nomine Christiano malunt hominibus placere quà m Deo Since the name of Christianity hath begun to be in so high regard the hypocrisie of men hath increased that is the dissembling of them who by bearing the name of Christians regard more to please men then God Now sith all these are admitted to the sacraments and yet q 2. Thess 3.2 Tho. Aqui. ibid. Licet videantur habere eam non tamen habent veram all haue not faith it followeth not that because men are admitted to the sacraments therefore they haue faith nay it is a very ridiculous and childish proofe Wherefore as it is said that this man wanted charity so we say that he wanted also faith and so M. Bishop is become as wise a man as he was before Let him then expound the wedding garment to be charity it shall hurt vs nothing For we will answer him that he wanted the wedding garment of charity because he wanted faith for had he had true faith he should also haue had loue because r Gal. 5.6 faith worketh by loue But the wedding garment is as well faith as loue It is indeed Iesus Christ himselfe of whom the Apostle saith Å¿ Rom. 13.14 Put ye on the Lord Iesus Christ and againe t Gal. 3.27 so many as are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ Him we put on first by faith thereby making him ours and applying to our selues the benefit of his redemption that appearing before God in the scarlet garment of his obedience to bloudshed death we may by forgiuenes of sinnes be accepted for his sake thenceforth the residue of our spirituall attire may be put vpon vs whilest in putting on Christ we put on u Ephe. 4.24 the new man which according to God is created in righteousnes holinesse of truth whilest we x Col. 3.12 put on the bowels of mercie kindnesse humblenesse of mind meekenesse long suffering whilest by growing and increasing we are still y 1. Thess 5.8 putting on the brestplate of faith and loue and the hope of saluation for an helmet Thus Chrysostome truly and rightly saith that z Chrysost Op. imperf hom 44. Nuptiale vestimentum est fides veraquae est per Iesum Christum iustitia eiuâ— c. the wedding garment is true faith which is by Iesus Christ and the righteousnesse thereof or his righteousnesse And thus Ferus one of M. Bishops owne Doctors hath taught vs that the wedding garment which is Christ is put on two manner of waies a Perus in Mat. cap. 22. Primo internè per fideÌ„ cum peccatu tuis superinduu Christi iustitiaÌ„ c. Deinâ—e cùm externè charitatem eius aemulaeris first inwardly by faith when vpon our sinnes we put on his righteousnesse then outwardly when we imitate his loue The place which he alledgeth out of the Reuelation containeth nothing to the contrary b Apoc. 19.8 The fine linnen wherewith the bride and spouse of Christ is araied is * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteousnesses of Saints for so is the word in the plurall number Here is then first c Rom. 4.5.11 the righteousnesse of faith fully perfect in the bloud of Christ by the imputation of his obedience and merits and secondly the righteousnesse of good works and inward conformity vnto God begun in this life and fully to be perfected at the resurrection of the dead when Christ shall make his Church d Ephe. 5.27 a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle or any such thing but to be holy and without blame But the exception which he maketh why faith can be no part of this wedding garment is worthy to be noted He hath before told vs that the wedding supper importeth the Sacraments the vse whereof is onely in this life and here saith that faith cannot be the wedding garment because faith remaineth not after this life How many mile to London a poke full of plummes But howsoeuer that be his wisedome might conceiue that since the last iudgement dependeth respectiuely vpon that that hath bene precedent in this life therefore as with him the righteousnesse and good workes of the Saints which they haue wrought here are their wedding garment for the last day so we may also truly say that the faith whereby in this life we beleeue in Christ shall be our wedding garment then when as Saint Peter saith e 1. Pet 1â— we shall receiue the end of our faith which is the saluation of our soules He alledgeth Hierome for his purpose very falsly or at leastwise very vainely The words of Hierome are these f Hieron in Math. cap. 22 Vestis nuptialis praecepta sunt Domini opera quae complentur ex lege EuaÌ„gelio nouique hominis efficiunt vestimentum The wedding garment are the commandements of the Lord and the workes which are made vp of the law and the Gospell and do make the garment of the new man Why doth he alledge these words to exclude faith froÌ„ being a part of the wedding garment when as one of the commandements of the Lord as S. Iohn telleth vs is this g 1. Iohn 3.23 that we beleeue in the name of his sonne Iesus Christ when as h Iohn 6.29 this is the worke of God as our Sauiour saith that is a worke that God hath commaunded and wherein he is pleased that we beleeue in him whom he hath sent when as the workes that are made vp of the law and the Gospell consist not onely in charitie but in faith also I stand not vpon the rest of the testimonies which he bringeth for
onely reasonably but fully worthy of euerlasting life that they haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily and that God by his iustice oweth it vnto them These are downe-right lads that sticke not to vtter their mindes but M. Bishop he commeth in paltring with his Geometricall proportion and reasonable correspondence and like a young nouice is abashed to say all and by that meanes if good heede be not taken is likely to marre the market of merit to the harme of himselfe and the rest of them Hitherto then it appeareth that M. Perkins did rightly assigne those foure conditions or circumstances to be required in a meritorious work which standing good as they do there can be no merit because all the good that we do is Gods because in all we do but our duty because that that we do doth not fully satisfie our duty nor hath any due proportion or correspondence to the reward of heauen 7. W. BISHOP Exod. 20. His second testimonie is God will shew mercy vpon thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements Hence he reasoneth thus Where reward is giuen vpon mercy there is no merit but reward is giuen vpon mercy as the text proueth ergo Answere That in that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the party himselfe be first made worthy of it That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods gifts might day by day increase them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue bene otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise Jn Eâ—chir cap. 25. righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue bene from Paradise translated aliue into the Kingdome of heauen this by the way R. ABBOT What when God promiseth mercy to thousands in them that loue him and keepe his commandements doth he meane his mercy to their children only and not to themselues and is the mercy that is promised only for earth and not for heauen Here M. Bishop as it appeareth was hardly bested when he could find no way to get out but by such a sencelesse and absurd shift But to take away that corrupt glose of his the Prophet Dauid expresly referreth all reward to Gods mercy a Psal 62.12 Thou O Lord art mercifull or mercy O Lord is to be ascribed vnto thee for thou rewardest euery man according to his work Which words are generall of euery man not signifying that which God doth to some for others sake but that which euery man receiueth for his owne worke and import not onely reward of temporall things because they are the words which the Scripture euery where vseth to signifie the reward that shall be giuen at that day Now then there is no merit either in things temporall or eternall because it is of mercy that God rewardeth euery man according to his workes And thus of Gods eternall mercy the same Prophet alluding to the words of the commaundement saith in another place b Psal 103.17 The mercy of the Lord is for euer and euer vpon them that feare him and his righteousnesse towards their childrens children euen such as keepe his couenant and thinke vpon his commandements to do them It is Gods mercy then whereby to them that feare him and keepe his commaundements he giueth reward for euer and euer shewing himselfe iust also in performance of the same promise of his mercy to their childrens children But could not the blind man here see how by his owne answer he doth circumuent himselfe The place he saith must be vnderstood of temporall graces and benefits not of the reward of heauen So then by mercy God bestoweth the reward of temporall benefits but by merit he bestoweth the Kingdome of heauen Now how strange a thing is it and improbable that merits should extend to the purchase of the Kingdome of heauen and yet should not serue to purchase temporall benefits here vpon the earth c Hieron Si tanti vitruÌ„ quanti pretiosissimum margaritum If glasse be of so great price how much more woorth is a most pretious iewell If earth be so much woorth as that mercy onely can yeeld it shall we thinke that we haue merit to deserue heauen But we will leaue the man to his folly it may be when he hath better considered of the matter we shall haue of him some wiser answer In the meane time we acknowledge that God doth not for one mans sake bestow the Kingdome of heauen vpon another but yet of mercy he bestoweth it both vpon the one and vpon the other both vpon the fathers and vpon the children euen all that feare him and keepe his commaundements And fith of mercy he bestoweth it certaine it is that they haue no merit to deserue and chalenge it whosoeuer they be that loue him and keepe his commaundements That which he saith of Adam he saith it without booke and hath no warrant for that he saith As for the place of Austine though it containe nothing but what is probable yet we answer to it by a rule which the same S. Austine hath prescribed otherwhere that d Aug de peccat mer remiss lib. 2. ca. 36. Vbi de re obscurissima disputatur noÌ„ adiuuantibus diuinarum scripturarum certis clarisque documentu cohibere se debet humâ—â—a praesumptis nihil faciins in alteram parteÌ„ declinando where there is controuersie of a very obscure matter there being no certaine cleare instructions of holy Scriptures to helpe vs therein humane presumption is to stay it selfe doing nothing by inclining either way 8 W. BISHOP Now to the third Argument Rom. 6. Scripture condemneth merit of works The wages of sinne is death True But we speake of good workes and not of bad which the Apostle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father Saint Augustine in diuers places of his most learned Workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt De grat lib. arb cap. 8. which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearly teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repayed for workes and so pursuing the points of difficultie at large in
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
chargeth vs with false translation and misconstruction He telleth vs that we should not say worthy of the glory but equall to the glory The Greeke word as Gramarians note doth by his originall signifie those things which being put into the ballance are of equall waight and poise one to the other and from thence is it taken to signifie worth or worthinesse because there is a full correspondence of value betwixt that that is said to be worthy and the thing that it is worthy of And according to this vsuall signification of the word do we translate not worthy of the glory c. and though we should translate not equal yet must we perforce vnderstand it as touching equalitie in worth And herein their own vulgar translation doth iustifie vs Non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam c. that is as the Rhemists translate it The passions of this time are not condigne to the glorie to come c. for what is condigne but equall or comparable in worth whence they take their meritum condigni or ex condigno to be that which in value and worth is fully equiualent to the reward Therefore Arias Montanus ad verbum readeth it thus Non dignae passiones nunc temporis ad futuram gloriam c. The sufferings of this time are not worthy to the glorie to come which what is it but the same as to say they are not comparable in worth to the glory to come Now then why doth he go about to impeach our translation when it is thus approued by their owne But that it may plainly appeare that we haue no way falsified or misconstrued this text let vs see in what sort the auncient Fathers haue cited and applied the same Saint Austin readeth the words thus b August lib. 83. quaest 67. Jndignae sunt passiones huius temporis c. The sufferings of this time are vnworthy to the glorie to come and saying in another place that c Idem de Ciuit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 18. Nullo mods superbiant sancts Martyres tanquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint vbiaterna est vera foelicitas Et sub finem superbia ne extollamur Quoniam sicut dicit Apostolus Indigna c. the holy Martyrs are not to be proud as if they did any worthy matter for the participation of that countrey where is eternall and true happinesse alledgeth afterwards for reason hereof these words Because as the Apostle saith the sufferings of this time are vnworthy c. In the very same sort doth d Ambros de Iacob lib. 1. cap. 6. de Interpellat Job lib. 1. cap. 1. in Psal 118. ser 19. Ambrose cite the same words in sundry places and although in the text inserted in his commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Romanes he reade as the vulgar Latine doth yet in expounding the next verse he expresseth the effect thereof thus e Idem in Rom. 8. Praesentu temporis passiones indignas dixit ad futuram gloriam The Apostle hath said that the sufferings of this time are vnworthy to the glorie to come Therefore elsewhere alluding to those words hee sayth that the Saints f Idem de bono mortis cap. 2. Gloriosam mercedem laboris exigui incipientes recipere cognoscent indignas esse passiones huius temporis quibus remunerationis aeternae gloria tanta refertur when they shal begin to receiue the glorious reward of their smal paines shall know that the sufferings of this time are vnworthy to haue so great glorie of eternall reward yeelded vnto them And againe in another place g Idem de interpellat Dauid ca. 2. Indigna sunt quae in hoc corpore sustinemus remuneratione futurae gloriae The things which we suffer in this bodie are vnworthy of the reward of the glory to come Hierome vpon that place sayth that h Hieronim in Rom. 8. Reuereà nihil posset homo condignum pati gloriae coelesti etiamsi talis esset ilia qualis modo est vita c. a man could do nothing comparable in worth to the heauenly glorie albeit it were but euen such as this life is For whatsoeuer a man shall suffer before death it is no more then he deserued before by his sinnes But now both his sinnes be forgiuen him and then eternall life shall be giuen the company of Angels the brightnesse of the Sunne c. Oecumenius expoundeth it that i Oecumen in Rom. 8. Non possumus quiequam futura retributione condignum aut pati aut ad illam conferre we cannot suffer any thing worthy of the reward to come or helpe any whit thereto Fulgentius hauing sayd that k Fulgent ad Momin lib. 1. supra sect 6. the gift of Gods reward doth incomparably and vnspeakeably exceed all the merit of the good will and worke of man bringeth for proofe hereof these words of the Apostle The sufferings of this time c. Bernard likewise affirming that l Bernard in Annunciat ser 1. supra sect 3. the merits of men are not such as that eternal life may be due vnto them of right asking what are all merits to so great glorie for confirmation citeth also the same words and addeth m Nec si vni◠omnes sustineat No not if one man did endure them all By all which it may appeare how truly M. Bishop and his fellowes make construction of this place that the sufferings of this time are not equall in length and greatnesse to the glorie to come but yet for value and worth they be equall to it and the one doth merite the other expresly contrary to their owne text and translation But to proue this he alledgeth further that the Apostle saith that n 2. Cor. 4.17 this momentany and light tribulation worketh vnto vs a farre most excellent and eternall waight of glorie Yet we find not here the thing that he would proue that this short and light tribulation doth merite and deserue that most excellent and eternall waight of glorie nay who doth not see that it is plainly excluded by the words For if our sufferings and good workes be but according to the scant and small measure of our fraile and weake condition short in time and light in burden and on the other side the glorie to come be exceedingly or beyond measure excellent surely then apparent it is that the littlenesse and lightnesse of the one can neuer in worth attaine to the vnmeasurable excellencie of the other But he will say the one worketh the other the affliction worketh vnto vs the glorie True and what then Doth the one therefore merit and deserue the other Surely as it is sayd of affliction so it may be sayd of them that afflict vs that they worke vnto vs an excellent and an eternall weight of glorie and yet it cannot be said that they deserue the same for vs. Affliction worketh
Be it so and yet by all our expence and labors and trauels we merite nothing we looke for nothing by desert but craue it of the blessing and free gift of God Let M. Bishop say Is there any man who by his labour and paines can challenge at Gods hands a morsell of bread as of merite and desert If he cannot but is still bound to crie amidst all his trauels Giue vs this day our dayly bread why doth he put man in opinion of meriting at Gods hands eternall life who cannot by all his workes bind God vnto him for his dayly bread We labour therefore to lay hold of eternall life by such meanes as God hath ordained and by the exercise of good workes which God hath prepared for vs to walke in but after all our labour we still beg eternall life at Gods hands as of his meere blessing and gift that it may be true both in the beginning and in the end that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Yet he telleth vs that God hath appointed good workes for vs to walke in to deserue eternall life But where hath he so appointed We find that God b 1. Ioh. 5.11 in his Sonne hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and that he hath c Ephes 2.10 prepared for vs good workes to walke in as the Apostle speaketh namely to that eternall life which he hath giuen vs but that he hath appointed vs good workes to deserue eternall life M. Bishop cannot tell vs where to find Now because the spirit of God hath not any where taught vs so to conceiue what is it but Satanicall insolencie thus to teach against the doctrine of the spirit And whereas he saith that Saint Austine and the best spirit of men since Christs time haue taught that heauen may be merited we first tell him that all that is nothing vnlesse Christ himselfe haue so taught and secondly that he falsly fathereth vpon the Fathers this misbegotten bastard of merite which in that meaning as he and his fellowes teach it was neuer imagined by the Fathers as partly hath appeared alreadie and shall God willing appeare further 13. W. BISHOP But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the ancient Church and then beginneth with S. Bernard who liued a thousand yeares after Christ he in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things which we call merits are the way to the kingdome but not the cause of raigning I answer that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Ser. 68. in Cantie which is Bernards owne doctrine Manuâ—l cap. 22. Secondly he citeth S. Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sence that is by vertue of his death and passion my sins are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to do good workes and so to merit In Psal 114. Thirdly Basil Eternall life is reserued for them that haue striuen lawfully not for the merite of their doing but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combat and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the workes but in a fuller measure according vnto the bountie of so liberall a Lord where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits Psal 120. 4. M. Perkins turnes backe to Augustine vpon the Psal 120. where he saith as M. Perkins reporteth He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits Answ S. Augustine was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. What congruitie is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits It had bene better said He crowneth thee not c. But he mistooke belike this sentence of S. Augustins When God crowneth thee he crowneth his gifts not thy merites De grat lib. arb cap. 6. Which is true being taken in that sence which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crowne his owne gifts not thy merits if thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with vs then we may as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and reward of merits His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose Psal 142. but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainly now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie R. ABBOT The place of Bernard is in the very end of his booke De gratia libero arbitrio where hauing before deuided a Bernar. de grat et lib arbit Dona sua Deus in merita diuisit proemia the gifts of God into merits and rewards he sheweth that merites are wholly to be ascribed vnto God because b Non equidem quòd consensus ip se in quo merituÌ„ omne consistit ab ipso libero arbitrio sit c. Deus facit volenteÌ„ hoc est voluntati suae consentientem to consent to God which is the thing wherein merite wholly consisteth is not of our free will but of God himselfe So that although God in the worke of mans saluation do vse the will of man himselfe yet there is nothing in the will of man to that purpose but what is c Totum ex illa wholly of the grace of God Now hauing disputed and shewed these things at large in the end of the booke he shutteth vp all with this conclusion d Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis inceÌ„tiua occuliae praedâ—stinationis iudiciâ— futurae foelicitatis praesagia via regni noÌ„ causa regnandi If properly we will terme those which we call our merites they are the seedgrounds of our hope incitements of our loue tokens of our secret predestination foretokens of our future happinesse the way to the kingdome not the cause of our raigning or of our hauing the kingdome Where plainely he giueth to vnderstand that whatsoeuer is spoken of our merites is but vnproperly spoken that God hauing purposed vnto vs eternall life bestoweth his grace vpon vs to leade a godly life as a foretoken thereof and therefore that our good workes are but the way wherein God leadeth vs to his kingdome which hee of his owne mercie hath intended and
one of vs. Where my portion raigneth I beleeue that I also raigne where my bloud ruleth I beleeue that I also haue dominion where my flesh is glorified I know that I also am glorious Albeit I be a sinner yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace Albeit my sinnes hold backe yet my substance namely being now of his flesh and his bones requireth it Albeit mine owne defaults doe exclude me yet fellowship of nature putteth mee not away I might despaire because of my exceeding great sinnes and corruptions my defaults and infinite negligences which I haue committed and dayly without ceasing doe commit in thought and word and worke and euery way that humane frailtie can sinne but that thy Word O my God became flesh and dwelt amongst vs. But now I dare not despaire because he being obedient vnto thee vnto death euen the death of the crosse hath taken away the hand-writing of our sinnes and fastening it to the crosse hath crucified sinne and death Now securely I take breath and heart againe in him who sitteth at thy right hand and maketh intercession for vs. By these words and many other that might be alledged out of that booke the Reader may iudge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins We see nothing here but confession of sinnes in himselfe no other hope but onely forgiuenes of sins in Christ Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ablenesse giuen vnto him to deserue eternall life No no it was neuer heard of in the world that the meaning of these words My hope is wholly in the death and merite of Christ should be that we hope to be able by Christ to merite and deserue saluation vntill these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to worke by Antichrist for the confusion of soules by making them to leane vpon the broken staffe of their owne merites in steed of the onely sauing merite of the bloud of Christ The faithful haue alwayes in their end betaken themselues to this hold and many returning vnto God euen at the last gaspe hauing nothing in themselues to comfort themselues haue securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ and with ioy and comfort haue gone to God who if they had vnderstood hope in Christ according to M. Bishops exposition thereof of being to be made able by Christ to merite heauen would haue bene rent and torne in peeces with perplexitie and feare neither could haue conceiued any comfort thereof at all But let him alone he shall one day vnderstand the vntruth of his answer when he shall be glad to make vse of those words which we haue spoken of or the like without that good sence as hee calleth it which now his senslesse and dead heart imagineth of them The place of Basil is as cleare as the light yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also but cannot so doe it but that hee is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalfe k Basil in Psal 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is layd vp eternall rest saith he for them that striue lawfully in this life not to be rendered according to debt for workes but prouided according to the grace of the bountifull God for them that trust in him Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle l Rom. 44. To him that worketh that is to him that hath the righteousnes of workes the reward is not imputed * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by fauour but by debt and therefore the phrases being borowed from the Apostle must with him haue the same meaning as with the Apostle they haue His meaning then is plaine that that eternall rest is not rendered by way of debt but by way of fauour and grace and neuer hath any ecclesiasticall writer vnderstood those phrases otherwise Onely M. Bishop telleth vs that Basils meaning is that it is not rendered according to the debt of workes that is according to the iust rate of workes but in a fuller measure and aboue our merites But his masters of Rhemes reiect this commentary of his and doe tell him that our workes are m Rhem. Testam Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of euerlasting life God then doth not exceed the rate of our workes as they say but giueth onely what we are fully worthy of what we fully and iustly merite and deserue thereby Yea and they saw well that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth is to ouerthrow merite For if God do giue vs aboue our merits then we do not merite that which God giueth or if we do merite it then it cannot be sayd to be aboue our merites But it is aboue our merites sayth M. Bishop therefore it followeth necessarily that we doe not merite or deserue it Yea wee haue seene before out of Fulgentius and Bernard that Gods reward doth so incomparably exceede all the merite and worke of man as that eternall life is not due thereunto by right neither should God doe any wrong if hee did not giue it and therefore the sentence of Basill is true according to the Apostles intendment of those termes which he vseth that eternall life is not rendered by way of debt for workes but by grace that is freely bestowed to them that trust in him M. Bishop telleth vs that hee maketh eternall life to be the prize of the combat but what of that seeing hee giueth vs to vnderstand that this prize is with fauour and mercie proposed and with the same mercie and fauour rendered to them that fight the combat Therefore hee sayth in another place n Basil de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is nothing left thee O man to glorie of whose glorying and hope consisteth in this that thou mortifie all that is thine and seeke in Christ the life to come whereof hauing the first fruites we are now therein liuing wholly by the grace and gift of God There is then with Basil no merit no debt in any sort because we liue wholy by the grace and gift of God so that M. Bishops exposition is but a meere falsification of Basils words M. Perkins further alledgeth a saying of Austin He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. He questioneth the matter What congruitie is it to say thus He directeth a better forme of speech It had bene better sayd thus Now if the sentence be S. Austins what will men but take M. Bishop for a foole that wold so vnaduisedly befoole S. Austin and take vpon him to correct his words when he had no cause The place indeed is misquoted either by M. Perkins mistaking or by the ouersight of the Printer for in steed of Psal 102. he hath quoted Psal 120. by misplacing of the figure a very small and easie ouersight But S.
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
vnderstood or expounded to that meaning whereto he applieth it k Col. 1.24 Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you and do fulfill or accomplish those things that want saith M. Bishop but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the remainder those things that are yet behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church M. Bishop by translating those things that want of the passions of Christ and applying the place to their satisfactions giueth vs to vnderstand that blasphemy of theirs which he will seeme otherwise to denie that for satisfaction somewhat is wanting to the passion of Christ so that the passion of Christ is not taken with them to be a full and perfect satisfaction and redemption He will say the old interpreter so translateth but because the old interpreter made not that vse of these passions in the words following as M. Bishop doth therefore to our meaning onely and not to his he translateth in that sort The afflictions and sufferings of the faithfull are very often in the Scripture termed l 2. Cor. 4.10 Phil. 3.10 1. Pet. 4.13 the afflictions and sufferings of Christ Christ is the head we are the body m Aug. in Psa Caput corpâ—â— vnus est Christus The head and the body saith S. Austine make one Christ He hath made vs one with himselfe and therefore vnder one name of n Gal. 3.16 Christ he comprehendeth both himselfe and vs. Whatsoeuer then is done either to the head or to the body the same is done to Christ Christ the head hath sâ—ffered in himselfe whatsoeuer was needfull for the redemption and purchase of that body whereof he was to be the head He therefore suffered and died for sinne as a Redeemer we as redeemed are by suffering to be conformed vnto him that in suffering we may be still dying and in death it selfe may fully and for euer be o Râ—â— 62.11 deâ—d to sinne Now because the afflictions of the body and members of Christ are reckoned to be the afflictions of Christ therfore so long as there is any part of the body still remaining to be afflicted so long there is somewhat wanting or yet behind of the afflictions of Christ Thus S. Austine saith p Aug. in Psal 61. Si in memoris Christi es quicquid pateris ab eu qui n n sunt in â—â—eÌ„oru Christi deerat passionibus Christi If thou be a member of Christ whatsoeuer thou sufferest of them who are not the members of Christ it was wanting to the passions of Christ And thus S. Paul as a member of Christ professeth that for his part he fulfilled the remnant or that that was yet to be sustained of the afflictions sufferings of Christ But he addeth for his bodies sake which is the Church and vpon these words specially the question dependeth In what meaning is it that he saith he suffereth for the Churches sake M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that it was to adde somewhat for his part to the common treasury of satisfactions whence reliefe succour might be yeelded to men by the Popes indulgences to supply the want of their owne satisfactions We must thinke that somewhat was wanting to the sufferings of Christ to set vs free from temporal punishments and towards that S. Paul paied his shot and hauing suffered enough for his owne discharge would adde somwhat to serue in common to ease the burdens of other men But against this wicked and blasphemous fancie the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs when he saith q 1. Cor. 1.13 Was Paul crucified for you If we beleeue M. Bishop Paul also was crucified for vs but Paul himselfe denieth himselfe to haue bene crucified for vs. Therfore he teacheth vs to say r Gal. 6.14 God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ not in the crosse of Paul not in the crosse of Peter but only in the crosse of Iesus Christ If M. Bishop say true we haue to reioyce in the crosse of Peter and in the crosse of Paul and in the crosses of the rest of the Saints as hauing redeemed vs froÌ„ Purgatory froÌ„ temporall painâ— but we are taught to reioyce in nothing but in the crosse of Iesus Christ that it may be true which he hath said Å¿ Esa 63.3 I haue troden the wine-presse alone of all people there was none with me Therfore Ambrose saith t Ambros in 1. Cor. cap. â— St Christus pro nobis mortuus est quomodo graâ—aÌ„ lexeficiuÌ„ etia hominibus imputamus ad eâ—us iniuriam If Christ haue died for vs why do we impute his grace and benefit to other men to his wrong Very fitly to this purpose saith Leo Bishop of Rome u Leo epist. 81. QuaÌ„tris multorum sanâ—torum pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors fuerit nullâ—â—s tamentâ—sontis oâ—â—â—sio muâ—di fuit propitiatio Accepere iusti non dederaâ—t coronas de fortitudine fideliuÌ„ nata sunt exempta patientiae noÌ„ dona iustitiae Singulares quippâ— in singulis mortes fuere nec alterius quisquaÌ„ debitum suo fine persoltus quum inter filios homiâ—â—m vnus Dominus noster Iesus Christus extiterit in quo omnes crucifixi omnes mertuâ— omnes sepulti omnes sunt etiam suscitati Albeit the death of many Saints hath bene precious in the Lords sight yet the killing of no Saint hath bene the propitiation of the world The iust receiued crownes but gaue none and of the fortitude of the faithfull haue growne examples of patience no gifts of righteousnesse Their deaths were seuerall in euery of them neither hath any man by his death paied the debt of another man seeing amongst the sonnes of men it was onely our Lord Iesus Christ in whom all were crucified dead buried and raised againe This was the auncient doctrine of the Bishops of Rome but now Maister Bishop telleth vs out of their Romish learning that one man is the propitiation and attonement for another that some men doe pay debts and make satisfactions for others because Paul saith that he suffereth for the Churches sake But S. Austine telleth him againe x Aug. in Ioan. tract 84. Etsi fratres pro fratribus morâ—amur tamen in fraterneruÌ„ peccatorum remissioneÌ„ nullius sanguis martyâ—is funditur quod fecit ille Christus pronebâ— nec in hoc quid imitaremur sed quid gratularemur coÌ„tulit nobis c. Quò isi quisquaÌ„ se poteÌ„tia Christi coÌ„parabit alie uÌ„sc putaÌ„do sanare peccatuÌ„ muliuÌ„ est ad illuÌ„ non capit tantuÌ„ c. Diues est qui nec haereditario nec proprio vnquaÌ„ debâ—to obnoxius ipse iustus est alios iustificat Christus Noli coÌ„tra euÌ„ te extendere intantum pauper vt remisâ—ionis pâ—ccatorum appateâ—â— quoâ—idianus in oratione meâ—dicus Albeit we as brethren die for our brethren yet no martyrs bloud
teacheth that those sacrifices did q Heb. 9.13 sanctifie as touching the purifying of the flesh that is outwardly to men but r Ver. 9.14 chap. 10.1.2 to sanctifie the conscience to acquit the conscience of sinnes it reserueth as a thing peculiar to the bloud of Christ But saith M. Bishop if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God True but what are we sinfull wretches that we should think that any thing that we can do should be a satisfaction to him for sinne But much more absurd are we to thinke that the offering of a bruite creature should be any part of the redemption thereof Our satisfacton therefore is not any thing that we do or can do but it is onely the pleading of a satisfaction payed for vs in the bloud of Christ Yet he still vrgeth that sacrifices were to satisfie God because it is said that vpon the sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen But I haue already answered him that it was forgiuen not for the sacrifice sake but for Christs sake whom the offerer was to vnderstand therein And we know that of Sacraments vsually those effects are spoken which properly belong to those things whereof they are sacraments It is rightly said by Tertullian that God in these sacrifices ſ Tertul contra Marc lib. 3. Non quae siebant exigens sed propter quod fiebant required not the things which were done but that for which they were done And therefore as Origen saith as touching the high Priests standing forth to appease the wrath of God when the Angell was gone foorth to be the executioner thereof t Origē in Num. hom 9. Neque enim indumenta Pōtificis purpura Lina bysso contexia erubuisset Angelus ille vastator sed ista quae futura erant indumēta magni Pontificis intellexit ijs cessic The destroying Angell would not haue bashed at the high Priests garments made of purple and wooll and silke but he vnderstood those garments that should be of the great high Priest Iesus Christ and to them he yeelded euen so we are to conceiue that the wrath of God was no whit nor in any sort pacified by those sacrifices for the things themselues that were done therein but hee respected in them the bloud and sacrifice of his onely begotten Sonne and thereto was content to yeeld himselfe satisfied and appeased towards them that offered with faith in him 9. W. BISHOP The reason for vs which indeed is the very groundwork of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtained of their sins haue had temporall punishment layed vpon them for the same sins and that by Gods owne order wherefore after the forgiuenesse of the sin and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the partie himselfe for the same sin which is most properly that which we call satisfaction They denie that any man hath bene punished temporally for any sin which was once pardoned we proue it first by the example of the Israelites whose murmuration against God was at Moses intercession pardoned Numb 14. yet all the elder sort of them who had seene the miracles wrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance were by the sentence of God depriued of the sight of the land of promise and punished with death in the wildernesse for the very same their murmuration The like iudgement was giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron Numb 20. Deut. 32. for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction both of them had their sin pardoned yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land To this M. Perkins answereth first that a man must be considered in a two fold estate as he is vnder the law and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions were curses of the Law in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into what you wil else sauing satisfaction Now to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleuing Israelites with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law laid vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition vnto all ages following to take heed of like offences as Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. All these things came vnto them for examples and were written for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastly after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shal not enter into the land Numb 14. Num. 20. ve 24. Deut. 32.51 because he hath bin disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their dayes were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so dealeth dayly with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance R. ABBOT M. Bishop here maketh a hot and a long haruest and all his corne will not yeeld him so much as one morsell of bread He telleth vs that the argument which he here handleth is the very groundworke of satisfaction now if the goundworke faile we may be well assured that the building cannot stand We deny indeed that any affliction or iudgement of God hath lien vpon any faithful man in the nature and condition of a punishment after the forgiuenesse of his sinne The things themselues which in their owne nature are punishments and at the first are inflicted in that nature yet the sinne being forgiuen lose that nature and become onely trials preuentions admonitions instructions neither do we therein conceiue Gods anger against vs but his fatherly goodnesse and prouidence care to keepe vs to himselfe that he may make vs partakers of eternall life Thus carnall concupiscence being of it selfe a punishment of sinne though according to the guilt it be taken away by remission of sins yet according to the thing it selfe remaineth in the faithfull not now for a punishment but for the humbling and exercising of vs to make vs to know our selues to draw vs to trust and confidence in God to sharpen our desire
loue of that righteousnes for which we fight in fighting against it So death of it selfe the wages of sin becometh to the faithful as a poison broken into a medicine and as a serpent that hath lost his sting a Bern. in Cant. Ser. 26. Iam non stimulus sed iubilus I am cantando moritur homo moriendo cantat Vsurparis ad laetitiam mater moeroris vsurparis ad gloriam gloriae inimica vsurparis ad introitum regni porta inferi fouea perditionis ad inuentionem salutis There is no sting but song saith S. Bernard man now dieth singing and singeth dying O thou mother of mourning saith he thou art turned to ioy thou enemy of glory doest now serue to giue glory thou gate of hell art vsed for an entry to the kingdome of heauen and thou pit of destruction for the finding of saluation S. Austin saith thereof that b Aug. de pec mer. remis li. 2. cap. 34. MorteÌ„ cerporis propter peccatum homini Deus inflixit post peccatorum remissionem propter exercendam iustitiam non ademit Et paulò priùs eam fidelibus euenire vt eius timore vinceÌ„do exerceretur fortitudo iustitiae God inflicted death for the punishment of sin and after forgiuenes of sins he still left it for the exercising of righteousnesse that saith he the fortitude of righteousnesse might be exercised in ouercoming the feare thereof The like hath bene noted out of him c Sect. 2. before concerning other iudgements laid vpon mankind in the beginning by reason of sinne Now as of these so of all other afflictions after forgiuenesse of sinnes we resolue that they forgo their former condition and propertie and cease to be reuengements and punishments for sinne but haue other respects and vses for which they are continued The examples so strongly vrged by Master Bishop make nothing against this First the Israelites murmure God to Moses threateneth wholly to destroy theÌ„ promising to make of him a mighty people Moses prayeth vnto God to withhold that wrath from his people to forgiue the trespasse God saith d Num. 14.20 I haue forgiueÌ„ it according to thy request but he addeth Notwithstanding as I liue all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord for all those men which haue seen my glory my miracles which I did in Egypt in the wildernes and haue tempted me these ten times and haue not obeyed my voice certainly they shall not see the land wherof I sware vnto their fathers Here is the forgiuenes of a sin saith M. Bishop and yet a punishment ensuing after But we answer him that this example altereth the question cometh not within the compasse of that wherof we speake For it is one thing to speake of the forgiuenesse of a sinne to the whole body of a people and another thing to speake of forgiuenesse to one particular man Forgiuenesse of a sinne to a whole people is not absolute but onely in a respect it is not simply the taking away of a sinne but the taking of it away in some sort and therefore though it be the excluding of one punishment yet nothing hindreth but that it may leaue place for another yea and though in common there be a forgiuenesse yet in particular there may stil remaine an imputation of the sinne euen as amongst this people were many reprobates and cast-awayes who though they were forgiuen and freed in respect of the destruction then threatened yet being void of repentance and true faith found otherwise spiritually no benefite at al of this forgiuenesse God saith not here simply I haue forgiuen it but I haue forgiuen it according to thy request Moses request was according to Gods threatening Gods threatening was wholly to destroy that nation In this respect God said I haue forgiuen it namely so as not at once to destroy this people according to my wrath and indignation conceiued against them And this Lyra very well obserued e Lyra in Num. ca. 14. Benè dicit iuxta quòd non totaliter dimisit sed quantum ad hoc quòd non deleret totum populum simul He saith well saith he according to thy request because he did not wholy pardon it but onely as touching the not destroying of the whole people at once Now albeit in this respect he did forgiue it because he did not wholy forgiue it therefore he voweth to glorifie himselfe throughout all the earth by making them an example of his iudgement vpon vnthankfull men with whom no sights nor sayings can preuaile to make them obedient to the voyce of God Therefore he would forbeare to destroy them in that sort and to their seed he wold make good the promise of the land of Canaan but as for them he would weare out the whole multitude of them that not one of them shold haue the enioying or sight thereof This he laid as a iudgement in common vpon that generation of men which had so infinitly from time to time prouoked him as that they made him f Psal 95.12 to sweare that they should not enter into his rest But yet in the bosome of that multitude we cannot doubt but many there were who truly repented and obtained forgiuenes both of this of all their other sins yet together with the rest were depriued of entrance into that holy land For God doth not except particular men from generall and common plagues and when he striketh a nation with famine sword pestilence or other calamity both one and other good and bad are subiect vnto it g Cyprian contra Demetr Intrae vnam domum boni mali interim coÌ„tinemur quicquid intrae domum euenerit pari sorte perpetimur donec c. We are shut vp together in one house saith Cyprian and whatsoeuer befalleth within the house we suffer it all alike Onely he so ordereth that what is to a nation in common for reuenge punishment becommeth in particular to the repentant and faithful a helpe and furtherance of saluation And so was it with the beleeuing Israelites who though by a common iudgement they were excluded corporally from the Sacrament and signe yet were thereby spiritually edified and learned with Abraham and Isaac and Iacob so much the more to meditate to desire long for the spirituall and euerlasting rest Albeit in respect of the faithfull also it is to be vnderstood that Gods chastisements oftentimes lye vpon them after forgiuenesse of sinnes though not for punishments to theÌ„selues yet for exemplary admonitions to others h Tho. Aquin. 12. q. 87. art 6. ad 3. Vt edificeÌ„tur in poena qui scaÌ„dâ—lizati sunt in culpa that as Thomas Aquinas speaketh they may be edified by the punishment that were scandalized by the sinne And thus S. Austin rightly saith that i Aug in Joan. tr 124. Productior est poenae quà m culpa ne parua putaretur culpa si cum
The occasion thereof is our sinne t Ver. 30. For this cause many are weake and sicke amongst you and many sleepe but the vse thencefoorth is not for satisfaction but for saluation that we may not be condemned with the world 10. W. BISHOP Now to the next example which M. Perkins maketh our third reason King Dauid was punished for his aduoultrie after his repentance for the child died 2. Re. 12. and was plagued in the same kind of incest by Absolon and when he had numbred the people 2. Re. 24. he was after his owne repentance punished in the death of his people M. Perkins answereth that the hand of God was vpon him after his repentance but those iudgements which befell him were not curses to him properly but corrections of his sinnes Reply What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to deny but yet in other termes that the simple whom onely he can beguile may not perceiue it if the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sin and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen which is most properly to satisfie for them Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sack-cloth lying on the bare ground by watering his couch with tears and making ashes his food and in this most pitifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquity he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour Psal 50. but in the Psalme saith that such an humble and contrite heart is a sweet sacrifice vnto God We deny not but the punishing of one is a warning and admonition vnto another to take heed of the like so may not they deny but that correction is to the party himselfe as an admonition to beware afterward so a correction and punishment of the fault past Psal 50. Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme Thou hast loued truth teacheth most plainly saying Thou hast not left their sinnes whom thou didst pardon vnpunished for thou before didst so shew mercy that thou mightest also preserue truth thou doest pardon him that confesseth his fault thou doest pardon him but so as he do punish himselfe and by that meanes both mercy and truth are preserued R. ABBOT This matter concerning Dauid was answered long ago by S. Austin against the Pelagian heretikes who hauing set downe for a rule of the chastisements and afflictions of this life that a August de peccat mer. remis lib. 2. ca. 34 supra Sect. 2. before forgiuenesse they are punishments of sinnes after forgiuenesse the combats and exercises of the iust as before was said bringeth for example therof this that M. Bishop here obiecteth concerning Dauid b Tale aliquid nobis insinuatū est de Patriarcha Dauid ad quem cùm Propheta missus esset eique propter peccatum quod commiserat euētura mala iracundia Dei comminaretur confessione peccati veniam meruit tamen consequuta sunt quae Deus fuerat comminatus vt sic humiliaretur à filio c. Cur dimisso peccato quod erat minatus impleuit Respondebitur remissionem peccati factam ne homo à percipienda vita impediretur aeterna subsecutum verò illius comminationis effectum vt pietas hominis in illa humilitato exerceretur atque probaretur Such a matter saith he is insinuated vnto vs concerning the Patriark Dauid to whom the Prophet being sent and threatening vnto him the euils that by the wrath of God should befall vnto him for the sinne that he had committed by the confession of his sinne he obtained pardon and yet those things followed which were threatened that he should be so humbled by his sonne Why did God fulfill that when he had forgiuen the sinne We are to answer that the sinne was forgiuen lest the man should be hindred from eternall life but the effect of the threatening followed that the pietie of the man might be exercised and proued in that humiliation Here was iust occasion giuen to Saint Austine to haue mentioned Master Bishops satisfaction if he had knowne it but he knew it not and therefore said nothing of it He denieth Dauids afflictions after forgiuenesse to be punishments he maketh the vse of them to be thencefoorth onely for combate and exercise and triall of his pietie and faith Therfore in calling them corrections as from a father in respect of time to come not punishments as from a Iudge in respect of time past we say nothing but what Saint Austine saith As for Dauids mourning afterwards expressed in the one and fiftieth Psalme it was the testimony of his true repentance the expressing of his desire to be disburdened of his sinne and to be established by the grace of God that he might not in such sort fall againe His c 2. Sam. 12.16 fasting and lying on the earth were to intreate the Lord for the sparing of the childs life but in nothing that he did do we find any dreaming of satisfaction He knew well that it was a derogation to the satisfaction of Christ to seeke in himselfe that satisfaction that was to be sought for in Christ alone He knew that d Psa 51.17 a broken and contrite heart is a sweet sacrifice to God but yet he knew it not to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinne of man It is not it selfe a satisfaction for sinne but onely the disposition of him who seeketh to find satisfaction in the Sonne of God And this broken and contrite heart grieuing and sorrowing for sinne is that punishment whereof Saint Austine speaketh in the wordes which Master Bishop citeth and which he calleth the punishing of a mans selfe and is the affection wherewith we are to seeke forgiuenesse at Gods hands Which when we are carelesse of God striketh vs with his roddes and punishments to worke it in vs and to make vs seeke the forgiuenesse of our sinnes This the Apostle giueth to vnderstand when he saith e 1. Cor. 11.31 If we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged of the Lord as if he should say that because we iudge not our selues therefore doth the Lord iudge vs that thereby we may be taught to iudge our selues Thus our sinne is punished that it may be forgiuen but after forgiuenesse thereof Saint Austine denyeth as we haue heard that any thing remaineth as a punishment for sinne neither doth this place import any thing otherwise As for the other instance that he vseth concerning the plague inflicted for the numbring of the people it was more for the punishment of the people then of Dauid himselfe for the numbring of the people though by Dauids numbring of them God would take the occasion of it Therefore the
many times did and many men do This worke saith he is but common oile and of no great sauour and yet it is acceptable with God as Daniel signifieth saying to a King that knew not God Heare my counsel O King and redeeme thy sinnes with almes Some such matter Peter also saith in Clement that the good workes which are done by infidels do benefit them in this world but not in the world to come for the obtaining of eternall life and that very rightly because they do them not for Gods sake but onely as of the nature of man But they which do these things in respect of God that is the faithfull haue benefit thereby not onely in this world but also in that yea specially in that that is to come Here is the true condition of Nabuchodonosors workes set forth vnto vs he was an infidell he knew not God that which he did he did it only by naturall instinct God respected it no further but only for this world and onely in that respect did Daniel say vnto him Redeeme thy sinnes with almes and therefore it must needes be granted that the word of redeeming is very vnproperly vsed can haue no such meaning as M. Bishop intendeth by it Now therfore albeit it be true which M. Perkins obserueth out of the learned in the Chaldee tongue that the word which is by the vulgar interpreter translated to redeeme doth properly signifie to breake off yet he needed not to haue rested vpon that answer but should rather haue taken the common translation thereby to euict that the name of redemption hath vse with ecclesiasticall writers without any intendment of Popish satisfaction Forwords are not alwaies to be racked to their natiue and proper vse but from it are borowed many times to import somewhat else which in some respect may seeme neere vnto it Redemption properly importeth the paiment of a iust price for the setting of a captiue or bondman free In this meaning it is vsed of our Sauiour Christ who gaue himselfe for a price for vs to set vs free from death and sinne to reconcile vs vnto God but in this meaning to attribute vnto our selues any power or worth to pay any price or to yeeld any valuable recompence vnto God for our sinnes is a blasphemie intollerable and a great impeachment of the sufficiencie of Christes redemption Yet notwithstanding the terme of redeeming is otherwise many times vsed when one thing is made consequent to the doing or forgoing of another as the freedome of the bondman is to the paiment of the price In this case the one is said to be redeemed by the other not because it is a worthy price for the purchase but because it is an opportunity for the obtaining or gaining of it Thus Nabuchodonosor formerly said to his soothsaiers e Dan. 2.8 I know certainly that ye redeeme the time that is that ye vse your talke for the prolonging of the time So are we said by forgoing the vanities and pleasures of the world f Ephe. 5.16 Col 4.5 to redeeme the time because thereby we take the opportunity therof to bestow it to the Lords vse Thus the heathen King was willed by almes-deedes to redeeme his sinnes not as though his almes-deedes were any satisfaction to God for his sinnes which by the doctrine of Poperie could not be but because God for the common benefit of mankinde hath vouchsafed to yeeld good for the onely outward forsaking of euill waies howsoeuer inward regeneration finde no place at all Thus a man is said with his goods to redeeme his soule not for that worldly goods are a price for the sauing of a soule God forbid but for that by forgoing his goods he findeth meanes and opportunitie of being saued by Iesus Christ And in this sort ecclesiasticall writers are wont sometimes to attribute to workes of repentance and charity the redemption of our sinnes not for that they tooke them in themselues to be any price for the worth whereof God should be appeased towards vs but onely because to the faithfull doers thereof for Christes sake in whose name they are done God hath made the promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes and euerlasting life Now by that that hath bene said we see that M. Bishops argument is fallen into this frame Nabuchodonosor an infidell and heathen King neuer partaker of forgiuenesse of sinnes and not capable by the doctrine of the Church of Rome of doing any satisfaction for sinne is willed to redeeme his sinnes with almes-deedes therefore after forgiuenesse of sinnes there remaineth yet a satisfaction to be made for the sinnes that are forgiuen He that shall denie his argument shall do him a shrewd turne for how to proue it he cannot tell As for the place which he citeth out of S. Luke it must import somwhat further then the words sound For infidels as we haue seene of Nabuchodonosor do giue almes and yet all things are not cleane vnto them for g Tit. 1.15 to vnbeleeuers nothing is cleane but euen their mindes and consciences are defiled The Pharisees also to whom Christ there speaketh h Math. 6.2 gaue almes and yet they were not clensed thereby Yea the Apostle S. Paul giueth vs to vnderstand that i 1. Cor. 13.3 a man may giue all his goods to feede the poore and yet being without charity and loue it profiteth him nothing But by the occasion of the words the meaning of them will appeare He hath said before k Luk. 11.39 Indeede ye Pharisees make cleane the outside of the cup and of the platter but * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is within you is full of rauening and wickednesse Hereupon he addeth for reproofe Ye fooles did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also Then for correction and exhortation he bringeth in the words which M. Bishop alledgeth by halues * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea rather giue for almes those things that are within behold all things shall be cleane vnto you Where presupposing as we may conceiue that they did giue almes or otherwise exhorting them so to do he withall directeth the true manner of the giuing thereof consisting not onely in reaching a gift with the hand but in giuing the heart and affection and l Esa 58.10 powring out the soule as the Prophet speaketh to the hungry in shewing iudgement and mercy and fidelitie to our brethren for the want whereof he taketh exception against them in the next words m Math. 23.23 as Saint Mathew expresseth the particulars thereof Therefore he admonisheth them by these words that as they were carefull outwardly to clense their cups and platters so they should much more be carefull to clense their hearts to voide themselues of hypocrisie couetousnesse briberie crueltie and to put on charity compassion mercy iustice and faithfulnesse and then not only their dishes and vessels but their almes-deedes their meates and
because we account not Cyprians writings as canonicall but consider them by the Canonicall Scriptures and what therein agreeth to the authoritie of holy Scripture we receiue it with his praise but what agreeth not by his leaue we refuse it Albeit because we find Cyprian elsewhere acknowledging in the name of all the faithfull that p Cyprian de orat Dom. Ipsum habemus apud PatreÌ„ AduocatuÌ„ pro peccatis nostris we haue Christ with the Father to be the Aduocate for our sinnes thereby confessing the effect of Christs redemption to be extended to the whole course of our life we dare not conceiue howsoeuer his words be very harsh that his meaning was so bad as thereby it may seeme to be And to iustifie himself to conceiue no otherwise but that the washing and cleansing of vs from our sinnes amidst all our almes and deuotions consisteth not in that which we do but in the bloud of Christ he saith in another place c Idem ser de ablut pedum Clementissime magister quoties ego doctrinae tuae transgressus sum regulas quoties edicta tua Domine sancte contempsi cùm diceres mihi Reuertere non sum reuersus cùm minareris non timâ—â— cùm bonus esses lenis exasperans fui Vltra septuagies septies in coelum coram te peccaui Quis tot sordes abluet quiâ— abradet stercora coÌ„globata Quicquid dicat Petrus necesse est vt ipse nos abluas neque enim lauare nos possumus sed in omnibus quae agimus indulgentiae tuae lauacro indigemus c. Apud te fons vitae est et miserationum quae à seculo sunâ— profunditas infinita abluisti nos baptismo lauasti sanguine tuo semper lauas quotidiana peccata donando O mercifull Lord how often haue I transgressed the rules of thy doctrine how often O holy Lord haue I despised thy commaundements and when thou saidst vnto me Returne I haue not returned when thou threatnedst I feared not when thou wast good and gentle I haue prouoked thee beyond seuentie times seuen times I haue sinned against heauen and before thee Who shall wash away so much filth who shall take away the mucke that is thus growne together Let Peter say what he will in refusing to be washed we haue need that thou wash vs for we cannot wash our selues but in all things that we do we stand in need of the washing of thy pardon and mercie With thee is the well of life and the infinit depth of mercies which haue bene from euerlasting thou hast washed vs in baptisme thou hast washed vs in thy bloud thou alwayes washest vs by forgiuing our daily sinnes By these words he giueth plainly to vnderstand that he did not think the washing and cleansing of vs to consist in the merit of our almes but in the forgiuenesse of our sins He confesseth that in all that we do we stand in need of pardon and therefore cannot be imagined to thinke that any thing that we do is a satisfaction for our sinnes In the other words therefore we must conceiue his purpose to be onely to note and set forth the acts and affections of them who truly and faithfully seeke remission of their sins by the mercie of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ albeit being instant and earnest as men are wont to be to presse that that he had in hand he runneth into inconuenient phrases and speeches which otherwise stand not with the rule of Christian saith Those workes of mercie and compassion towards our brethren are the true fruites and effects the consequents and companions of that contrite and broken heart that repentance and faith to which God hath made the promise of his mercy and therfore because in the doing thereof we find mercy he so speaketh thereof as if by the works themselues we obtained that mercie when yet it is not for the workes sake that God accepteth vs but for Christs sake whom by our workes we shew that we vnfainedly seeke and do truly beleeue in him And as for the place of Scripture which he alledgeth though by error of the scribe perhaps it be that there is noted in the margent the fourth of Tobie yet these words not being found in Tobie and the words that are in Tobie being cited afterwards he therein alludeth vndoubtedly to a saying of Solomon in the Prouerbes but forcing the text and putting in almes and faith in steed of mercy and truth Which words of Solomon if a whining aduersary by instance and importunitie will vrge vpon vs to expound of the mercie and truth of man it must be read and construed according to the same meaning which is already expressed d Prou. 16.6 In mercie and truth iniquitie shall be forgiuen that is where mercy and truth are there is forgiuenesse of sinnes as to note the conditions of the persons whose sins are forgiuen not the thing by vertue whereof they are forgiuen But we haue no warrant of any other Scripture in any other meaning to tie it to our mercie and truth and therefore must vnderstand it of the mercie and truth of God of which the Prophet Dauid speaketh when hauing signified the forgiuenesse of the sinnes of Gods people and the nearnesse of his saluation to them that feare him he addeth for the cause thereof e Psal 85.10 Mercie and truth are met together Of which also the Euangelist S. Iohn saith f Iohn 1.17 Grace and truth that is mercie and truth come by Iesus Christ Thus then by mercie and truth iniquitie is forgiuen not by any merite or worke of ours not by any satisfaction that we can make but by the mercie of God truly performing the promise that he hath made of the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ As for the booke of Tobie noted as I said in the margent and from whence Cyprian afterwards alledgeth other words of almes deliuering from death and purging all sinne it is not of sufficient authoritie to proue vnto vs any matter of faith the auncient Church testifying of it and the rest of the same sort as Hierome and Ruffinus haue recorded that g Hieron prolog galeat Igitur sapientia Solomonis Jesu filij Sirach liber Iudith Tobias non sunt in Canone Sic Ruffin in expos Symb. they are not canonicall and S. Austine affirming that h August deciuit Dei lib. 17. ca. 20. Aduersus contradictâ—resnoÌ„ tanta firmitate proferuntur qua scripta non sunt in Canoâ—e Iudaeâ—rum the writings which are not in the Canon of the Iewes as none are but what they had written in their owne tongue are not with so great authoritie alledged in matters of question and contradiction Albeit we will not disauow those words in that meaning as I haue before expressed that almesdeeds deliuer from death and purge vs from sinne as arguments for proofe that we are deliuered from death and
to the end of thy life and do not presume that of mans day any pardon can be graunted thee for he deceiueth thee that will promise that vnto thee For thou which hast sinned properly against the Lord must of him alone expect remedie at the day of iudgement A hard censure and vnworthy of Ambrose and so contrary to that which otherwhere he hath written as that we may well question whether it be his or not but it being plainly denied her to haue forgiuenesse how deceitfully is this example brought to proue satisfaction after forgiuenesse With as great fraud he alledgeth Gregory Nazianzen who in that place inueigheth against the Nouatian heretikes denying repentance to them that fell after baptisme according to the censure now mentioned vnder the name of Ambrose Against that rigor he saith that u Greg. Nazian ora 39. in sancta lumina In eodeÌ„ vitio sunt taÌ„ effraenata et omni animaduersionis meus soluta licentia quaÌ„ saeua nec vlla clemeÌ„tia temperata condemnatio illa omnes habenas vitijs laxans haec vehementiori astrictione praefocans in like sort are to be blamed both vnbridled licence freed froÌ„ all feare of punishment and cruel condemning not mingled or tempered with clemency and mercy the one loosing the bridle to all vices the other stifling men with ouermuch straightnesse Nicetas in his coÌ„mentary thus expresseth it x Nicet ibid. in comment Parem â—â—ea sententiae reprehensionem poenaÌ„que mereâ—â—ur qui vâ—l pâ—ccâ—â—s nulla pâ—â—â—ciuÌ„t 〈◊〉 â—mnes habâ—â—â—mit 〈…〉 qui eos 〈…〉 â—nant v◠〈…〉 consequ◠〈…〉 â—iae spâ—â—â—â—u relinqâ—â—â—â— They alike deserue to be reproued and punished who either punish not offenders at all but giue them wholly the bridle or do so condemne them as that they leaue them no hope to obtaine pardon He speaketh of the external gouernment and discipline of the Church wherin he blameth that men should be left at liberty to offend without feare of punishment and again blameth such extremity and rigor that offenders when they repent should be excluded from hope of pardon and what is this to proue that men being pardoned by God must notwithstanding yet make him a satisfactioÌ„ for their sinnes pardoned No man I suppose is so blind but that he seeth the falshood of this citation The other out of the same Father is of the same condition He speaketh of mercy and compassion as meanes y Oraâ— 27. de amore pauperum Miseratione purgemur animique labes et inquinamenta egregia illa herba detergamus c. to purge sins to scoure out the spots and filth of our soules but he saith nothing of satisfactioÌ„ to be made after that those spots and filth are purged and scoured Of the saying of Solomon which he alledgeth I haue spoken in the former section only it may be added that whereas he for mercy and truth readeth z Misericordia fide peccata purgantur By mercy and faith sins are purged or iniquitie is forgiuen which the Hebrew text beareth very well we may vnderstand it of Gods mercy in giuing and our faith in receiuing the forgiuenes of sins the promise thereof being made to them that beleeue in him Againe he bringeth vs Ambrose speaking of a Ambr. de Heliae ieiun cap. 20. Habemus plura subsidia quibus peccatâ— nostra redimamus Habes pecuniam redime peccatum tuum c. Et ep 82. Quae nobis salus esse potest nisi teiunio eluerimus peccata nostra redeeming our sins with our mony washing away sins with fasting but we heare nothing of satisfaction or redemption after the forgiuenesse of our sins Yea when he saith that the Lord is not to be bought and sold he giueth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth not that by our mony we purchase or merit at Gods hands and therfore can not be said therby to make him satisfaction for our sins That which he saith of redeeming he wil haue it vnderstood of freeing our selues from the cords or bonds of our sins that we may not be holden by the custome of them whilest by well doing we resist and crosse the practise and lusts thereof that they may not continue to bring vs vnto death b Ibid. Non venalis est Dominus sed tu ipse venalis es Peccatis tuis venundatus es Redime te operibus tuis redime te pecunia tua c. Venenum veneno excluditur Veneno mors repellitur vita seruatur The Lord saith he is not to be bought and sold but thou art so Thou art sold to thy sins Redeeme thy selfe by thy workes redeeme thy selfe by thy mony By one poison another poison is excluded by the poison of the Mammon of iniquitie death is repulsed life is preserued Here is a redemption for the excluding of sinne not to pay a satisfaction for it to set vs free from the bondage of committing sinne not to purchase the forgiuenesse of it Nay of that he hath said immediatly before c Ibid. Confugiamus ad mediciaÌ„ qui vulnera superiora curauit et siquid superest acerbitatis medela non decrit Etsi quid iniuriae fecimus memor noÌ„ erit qui semel donauit Etsi graeuia deliquimus magnuÌ„ medicuÌ„ inuenimus magnam medicinam gratiae eius accepimus Magna enim medicina tollit peccata magna Let vs flie to the Physition who hath cured our former wounds and if any bitternes be remaining there shal not want a medicine And if we haue done wrong he will forget it who hath once pardoned Albeit we haue greatly offended we haue a great Physition we haue receiued the great medicine of his grace for a strong or great medicine taketh away great sinnes That which is next alledged out of Hierome concerning Paula signifieth her lamentation of her former life and setteth out her repentance of her sinnes d Hieron epitap Paulae Jtaleuâ—a peccata plaÌ„gebat vt eam graussimorum criminuÌ„ crederes ream which being but small as Hierome saith she so bewailed as that a man would haue thought her guiltie of grieuous offences but that proueth not that she meant to make satisfaction hereby for pardoned sinnes neither doth he say any thing to that effect No more doth he as touching himselfe in the other epistle to Eustochium where he sheweth what hardnesse he endured at the first in the wildernesse to subdue the heate and lust of youth hauing as he saith e Hieron ad Eustoch Ob gehennae metum tali mecarcere ipse damnaueram for the feare of hell condemned himselfe to that prison but not so much as any word that he did any thing there for penance or satisfaction for his sinnes This is so wisely applied as that we may well thinke M. Bishop put it in of his owne head there being nothing either in words or in matter likely to serue the turne As little helpe hath he in the next citation which is out of
implicatus vt vix excusari possit quin sit in his sicut pâ—pulus sic sacerdos Then began mischiefes to be multiplied vpon the earth for there arose amongst men discords deceits trecheries treasons so as that they betrayed one another to death and destruction Spoyling and preying one vpon another destructions and wastings of countries burnings seditions warres and rapines whether in the streets or in places of robberies were iustified so as that now euery man is guilty of periurie and wrapped in these foresaid wicked acts and it cannot be excused but that as the people is in these things so is the Priest Platina the Popes Secretarie breaketh out in passion thus d Platin. de vit Pontif. in Marcellino Quid futurum nostrae aetati arbitramur qua vitia nostra eo creuere vt vix apud Deum misericor diae locum nobis reliquerint Qu vitae sit auaritia SacerdotuÌ„ quanta libido vndique conquisita quanta anabitio pompa quanta superbia desidia quaÌ„ta ignoratio tum sâ—â—psius tum doctrinae Christianae quà m paerua religio simulatae potiús quà m vera quà m corrupti mores vel in prophanis hominibus quos seculares vocant detestandi nihil attinet dicere cum ipsi ita apertè polam peccent acsi inde laudem quaererent What do we thinke shall befall in this our age wherin vices are grown to that that they haue scant left any place of mercy with God How great the couetousnesse of Priests is especially of them that are in place of gouernement how great their licentiousnesse affected euery way their ambition and pompe their pride and slouth their want of knowledge both of themselues and of the doctrine of Christ how little deuotion and that more counterfeited then true how corrupt their manners are to be detested euen in profane and secular men it skilleth not to say any thing for that they sinne so apparently and openly as if they sought to be commended for it And in another place thus e Idem in Stephano 3. Nunc adeò refrixit pietas religio non dico nudis pedibus sed caligati cothurnati vix supplicare dignantur Non flentinter eundum vel dum sacrificatur sed rident quidem impudenter de his etiam loquor quos purpura insigniores facit Non hymnos canunt id enim seruile videtur sed â—ocos fabulas ad risum concitandum inter senarrant Quo quis dicactor est petulantior eò maiorem in tam corruptis maribus laudem merciur Seueros graues viros reformidat hic noster clerus Now is pietie and deuotion waxen so cold as that I say not bare-footed nay hosed and booted they scant vouchsafe to pray They weepe not as they go or when they are at the sacrifice but they laugh and that impudently I speake euen of them whom their purple garments grace aboue other men they sing not the Hymnes for that seemeth a base matter but they tell one another tests and tales to make each other laugh The more prating and sawcie a man is the more is he thought in this corruption of manners worthy to be commended our Clergie brooketh not staied and graue men f In Gregor 4. Adeo in omnem luxum libidinem sese effundit Ecclesiasticus ordo The ecclesiasticall state hath giuen it selfe ouer to all luxurie and wanton lust Mathew of Paris said of the time wherein he liued g Mat. Paris in Henr. 3. anno 125â— Qui his temporibus malus non est optimus reputatur Jniquus cùm laedere cessat prodesse iudicatur In these times he that is not a bad man is thought to be very good the iust man when he forbeareth to hurt is deemed to do good Yea and Machiauell one of the fathers of the Romish generation yet did not doubt to say further that h Machiauel disput de rep l. 1. cap. 12. NusquaÌ„ minùs vel pietatis vel religionis est quà m in ijs hominibus qui viciniores Romae habitant no where was there lesse pietie or religion then in those that dwelt neerest to Rome I do here but point at some few things that come next to hand but he that would discourse this matter as it deserueth and would gather the flowers of Romish conuersation out of their owne stories or set forth the sanctified behauiours that are to be seene at Rome at Venice in Italy Spaine Portugall Fraunce amongst this Catholike generation yea or discouer the prety trickes of many of our Catholikes here at home should make it cleare enough that M. Bishop doth but play the hypocrites part in offering to i Mat. 7 3. plucke a mote out of his brothers eie and not seeing the great beame that is in his owne eie it would appeare that he hath small cause to bragge of the fruites of their doctrine of Pardons and satisfactions k Marsil Patau de sens pacis part 2. cap. 26. Veniae promissio perniciosa insana doctrina seductio animarum à Christianis omnibus contemnenda cauenda A madde and pernicious doctrine as Marsilius Patauinus called it long agoe the beguiling of soules worthy to be despised and fit to be taken heede of of all Christian men by which the Germanes complained l Cent grauam German art 3. Profligata Christi pietas extincta quando quilibet pro modo pretij quod in merces illas expendit peccandi impunitatem sibi pollicetur Hinc stupra incestus adulteria periuria homicidia furta rapinae foenora toâ—a malorum semel originem traxerunt Quod enim malorum amplius iam horrebunt mortales quando sibi peccandi licentiam impunitatem nedum in hac vita sed post obitum aere licet immodico comparari posse persuasum habet that the religion of Christ was abandoned extinguished with them for that euery man for a summe of mony bestowed vpon pardons promised to himselfe a liberty to sinne without any punishment Hence whoredomes say they incests adulteries periuries murthers thefts robberies vsurie and the whole sinke of mischiefes haue had their beginning For what will men feare any longer when they be perswaded that for mony thogh it be much not in this life only but after death also they may get a licence and impunity of sinne And indeede it is true which Hierome saith that m Hieron in Mat. 19. Faciliùs sacculus contemnitur quà m voluptas men more easily set light by their mony then they do by their pleasure n Cyprian lib 2. epist 2 Quod redinâ—â— potest non timetur neither doth any feare that which he may redeeme or buy out for mony as Cyprian speaketh Therefore when they perswaded men that they might satisfie for their sinnes and that almes was the most speciall worke of satisfaction and did supply the want of other satisfactions as before was said they that were
not so it is in like sort ridiculous to alledge that it belongeth to the Church to make the meaning of the Scriptures that the Church is Iudge it must rest in the power therof by expounding the scriptures to determine whether that which it selfe coÌ„mandeth be offence to God or not The Church indeede is Iudge but tied to bounds of law if the Church iudge against the euidence of the law then God himselfe by his owne word is to be the Iudge For what an absurditie shall it be further to require a Iudge where God himselfe hath pronounced a sentence or to enquire after a meaning where the law speaketh as plainely as the Iudge can deuise to speake When the Iudges of the people of the Iewes said z Eâ— 8.12 A confederacie and Esay the Prophet cried out say not A confederacie that is follow not them that leade you to leagues and couenants with idolatrous nations who was to be the Iudge betwixt them Esay saith to the people a Ver 20. To the law and to the testimonie if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Who was to be the Iudge when the Prophet Ieremie said one thing and b Ierem 26 1â— the Priests and Prophets who were the Iudges said another They said c Ver. 15. This man is worthy to die he saith If ye put me to death ye shall bring innocent bloud vpon your selues Who was now to be iudge betwixt them Surely none but d Ver 4. the lawes which God had set before them to which he calleth them e Cap. 11. 3. 4. the couenant which he commaunded their Fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt When our Sauiour Christ stood on the one side and the Iudges namely the high Priests and Scribes and Elders of the people on the other side where was the Iudge f Iohn 5.39 Search the Scriptures saith our Sauiour Christ for they are they that testifie of me We see the highest court of iudgement vnder heauen pronounceth sentence against the Sonne of God God indeed had appointed them for Iudges the righteousnesse of the cause of Christ was not to be discerned but only by the Scriptures Thus it hath bene in the Church of Christ the Donatists on the one side affirmed theÌ„selues to be the Church the Catholike and godly Bishops affirmed the Church to be with them whom did these godly Fathers make the Iudge Optatus speaking of a maine question betwixt them whether he that was already baptized though by an heretike might be baptized againe saith g Optat. contra Parmenian li. 5. Vos dicuis licèt nos dicimus Non liâ—et Jnter licâ—t vestrum non licet nestrum â—â—tant remigrant animae populoruÌ„ Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt iudices Si Christiani te viraque parte dari nosessâ—nt quia siudijs veritas impeditur Dâ—foris quaerenâ—us est iudixisi Paganus non potesi nosse secreta Christianâ—â— si liâ—â—◠〈◊〉 est Chriâ—tuâ—i baptisâ—atâ— Ergo ni â—â—rrâ—s dâ— hac reâ—ulâ—â—â— poterit reperâ—ri iudiciuÌ„ de 〈◊〉 quareâ—dus est iudex Sed vt quid pâ—â—â—sanus ad coelâ— â—â—â—m habemus hic in EuaÌ„gelio Testamentâ—m â—â—quâ—â— c. Ergo voluntas câ—â—â—vilut in Testamento sic in Euangelio inquiratur You say it is lawful and we say it is not lawfull Betweene your it is lawful and our it is not lawful the peoples soules do wauer Let none beleeue you nor vs we are all contentious men Iudges must be sought for if Christians they cannot be giuen of both sides for truth is hindred by affections A iudge without must be sought for if a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mysteries if a Iew he is an enemy of Christian baptisme No iudgement of this matter can be found on earth but froÌ„ heaueÌ„ But why knock we at heaueÌ„ wheÌ„ here we haue the testameÌ„t of Christ in the Gospell In the Gospell as in his Testament we are to enquire and search what his will is To the like effect Austin speaketh as touching a question betwixt him and the Pelagians whether there be sinne in infants from their birth or not h Aug. de nupt concupis lib. 2. cap. 33. Ista controuersia iudicem quaerit Iudicet ergo Christus cui reâ— mors eius profecerit ipse dicat Hic est inquit sanguis c. Judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus c. This controuersie requireth a iudge let Christ therefore be Iudge let himselfe say what his death serued for This is my bloud saith he which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes Together with him let the Apostle iudge because Christ himselfe speaketh also in the Apostle Thus they made no doubt to make the Scripture the Iudge or Christ himselfe in the Scripture knowing well that the iudgement of the Church in such cases is no other but only the pronouncing of a sentence already giuen by the highest Iudge To this purpose therefore he requireth of the Donatists the bringing foorth of such things as are euident and plaine because Christ somewhere or other hath plainely spoken whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to know i Idem de vnit Eccles cap. 5. Hoc praedico atque propono vt quaeque aeperta manifesta deligamus c. This I say before hand and propound that we make choyce of such speeches as are open and manifest We are to set aside such things as are obscurely set downe and wrapped vp in couers of figures and may be interpreted both for our part and for theirs It belongeth to acute men to iudge and discerne who doth more probably interpret those things but we will not in a cause which the people are interested in commit our disputation to such contentions of wit but let the manifest truth cry and shine foorth Reade to vs those things that are as plaine as those are that we reade to you Bring somewhat that needeth not any man to expound it This is the course of Ecclesiastical iudgement by this meanes they are to stoppe the mouths of contentious men and to satisfie the people that are interested in the cause By all this then it appeareth that God hath not left his Church destitute of authoritie of iudgement but hath both appointed Iudges and prescribed them lawes whereby to iudge onely that we remeÌ„ber that k Psal 82.1 he is the Iudge amongst the Iudges and the sentence must be his But now we know what it is that M. Bishop aymeth at for he would faine haue it conceiued that there should be some one to be iudge and that one must be the Pope They name sometimes the Church and somtimes the Councell but the Church is but the cloake-bagge and the Councell the capcase to cary the Pope whither it pleaseth them because neither
M. Bishop to presume but for God himselfe to determine who hath not thought fit to bring vs to perfection in this life that he may haue the whole glorie of our saluation in the life to come The words of Dauid are as little helpfull vnto him i Psal 119. I will runne the way of thy commaundements when thou hast set my heart at liberty So farre as we are at liberty so farre we runne and so fast we runne But we attaine not to that liberty yet but that being k Rom. 7.23 holden captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members we haue still cause to cry l 24. Who shall deliuer vs or set vs at liberty from this body of death m 2. Cor. 3.17 Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty We haue receiued as yet onely n Rom. 8.23 the first fruites of the spirit We haue yet therefore but the first fruites of liberty and there is still remaining somewhat o Heb. 12.1 that presseth downe and sinne hanging fast on so that we cannot runne without much hinderance and many falls and the p Mat. 26.41 willingnesse of the spirit findeth alwaies a let by the infirmitie and weaknesse of the flesh 43. W. BISHOP Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prooue the impossibility of keeping Gods commaundements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plainly for it saying That which was impossible to the law in that is weakened by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commaundements to be impossible Cap. 5. may appeare by that Epistle And his commaundements be not heauie Which is taken out of our Sauiours owne words My yoke is sweet Math. 11. and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailty they be very heauie yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost then loe do we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charity is the fulnesse of the law Rom. 13. And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the law Math. 22. Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the whole law and Prophets depend vpon these two commaundements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charity we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it so that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimonie of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly Serm. in illud Attende tibi to say that the commaundements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That we must beleeue firmely De nat gra cap. 69. that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant and no true lawmaker to commaâ—â—d his subiects to do that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe for those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to bind them vp to most assured perdition Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approoued Councell of Aransican as an article of faith in these words 2. Can. vlt. This also we beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued with the helpe and cooperation of Christ can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things which belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commaundements If thou wilt enter into life Math. 1â— keepe the commaundements This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good opinion of that that he hath done and if his fellowes do not accept it accordingly no doubt but he will thinke they do him great wrong As for vs we may by his leaue thinke that that we see that he hath babled much and said as good as nothing and that he is farre from being a man to take vpon him the confuting of any thing that is defended on our part But now leauing his confutation he goeth in hand with proofe of a possibility in vs to fulfill the law And first he alledgeth to that purpose the words of S. Paul in some part handled before a Rom. 8.3 That that was vnpossible to the law inasmuch as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification or righteousnesse of the law might be fulfilled in vs who walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Now of this place he saith that it formally teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne did purchase vs grace to fulfill the law which before was impossible to our weake flesh But he is still so full of formality that we can finde little matter in any thing that he saith How hath Christ purchased grace for vs to fulfill the law in that sence as here we speake of fulfilling the law when as the grace of Christ doth still leaue remaining in vs a weakenesse of flesh to which the Apostle saith it is a thing vnpossible to fulfill the law All M. Bishops teeth cannot vntie this knot If weakenesse of flesh hinder the fulfilling of the law then so long as we liue here the grace of Christ neuer putteth vs in state to fulfill the law because it neuer taketh from vs the weakenesse of the flesh His commentarie therefore is nothing woorth and because it is but his owne we make very small account or reckoning of it The cause of our not fulfilling the law continueth still and therefore we must referre the benefit here expressed to some other thing then our fulfilling of the law That the Apostle noteth first in saying that Christ condemned sinne comparing it thereby to a prisoner a robber or murtherer brought to the barre and there receiuing sentence of condemnation and death that thenceforth it should be bereaued of all action or accusation of all plea or power against vs. This Christ hath done for
vs by purchasing for vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes whereby b Rom. 4.6 the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes because as S. Austine saith c Aug. Retraâ—t lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei mandaâ—a facta deputaÌ„tur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the commaundements of God are reputed to be done when that that is not done is pardoned Now when all the commaundements of God are reputed to be done the iustification of the law is fulfilled in vs. For what is the iustification of the law but the iustification which the law might seeme to intend and propound vnto it selfe that we might be acquitted of sinne and accepted vnto life Thus the auncient Fathers expound it for d Theophylact. in Rom. ca. 8. Iustificatio laegis id est exitus ipse destinatio the scope the end the thing destinated by the law which when the law could not attaine vnto Christ performed it vnto vs by the forgiuenesse of our sinnes e Theodoret. ibid. Nostrum debitum exoluit legis scopum perfecit He paid our debt saith Theodoret and performed that which was the scope of the law f Oecumen ibid. Quis est finis legu Vt non essemuâ— maledictioâ—â— obnoxij Per Christum quideÌ„ in effectuÌ„ deductus est in nobis legis scopus What was the end of the law saith Oecumius That we should not be subiect to the curse By Christ then that which was the scope of the law was brought to effect in vs. So Chrysostome g Chrysost ibid. hom 13. Quae legis erat â—ustificacio non esse execrationi obnoxium id tibi perfecit Christus That which was the iustification of the law not to be subiect to the curse Christ hath effected vnto vs. Last of all Ambrose saith h Ambros ibid. Quomodo impletur in nobis iustificatio nisi cuÌ„ datur remissio omnium peccatorum How is the iustification of the law fulfilled in vs but when there is giuen vnto vs forgiuenesse of all our sinnes The Apostle therefore by the iustification of the law vnderstandeth not inherent righteousnesse but signifieth that that iustification which the law intended but through our default could not make good vnto vs by inherent righteousnesse Christ hath performed in purchasing for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes by which we are reputed iust and blamelesse in Gods sight and accepted to be inheritours of euerlasting life Now S. Ambrose to the former words addeth i Ibid. Vt sublatis peccatis iustificatus appareat mente seruiens legi Deâ— That a man being iustified by the taking away of his sinnes may appeare in his minde seruing the law of God whereby he noteth that to iustification by forgiuenesse of sinnes is adioined regeneration to inherent righteousnesse which he calleth afterwards k Ibid. SignuÌ„ iustificationâ— hoc est in homine vt per id quod inhabitat in eo iustificatus appareat esse filius Dei a signe of iustification And this we denie not but do alwaies most religiously teach the same onely we denie that this is that wherein consisteth our iustification before God but it is a sequell and signe thereof and we neuer attaine to the perfection of it whilest we liue here And if we will either directly or vndirectly vnderstand it in these words we must take thereof that which S. Austine saith that l Aug. de sp lit ca. 36. Sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis in huius vita tentatione laborantibus vt tameÌ„ sit quod peteÌ„tibus largitèr adâ—ciat et quod coÌ„fitentibus clemeÌ„ter ignoscat God so worketh in his Saints labouring in the temptation of this life as that there is yet for him largely to adde vnto them asking or crauing of him and mercifully to pardon them when they confesse it vnto him yea so as the same S. Austine elsewhere saith m Idem de ciu Dei li. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum as that our righteousnesse in this life rather consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Now therefore though the place be vnderstood of inherent righteousnesse yet it maketh not for M. Bishops turne because it prooueth onely that Christ shall restore vs to the perfect righteousnes of the law which we affirme that he beginneth in this life and shall fully accomplish in the life to come but it prooueth not that which he desireth that in this life we are enabled by the grace of Christ to the perfect fulfilling of the righteousnesse of the law To the other places that he alledgeth that the commaundements of God are not heauie that the yoke of Christ is easie and his burden light he himselfe in effect setteth downe the answer To our corrupt frailty saith he they be very heauie True and therefore so long and so farre as this corrupt frailty continueth so long and so farre the commaundements of God are still heauie vnto vs which must needs be till that which n 1. Cor. 15.42 43. shall be sowed in corruption and weakenesse shall be raised againe in incorruption and power When the vertue of charity saith he is powred into our soules then we do with delight fulfill them True so farre forth as charity is powred into our soules But so long as there is carnall concupiscence there cannot be perfect charity to take full delight in the law of God because o Aug. cont Iuliâ—n lib 4. cap. 2. InquaÌ„â—m inest nocet aâ— minuendam spiritualeÌ„ deleâ—â—ationem sanctaruÌ„ mâ—ntium illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei c. carnall coÌ„cupiscence euen by very being in vs as S. Austine saith doth abridge or diminish that spirituall delight of holy minds of which the Apostle saith I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man p Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 8. Tunc erit plena iustitia quaÌ„do plena sanitas tunc plena saenitas quendo plena charitas tunc plena charitas quando videbi mus sicuti est Then shall be perfect righteousnesse saith he againe that is perfect keeping of the commaundements of God when there shall be perfect health then perfect health when perfect charity then perfect charity when we shall see him as he is In the meane time loue keepeth the commaundements of God but yet vnperfectly because it selfe is but vnperfect euen as a lame man goeth but yet halteth â—n his going To be short the same S. Austine well obserueth that q IdeÌ„ de nat grat cap. 69. CoÌ„sideret noÌ„ potuisse diuinitus dici grauia non sunt nisi quia potest esse cordis affectus cui grauiae non sunt God could not haue said that his commaundements are not heauie but that there may be an affection of heart to which they are not heauie Therefore r
purged from sin not as causes effecting and working the same purgation or if we will vse the name of causes as causes to our apprehension knowledge not as causes of the essence and being of the thing But take all these speeches how we wil it shall appeare God willing in the next sectiō that they make nothing at al for M. Bishop and that they are impudently wrested to that purpose for which he alledgeth them In the meane time for the conclusion of this section he telleth vs a reason why they make speciall reckoning of these three workes for satisfaction but the ground of his reason fully ouerthroweth all the assertion thereof Being to satisfie saith he we must performe it with such things as be our owne But say we we haue nothing of our owne but whatsoeuer we haue is his i Rom. 11.36 of whom and through whom and for whom are all things Therefore as before hath bin concluded we cannot satisfie at all Whether they be goods of the mind or of the bodie or externall goods we owe all vnto him and we do but pay him with his owne His applying of the words of the Apostle to fasting is absurd Reasonable bodily discipline saith he whereas the Apostle by k Rom. 12.1 reasonable seruice meaneth that that is mentall and spirituall and thereby agreeable to God who is l Iohn 4.24 a spirit and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not any m 1. Tim. 4.8 bodily exercise which profiteth little as the same Apostle speaketh So the other words of a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable to God are misapplied to a particular act of fasting hauing a generall reference to the whole course of a Christian life and conuersation I omit the rest of his words as idle 18. W. BISHOP But now to knit vp this question let vs heare briefly what the best learned and purest antiquitie hath taught of this satisfaction done by man and because M. Perkins began with Tertullian omitting his auncients let vs first heare what he saith of it in his booke of penance How foolish is it saith he not to fulfill our penance and yet to expect pardon of our sinnes this is not to tender the price and yet to put out a hand for the reward for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price he proposeth impunitie to be redeemed with this recompence of penance His equall in standing and better in learning Origen thus discourseth See our good Lord tempering mercie with seueritie Hom. 3. in lib. Judic and weighing the measure of the punishment in a iust and merciful ballance he deliuereth not vp a sinner for euer But looke how long time thou knowest thy self to haue offended so long do thou humble thy selfe to God and satisfie him in the confession of penance That glorious Martyr and most learned Archbishop S. Cyprian is wonderful vehement against them that would not haue seuere penance done by such as fell in persecution Lib. 1. ep 3. saying That such indiscreet men labour tooth and naile that satisfaction be not done to God highly offended against them Lib. 3. ep 14. And saith further That he who withdraweth our brethren from these workes of satisfaction doth miserably deceiue them causing them that might do true penance and satisfie God their mercifull Father with their prayer and workes to perish dayly and to be more and more seduced to their further damnation Orat. in illa verba attende tibi Idem Ambr. ad virg lap cap. 8. S. Basil sath Look to thy selfe that according to the proportion of thy fault thou mayst hence also borrow some help of recouering thy health Is it a great and grieuous offence it hath then need of much confession bitter teares a sharpe combat of watching and vncessant and continued fasting if the offence were light and more tollerable yet let the penance be equall vnto it Orat in sanct lum S. Gregory Nazianzē saith It is as great an euil to pardon without some punishment as to punish without all pitie For as that doth loose the bridle to all licentiousnesse so this doth straine it too much Jdem de paup amor By compassion on the poore and faith sinnes are purged therefore let vs be clensed by this compassion let vs scoure out the spots and filth of our soules with this egregious herb that makes it white some as wool others as snow according to the proportion of euery mans compassion and almes De Helia Ieiun S. Ambrose saith We haue many helpes whereby we may redeeme our sinnes hast thou mony redeeme thy sinne not that our Lord is to be bought and sold but thou thy self art sold by thy sins redeeme thy selfe with thy workes redeeme thee with thy money And Epist. 82. how could we be saued vnlesse we washed away our sinnes by fasting S. Hierome maketh Paula a blessed matron say My face is to be disfigured which against the commaundement of God I painted my bodie is to be afflicted that hath taken so great pleasure my often laughter is to be recompenced with continuall weeping my silkes and soft clothing is to be changed into rough haire Reade another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium Ad Eustoch de obitu Paulae about the preseruing of her virginitie and see what penance himselfe did being a most vertuous yong man S. Augustine saith He that is truly penitent Epist. 54. looks to nothing else then that he leaues not vnpunished the sinne which he committed For by that meanes not sparing our selues he whose high and iust iudgement no contemptuous person can escape doth spare vs. And he sheweth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest and receiue of him the measure of his satisfaction Lib. 50. hom Hom. 50. cap. 11. Cap. 15. And saith directly against our Protestants position That it is not sufficient to amend our manners and to depart from the euill which we haue committed vnlesse we do also satisfie God for those things which we had done S. Gregory saith That sins are not onely to be confessed Lib. 6. in 1. Reg. but to be blotted out with the austeritie of penance I will close vp these testimonies with this sentence of our learned countriman venerable Bede Delight saith he or desire to sinne Jn Psal 1. when we do satisfaction is lightly purged by almesdeeds and such like but consent is not rubbed out without great penance now custome of sinning is not taken away but by a iust and heauie satisfaction R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop knitteth vp the question but he knitteth it gentle Reader with a bow-knot if thou haue but skill to pull the right string thou shalt presently loose all that he hath knit Aske him and let him tell thee the true state of the question here disputed and thou canst presently discerne that of these so many testimonies by him alledged there is none not so much as