way stirreth yet the inward corrupt qualitie sticketh still euen as a man is truly said to be i Jbid. Sicut inest timiditas ho mini tââido etiaÌ quando ne sumet timorous fearfull when yet for the present time he feareth nothing Now the question here is of both these both the sticking euill qualitie and the first and immediate motions and stirrings thereof before they be apprehended and consented vnto by the will For many times euill cogitations and thoughts arise in the heart which yet a man checketh and for which he is grieued at himselfe and reproueth himselfe and by no meanes will yeeld way vnto them Of these therefore together with the fountaine whence they spring the controuersie is whether they do properly vndergo the name of sinne Now what sinne is the Apostle Saint Iohn briefly instructeth vs saying that k 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law His word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifieth all priuation or defect whereby we come short of that that is commaunded or required by the lawe To which purpose the Apostle Saint Paule telleth vs that l Rom. 3.20 by the lawe is the knowledge of sinne and that m Cap 7.7 he had not knowne sinne but by the law For how is sinne knowne by the lawe but by that we vnderstand it to be sinne whatsoeuer declineth or swarueth from the lawe euen as the Apostle for example addeth that he had not knowne lust to be sinne except the lawe had said Thou shalt not lust presuming it as graunted that it is sinne whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe And this the Apostle Saint Iohn further confirmeth in that he saith that n 1. Ioh 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne For what is vnrighteousnesse but the transgressing of the lawe which is the rule of righteousnesse If then all vnrighteousnesse be sin and all transgression of the lawe be vnrighteousnesse then all transgression of the lawe is sinne The heathen Orator Tully could say that o Tul. Paradox 3. Est peccare tanquam transire lineas peccare to sinne is as a man would say to go without or beyond the bounds or lines We are listed and bounded by the lawe of God it draweth vs lines within the compasse whereof we are to keepe our selues What is it then to sinne with vs but to breake the bounds prescribed vnto vs and to go beside that which we are directed by the law Therfore saith Origen p Origen in Ro. cap 7. Peccati natura hac est si fiat quod lex fieri vetat This is the nature of sin if any thing be done which the law forbiddeth to be done Oecumenius out of the ancient Commentaries of the Fathers saith to the like purpose that q Oecum in 1. Joan cap. 3. Conueniunt inter se circa idem sunt Rectè discipulus Domini vtrunque in ideÌ commutauit sin and transgression of the law do agree together and that rightly S. Iohn did make them both one So r Grego Moral lib. 11. cap. 21. Inter peccatum iniquitatem nihil distare perhibet Ioannes qui ait peccatuÌ est iniquitas Gregorie Bishop of Rome calling transgression of the law by the name of iniquity as the vulgar Latin translateth it saith that betwixt sin and iniquity that is betwixt sin and the transgression of the law S. Iohn doth witnesse that there is no difference In like sort Bede saith that Å¿ Beda in 1. IoaÌ 3. Omne quod ab aequitatis ratione discrepat in peccatis numeratur all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is sinne Caesarius the brother of Gregory Nazianzene telleth vs that t Caesar dialog 3. apud Nazianz. Peccatum mihi esse videtur omnis aduersus virtuum resistende coâatus repugnantia he taketh it that sinne is all assay of resistance and all repugnancie against vertue Saint Austine saith that u Aug. de nat grat cap. 14. Ideo est peccatuÌ quia non debet fieri therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to be done and that x Contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3. Qui malè facit aliquid profecto peccat to do any thing amisse is to sinne Againe he defineth y August cont Faust Manich. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum vel dictuÌ vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam sinne to be euery thing that is said or done or coueted against the euerlasting law of God Yea Thomas Aquinas saith that z Thom Aquin. 1. 2. q. 109. art 4. in corp Nihil est aliud peccare quà m transgredi diuina mandata to sinne is nothing else but to transgresse the commandements of God In a word the curse of God belongeth to nothing saue to sinne onely But the curse of God belongeth to euery swaruing from the law of God for a Gal. 3.10 cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to do them Therefore euery swaruing from the lawe of God is properly and truly reckoned to be sinne And surely this is a truth so apparant and euident as that we may wonder not at the blindnesse for vndoubtedly they see it well enough but at the extreame peruersenesse and impudencie of the Papists that so stiffely stand in the deniall thereof Now then the question being whether concupiscence or lust in it selfe be sinne in the regenerate man the resolution is very readie and plaine and the answer manifestly apparant that because euery diuerting or swaruing from the lawe is sinne therefore concupiscence must necessarily be sinne in as much as it is a declining from the lawe saying Thou shalt not lust And therefore doth the Apostle say that he knew lust to be sinne as before was noted because the law sayd Thou shalt not lust He calleth and tearmeth it sinne againe and againe so as that we may wonder that he should call it sinne sinne and yet his meaning should be that it is not sinne For as Tertullian saith b Tertul. aduers Hermogen Acuius habitu quid diuertit pariter à vocatu eius recedit Looke from the being and nature whereof a thing departeth it departeth also from the name and calling thereof If therefore concupiscence had lost the nature of sinne it should consequently also be depriued of the name But now whereas M. Perkins alledged the words of the Apostle that sinne dwelling in him made him to do the euill which he hateth M. Bishop telleth vs that contrarie to M. Perkins purpose and intention those words do proue that sinne must be there taken improperly And how so I pray you For saith he if it made him to do the euill which he hated then could it not be sinne properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the will Where by Aequiuocation of tearmes he meerely abuseth his Reader For the
sinne be ascribed to that person which hath neither will nor power to sinne so do I answere to this scholler of Iulian that d Cont. Iulian lib. 6. ca 4. Aliud est perpetratio propriorum aliud alienorum contagio delictorum it is one thing to speake of committing sinnes of a mans owne another thing to speake of he contagion that commeth by anothers sinne Our speech is here of a sinne that without any consent or act of ours is deriued vnto vs by contagion from our father Adam which though it be ours without any consent of ours and against our wils doth tempt vs and entise vs yet we confesse cannot be perpetrated and committed but by the consent and liking of the will M. Bishop if he had meant honestly should haue accordingly propounded the obiection as M. Perkins did that the answer might be seene to be direct and plaine as indeed it is But he thought that was not for his turne he knoweth that by truth simplicity he cannot thriue with bad wares and therefore must vse shufling and shifting for the vttering of them But let vs now see what his reply is to M. Perkins answer to that obiection M. Perkins saith that the proposition that euery sin is voluntary is a politicke rule pertaining to the courts of men and doth not hold in the court of conscience which God holdeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformity to the law is made a sinne To this M. Bishop answereth full wisely Little knowes this man what belongeth to the court of conscience there secret faults indeed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie which is done without a mans free consent Where when M. Perkins hath spoken of a court of conscience kept by God he answereth of a court of conscience kept by men and those as we must vnderstand him his owne fellowes and so to the purpose answereth nothing In Gods court of conscience e Mat. 15.19 euill thoughts defile a man what they do in their courts of conscience it skilleth not In Gods court of conscience f Rom. 7.7 to lust is to sinne because the law hath said Thou shalt not lust it is a signe that they haue no conscience that keepe a court of conscience to iudge against that that God hath iudged that to lust is no sinne In Gods court of conscience g 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne and therefore all transgression of the law because it is vnrighteousnesse is sinne if their court of conscience determine otherwise it must abide the censure of his court and receiue check and charme froÌ thence In Gods court of conscience is required h Deut. 6.3 all the heart and all the mind and all the soule and all the strength and the true informed conscience for not giuing all resteth conuicted of sinne what court of conscience do they keepe that giue but a part in steed of all and yet haue a conscience to say that they sinne not therein What court of conscience do they keep that frame Gods commandements to their conscience and not their conscience to Gods commandements whose conscience is like the bed of Procrustes the giant whatsoeuer God saith that is too short for it they haue a rack to stretch it longer whatsoeuer God saith that is too long for it they haue an axe to cut it shorter M. Bishop did amisse in steed of a court of conscience kept by God to tell vs of a court of conscience kept by them But if we will speake of a court of conscience for resoluing cases of conscience we may well esteeme by that that we see that M. Perkins did much better know what belongeth to the court of conscience then M. Bishop doth As for those learned in that faculty of whom he speaketh all whelps of the same foxe what they think it is nothing to vs but more learned then they are do know as hath bene shewed that sinne may be without consent of the will nay against the will of him in whom it is sinne For euill motions and thoughts arise in the regenerate man against his will and it hath bene sufficiently proued that such euill motions and thoughts are sinne and who is there that hath a feeling conscience that doth not condemne himselfe in the arising thereof and aske God forgiuenesse that his mind hath bene ouertaken and caried away into such thoughts howsoeuer he haue preuented the consent and liking of them But saith M. Bishop to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer he went to sleepe if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse whereupon doth ensue any euil motion in his flesh Where he hath turned conformity to Gods law into conformity to reason and maketh M. Perkins to talke of conformity in the body who mentioneth nothing of the body onely that he may make way thereby to a dreaming answere of an vncleane dreame Which dreames notwithstanding are a very strong argument of a pollution and vncleannesse of nature yet habitually remaining and a very proper effect thereof which it is Gods mercy not to impute vnto vs for i August cont Iulian lib. 4 ca. 2. Cum sopitos deludunt omnia sensus nescio quomodo etiam casiae animae in turpes labuÌ ur assensus quae si imputares Altissimus quis viueret castus if the most high should impute the same saith S. Austine who should liue chast M. Bishop maketh nothing hereof but S. Austine saith that such dreames are breach of chastity and therein sinne if God should impute the same And therefore he saith that when k Jbid. Si quaÌdo ab eis vllum vel in somnis furatur assensum cuÌ euigilauerint gemere compellit et inter gemitus dicere Quomodo impleta est anima mea illusionibus concupiscence thus in sleepe stealeth a consent when chast soules hereby fall into consent of filthinesse they mourne and grieue thereat when they are awake He teacheth his hearers l De Temp. ser 45. Aliquando ista concupiscentia sic insidiaetur sanctis vt faciat dormientibus quod non potest vigilantibus pudet hic immorari sed ne pigeat inde deü precari not to thinke much to aske God mercy for it when concupiscence so snareth them to do that to them when they are a sleepe which it cannot do when they are awake And this he himselfe bemoneth to God coÌcerning himselfe m Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. In somnis occursant mihi talium rerum imagines non solum vsque ad delectationem sed etiam vsque ad coÌsensioneÌ factuÌque simillimum c. Potens est manus tua sanare omnes languores animae mea c. Perpetrat istas corrupielarum turpitudines c Lugens in eo quod inconsummaetus sum
euill not without the euill it selfe And thus much in infinite places he giueth to vnderstand So farre therefore as sinne implieth guilt he denieth concupiscence in the regenerate to whom it is forgiuen to be any longer sinne because they are not thereby holden guilty and in this we gainsay him not because it is but as if he should say that though in it selfe it be sinne yet to the faithfull it is as if it were no sinne because it is not imputed for sinne whereto willingly we accord But the question is whether in it owne nature it be not such as that it should make guiltie saue onely that it is pardoned and that did S. Austine neuer deny as before hath bene proued he confesseth it to be c Ibid. vt suprae such an euill as should draw vs vnto euerlasting death onely for being in vs but that the guilt thereof is remitted Now this cannot be affirmed of any thing but that that is properly and truly sinne and therefore it cannot be doubted but that S. Austine did take concupiscence to be sinne according to the true and proper vnderstanding of the name of sinne This true and proper nature of sinne is before shewed to consist in a defect obliquity or swaruing from the law of God For the law of God is the true image and description and perfect rule of righteousnes and euery declining from the rule of righteousnesse is vnrighteousnesse and d 1. Iohn 5.17 all vnrighteousnesse is sinne therefore euery declining from the law of God is sinne And this is so true as that e Pigh de peccat origin cont 1. PropriaÌ veramque peccati rationem Ioannes explicat peccatum est iniquitas c. id est obliquatio à rectitudine quae nobis lege praescribitur aut legu transgressio Pighius in his time a maine pillar of the church of Rome doth fully approoue it and maintaineth it with all his might that it is a true and perfect definition of sinne which S. Iohn hath set downe that sinne is the transgression of the law Now because the law requireth not onely outward actions but also the inward fixed disposition and quality of righteousnesse not onely workes of charity but also the inward habite of charity whence all such workes are to proceed it followeth that if there be a contrary quality or habite the same is sinne because it is a declining from the law Seeing therefore concupiscence not onely in the first acts motions of it but euen habitually is f August cont Julian lib. 2. defectus à iustitia a defecting or declining froÌ righteousnesse as S. Austine calleth it seeing it is a very habituall g Rom. 7.23 et 8.7 enmity and rebellion against the law of God all M. Bishops learning cannot auoid it but that it must necessarily be concluded to be sinne But yet to giue some shew of auoiding it he sendeth vs to Thomas Aquinas to learne of him now in the end of the world another forme and definition of sinne which is the deordination of the will so that howsoeuer other faculties and powers be distorted and corrupted yet we must thinke there is no sinne so long as there is an integrity and right disposition of the wil. Which position is absurdly false because the loue of God requireth h Deut. 6.5 Luc 10.27 all the heart all the mind all the soule all the thought and strength i August de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 22. Nullum ase riuulum duci extra patitur cuius deriuatione minuatur It endureth not that any streame should be drawen from it by the deriuing whereof it should any way be diminished But the will of man is not the whole man and therefore albeit there be supposed a rectitude and integrity of the will yet is not sinne hereby excluded if there be a defect or failing in any other part Yet that being graunted to M. Bishop he is no whit the neerer to his purpose hereby For if the deordination of the will be sinne then concupiscence is sinne because concupiscence is the deordination of the will For it hath bene before declared that k Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Jpsa capiditas nihil est aliud quam voluÌtas 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 adâib retur voluntas quanta sufficii ââaerâ 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 TaÌto 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
may be a difference in vs but Christ cannot be diuided neither is there in him any difference from himselfe Where he goeth he goeth whole and therefore what he is to the strong the same is he to the faint and feeble soule There is greater assurance and lesse assurance but the matter wherof each doth take assurance is the whole mercie of God in Christ 38. W. BISHOP Whether it be possible for a man in grace to fulfill Gods law Pag. 95. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible first for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admit it were so Gal. 5. I then wold answer that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the lawe cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace Rom. 8. he might be able to do it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith that that which was vnpossible to the lawe is made by the grace of Christ possible 2 Obiect The liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect and stayned with sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article 3 Obiect Our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our workes were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh Rom. 8.13 Not so if we mortifie the deedes of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth R. ABBOT The deniall of the possibility of keeping Gods commandement or of fulfilling the law is not absolutely meant God forbid that we should say that God hath commanded any thing vnpossible to be done We beleeue that Adam was created in state to fulfill all the righteousnesse of the law We beleeue that Christ in our nature hath fulfilled the same for vs and that we by Christ in the end shall fully be restored to the perfection thereof In the meane time also we keepe the commandements of God and frame our liues according to the line and rule thereof and herein we labour and trauell to grow and increase from day to day but we attaine not to perfection here that which we do is more in will then in worke more in desire then in deede In the midst of our righteousnesse we condemne our selues of sin we carry our vncleannesse in our hands and thereby do yeeld confession thereof to the Lord if we will say that we fulfill the law our owne mouth shall condemne vs who accordingly as we are taught do daily aske forgiuenes for our transgressions of the lawe There is no man so long as he liueth but must confesse that he is too weake to the bearing of that burthen and cometh much short euery manner of way of that that is required by the law And this S. Paule tooke indeed for the ground of his whole disputation against iustification by the law For rightly he saith a Gal. 3.21 If there had bene a lawe giuen which could haue giuen life then righteousnes shold haue bene by the law He taketh it for granted that the law could not giue life not because it was defectiue in it selfe but because by our defect we were not capable of the life that was offered thereby euen as the Sunne cannot giue light to the blind not for any want that is in it but because the blind hath not meanes to make benefit and vse of the light that most clearely shineth from the Sunne Which reason the Apostle more plainely declareth otherwhere when he saith that b Rom. 8.3 it was impossible for the law namely to iustifie and saue vs because it was weakened by the flesh Wherby he signifieth that the default resteth vpon our weaknesse and the corruption of our sinfull flesh whereby we are vnable in any sort to attaine to that righteousnesse and perfect integritie and innocencie that the law requireth of vs. Now if flesh do hinder the law from being able to iustifie vs then so long as flesh continueth there must needes be still a weaknesse of the law in that behalfe But so long as here we liue there is still c Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit and d Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the mind We can neuer therefore whilest we liue attaine to the fulfilling of the law to be iustified thereby This remainder of flesh doth argue that we haue yet receiued the grace of God but onely in part It hath begun to heale vs but a great part of our disease and weaknesse continueth still We are therefore as yet but in part onely enabled thereby to fulfill the law and if we keepe it but in part we keepe it not so as to be iustified by the law because by the sentence of the law e âal 3.10 cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things that are written therin This meaning the Apostle plainely deliuereth neither doth M. Bishop gather any other meaning from him but by the corrupting of his words alledging him as if he had said That that was impossible to the law is made by the grace of Christ possible But why doth he put in that vnder the Apostles name which the Apostle doth not say he neither saith nor meant to say that to fulfill the law is made possible by the grace of Christ but rather that in Christ that iustification is supplied vnto vs which it is vnpossible should be yeelded vnto vs by the law And how could he gather that meaning from him when he could not but know that notwithstanding the grace of Christ he affirmeth still in part a remainder of that impediment by which it was vnpossible before to fulfill the lawe But of this text there will be further occasion to speake in the three and fortieth section The second reason alledged by M. Perkins against the opinion of fulfilling the law is that the liues and workes of the most righteous men are vnperfect and stained with sinne M. Bishop very quipperly demandeth Ergo quid he knew the ergo well inough Ergo no man can fulfill the law For if the most righteous faile in that behalfe then it followeth that generally all are excluded from that power If all must confesse themselues to be vnperfect if all must acknowledge themselues to be sinners then all must confesse as I said before that they faile of the performance of the law The connexion would haue bene considered here but M. Bishop pretily passeth it ouer vnder pretence of a seuerall article for the handling of the proposition what he saith of that we shal see anone M. Perkins
they do not fulfil all and M. Bishop saith of them whom he nameth that they did fulfill all The Pelagians alledged amongst others Zacharie and Elizabeth as M. Bishop doth because it is said of theÌ h Luk. 1.6 Both were iust before God and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe S. Austin answereth them i Aug. contra Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap 48. Dictum est quantuÌ mihi videtur secundum quandaÌ inter homines conuersationem probabilem atque laudabilem quaÌ nullus hominum iustè posset in accusationis criminationis querelam vocare Quam proptereà in conspectu Dei habuâsse referuntur quia in ea homines nulla dissimulatione fallebant sed vt apparebant homi nibus ita noti erant oculis Dei It is spoken as seemeth to me as touching a commendable and prayse-worthy conuersation amongst men which no man could iustly caâ into quarrell of accusation or crime Which therefore they are said to haue had before God because they therein did not deceiue men by any dissimulation but as they appeared to men so they were knowne to the eyes of God Therefore he maketh of that which was said of them no more but that which the Apostle saith of himselfe k Phil. 3.6 As touching the righteousnesse of the law I was vnrebukable when as yet he was not called to the grace of Christ l Aug. de pecca mer. remiss lib. 2. cap. 13. Quid de illis laudabile dictuÌ est quod non in eo comprehendatur quod de se Apostolus cùm in Christum non dum credidisset professus est c. What commendable thing is spoken of theÌ saith he which is not comprehended in that which the Apostle professed of himselfe when as yet he had not beleeued in Christ that according to the righteousnesse that is in the law he was without reproofe m Oros Apolog de arbit libert Sine crimine dici quenquam sine querela non est perfectionis testimonium sed conuersationis ezemplum In being said in the Scripture to be without crime or reproofe saith Orosius is not imported a testimonie of perfection but an example of conuersation It is manifest therefore that that which is written concerning them is not to be drawne to the auouching of that fulfilling of the lawe which M. Bishop here defendeth for iustification before God Yea and it is further to be noted that Zachary was a Priest and the Priests manner was n Heb. 7.27 first to offer sacrifice for his owne sinnes then for the peoples Zachary therefore offered sacrifice for his owne sins But o 1. Ioh. 3.4 sinne is the transgression of the law if Zachary then were a transgressor of the lawe it is false that Master Bishop saith that he fulfilled the whole lawe Still therefore it standeth good against all subuerters of truth as touching the morall lawe that in respect of iustificatioÌ it is a yoke which neither Iosue nor Dauid nor Iosias nor Zachary and Elizabeth nor any of those others whom M. Bishop meaneth haue bene able to beare and therefore we haue nothing to rest vpon but onely the faith of Iesus Christ to be iustified in him 40. W. BISHOP Rom. 7. To will is in me but I find not how to performe If S. Paule could not performe that which he would how can others Answer He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not marry he could well by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them The like answer we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbors goods his wife or seruants which as they say is vnpossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commandement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue ill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man Lib. 10. conf cap. 7. euen when he is asleepe and testifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it R. ABBOT M. Bishop hath a good facility in propounding our arguments but he hath very ill hap in answering of them S. Paule would willingly haue auoyded all euill motions saith he but he could not Therefore say we he could not fulfill the lawe He could subdue those prouocations to sinne saith he and not suffer them to lead him to the breach of any of the commandements For what is it whereof the Apostle saith as is alledged a Rom. 7 18. To will is present with me but I find not how to performe that that is good It is euen the commaundement whereof he hath said before b Ver. 12. The commandement is holy and iust and good for instance whereof and clearer euidence he setteth downe the commandement c Ver. 7. Thou shalt no lust which he still prosecuteth vnder the name of good Paul then confesseth that though he had a will to keepe and fulfill the law and namely the commandement Thou shalt not lust yet he could not find meanes to attain to that perfection and why then doth M. Bishop attribute to him the keeping of all the commandements so as not to be led to the breach of any one of them d August de nupt concup lib. 1. cap. 27. Lex non vult vt concupiscam quae dicit Non concupisces ego nolo coÌcupiscere Concupiscere nolebat tamen concupiscebat The law would haue him not to lust in that it saith Thou shalt not lust and he was willing not to lust but yet he did lust how then should we say that he did fulfill the law If the law forbid euil motions and prouocations and it is not possible for vs to auoid them or to free our selues from them it must follow that it is not possible for vs to fulfill the law But we forsooth do not vnderstand the commandement rightly which M. Bishop telleth vs doth not prohibit euill motions of couetousnesse and lecherie but onely consent vnto them So then the law saith Thou shalt not lust but M. Bishop saith Yes thou maist lust without any sinne but thou maist not consent vnto thy lust But farre otherwise S. Austin saith that e Idem Epist 200. In iustitia nondum consummata perseueranter proficientes ad eius consummationem quandoque veniemus vbi peccati concupiscentia non cohibenda atque fraenanda sed nulla sit Hoc enim posuit lex dicendo Non coÌcupisces the law in saying Thou shalt not lust doth set downe that there shall be no
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 coelârum non intrât in regnum coelârum 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 âubeatur 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 adiuuaÌte 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 coÌsummata 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 coÌcerned 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 coÌfirming of the Church of Christ accordingly as elsewhere he saith g 2. Tim. 2.10 I suffer all things for the elects sake But the restraint that Bernard vseth is not to be omitted h Bernard de dilig Deo In illo omma potest quae tamen possâ prosit He is able to do all things that is all which it is behoouefull that he be able to do Now what is behoouefull it is not for
do forbeare to impute the vices or defaults of humane passions and affections Whereupon he himselfe saith Å¿ Ibid. Confitetur etiam peccata iustorum magis eos asserens in Dei misericordia spem ponere quà m de iustitia sua fidere He confesseth the sinnes euen of iust men affirming that they rather trust to the mercie of God then haue any confidence of their owne righteousnesse It is not therefore the merit of righteousnesse that we can rest vpon but onely the pardon of Gods mercie by which as we haue obtained the gift of righteousnesse so we expect also the reward and crowne thereof that it may be verified which the Prophet saith t Psal 103 4. He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion and that of the Apostle that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Now to these collections M. Bishop addeth a caueat that this iustice though perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet in comparison of the state of iustice in heauen may be called vnperfect Which is as much as if he should say that it is perfect in it selfe so farre as it may be perfect there where it cannot be perfect For there is not in this life any capacitie of perfect righteousnesse as wherein we continue still with the Apostle u Rom. 7.14.19 carnall sold vnder sinne not doing the good that we would by reason of x Gal. 5.17 the flesh lusting against the spirit y Rom. 7.23 rebelling against the law of the minde leading vs captiue to the law of sinne which is in our members so as that to auoide the entisements of the world and to keepe our selues in our course entierly to God is as S. Ambrose saith z Ambros de suga seculi cap. 1. Res voti magis quà m effectus a matter that we do more wish and desire then we can effect and do and when we haue laboured much for it cannot but condemne our selues for being so farre from it But against this deuice of his we must note what hath bene said that our perfection here is not without some filth and that it leaueth vs still euill and therefore is not perfect in it selfe Yea and S. Hierome againe against the Pelagians distinguishing a Hieron adis Pelag lib. 1. Perspicuum est duas in scripturis sanctis esse perfectiones duasque iustitias Primam perfectionem incomparabilem veritatem perfectamque iustitiam Dei virtutibus coaptandam secundam autem quae competit nostrae fragilitati âuxta illud quod dicitur Non iustificabitur c. ad eam iustitiam quae non comparatione sed Dei sceintia dicitur esse perfecta two sorts of perfection and righteousnesse the one to be compared to the righteousnesse of God the other belonging to the frailty of man denieth our perfection in this latter kinde and saith that in this sort it is true that no man liuing shall be iustified in Gods sight which he affirmeth to be spoken as touching a righteousnesse called perfect not by comparison but in respect of the knowledge of God The knowledge of God then which knoweth all things according to truth yet knoweth no iustice or perfection in vs whereby we are able to stand iust and perfect before him Therefore Gregory saith that b Grego Moral lib. 5. cap. 8. Ipsa nostra perfectio culpa non caret nisi haâc seuerus iudex in subtili lince examinis misericorditèr peâset our very perfection is not without fault vnlesse the seuere Iudge do with mercy weigh it in the precise ballance of his examination Neither is it to be omitted which S. Austine saith that c Aug. de Temp. ser 49. In coÌparatione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota ista vita quâm gerimus Vnusquisque metiatur se quid est modò quid erit tunc inueniet in comparatione illius ista damna esse stercora all the life which we liue here that is all the righteousnesse of this life is but dung in comparison of the resurrection that if a man measure himselfe what he is now and what he shall be then he shall finde that that which now is is but losse and doung in comparison of that Which how can it be true if that that is in this life be perfect in it selfe so perfect as that it faileth not in any duty which we are bound to performe yea as that it meriteth and deserueth the righteousnesse of heauen Can that that in comparison is but drosse and doung be truly said to deserue the righteousnesse of heauen But concerning the same he addeth further that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law So then thereby a man shall be free from all formall sinne and shall haue no formall trespasse for which to say forgiue vs our trespasses and of formall transgression it shall not be true which S. Iohn saith d 1. Iohn 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues or which S. Iames saith e Iam. 3 2. In many things we offend all Is not this a formall foolery of a man that would be taken to be wise These are drunken fancies fit for no other but drunken men that neither know themselues nor others and therefore we can take M. Bishop for no other but a vile hypocrite who contrary to his owne conscience and knowledge pleadeth in this sort for the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But to fill vp the measure of his lewd dealing he falsifieth another place of Austine making him to say that it belongeth to the lesser iustice that is the iustice of this life not to sinne Wherein he goeth about to make S. Austine a promoter and vpholder of that heresie which with all his might he oppugned in the Pelagians who defended as M. Bishop here doth a righteousnesse in this life wherby a man may be free from sin And indeed the words which M. Bishop alledgeth out of Austine are the aduersaries obiection not the assertion of Austine himselfe He bringeth them in by way of supposition what may be said namely that f Aug de sp lit ca. 36 Sed dici potest quadam iustitia minor huic vitae competens qua iustus ex fide viuit c Non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinere ne peccet there is a lesser righteousnes belonging to this life wherein the iust liueth by faith to which righteousnes it pertaineth not to sinne Which obiection hauing prosecuted more at large and alledged what may be said for the maintenance thereof he at length setteth down answer whereof a part is contained in these words g Ibid. Tales iusti ex fide viuentes non opus habent Deo dicere Dimitte nobis c. Falsumque esse conuincunt quod sâriptuÌ est Non iustificabitur c. Sed quia haec falsa esse non possunt
his argument must be this Whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne But euery man is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table therefore euery man is bound to sinne His Prosyllogisme for the proofe of his maior proposition out of his owne words must arise thus Whosoeuer necessarily sinneth in doing the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne but whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table necessarily sinneth in the doing therof therefore whosoeuer is bound to do the duties of the first and second Table is bound to sinne Here his maior proposition is apparently absurd for though a man by reason of infirmity cannot but sinne in doing his duty yet it is the duty onely that he is bound to and not to the sinne because the sinne is not implyed in the dutie but ariseth by casuall and accidentall necessitie from the condition of the man Now therefore a man may doubt whether is greater in this man his malice or his ignorance In respect of his malice we may vse to him the words of the Prophet Dauid c Psal 52.3.5 Thy tongue imagineth wickednes and with lies thou cuttest like a sharpe razor Thou hast loued to speake all words that may do hurt O thou false tongue In respect of his ignorance we may iustly scorne him as a presumptuous and sawcie companion who being of so base qualitie and not knowing how to frame an argument aright would take vpon him to encounter a whole armie of learned men and so insolently dedicate his vnlearned fooleries to the King 47. W. BISHOP First they alledge these words Enter not O Lord Psal 141. into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their workes are iust in his sight Answer There are two common expositions of this place among the ancient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The former is S. Augustines S. Ieromes De perf iustic Epist ad Ctâs S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place who say that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life or else afterward in Purgatory Wherefore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God not to deale with them according vnto their deserts for if he should so do they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults or else indure Gods iudgements for them before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deedes The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best Writers vpon the Psalmes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Arnobius S. Euthimius and others which is also S. Augustins S. Gregories All these say Lib. ad Croâia cap. 10. lib. 9. moral cap. 1. that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God will seeme to be no iustice at all and so take these words No creature neither man nor Angell shall be iustified in thy sight that is if his iustice appeare before thine and be compared to it For as the stars be bright in themselues shine also goodly in a cleare night yet in the presence of the glittering Sun beams they appeare not at all euen so mans iustice although considered by it selfe it be great perfect in his kind yet set in the sight presence of Gods iustice it vanisheth away and is not to be seene This exposition is taken out of Iob where he saith I know truly it is euen so that no man compared to God Iob 9. shal be iustified Take the words of the Psalme in whether sence you list that either we haue many veniall faults for which we cannot be iustified in Gods sight or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice ours will not appeare at all and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sinne and consequently the place is not to purpose R. ABBOT I would wish thee gentle Reader well to obserue M. Bishops twofold answer to this place The more cleare these words of Scripture are against the inherent righteousnesse of man the more notably his singular impudencie appeareth in seeking to shift them off Dauid saith it a Prophet saith it a man after Gods owne heart saith it a Psal 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for no man liuing shall be iustified or found iust in thy sight Now M. Bishop answâreth that this is spoken in respect of veniall sinnes without which no creature liueth and for which a man may in iustice be punished sharpely either in this life or in Purgatorie Where it is to be obserued that he hath told vs in the Section last saue one that veniall sinne is no formall transgression of Gods law by reason whereof they hold that b Rhem. Testim 1. Ioh. 1.8 veniall sinnes consist with true iustice and hinder it not So saith Andradius c Andrad Orth. explicat lib. 5. Iustitiam euertere nullo pacto possunt neque perfectam ab solutam legis obedientiam quoquo modo impedire They can no way ouerthrow iustice nor in any sort hinder the perfect and absolute obedience of the law So then Dauids prayer must be this Enter not into iudgement with me for veniall sinnes for by reason of veniall sinnes which hinder not but that a man is iust no man liuing shall be iustified in thy sight Which exposition being apparently lewd and shamelesse yet he hath learned of his maister Bellarmine to countenance it with the names of them who neuer thought any such thing He alledgeth Austin who in the place by him cited hath not a word to tâat effect which maketh him to set none downe because indeed there are none But in the place mentioned the same Austin rightly saith d Aug. de perfe iustit Superexalâat misericordia iudiâio Quod si noÌ esset quae spes esseâ Quando quidem cùm rex iustâs federit in throâo quis glo ritbitur se castuÌ habere cor aut quis gloriabitur se esse immuâem à peccato Were it not that mercy reioyceth ouer iudgement what hope should there be For when the iust King shall sit vpon his throne who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or reioyce that he is free from sinne If no man shall be able then to challenge to himselfe a cleane heart where is that perfect iustice of workes which Master Bishop dreameth of which cannot come but from a cleane heart He citeth in the second place the reuerend Father Saint Hierome who beside that he saith nothing for him speaketh expresly and directly against him e Hieron ad Câesiphont Quando âicit In coÌspectu tuo hoc intelligi
we offend in one commaundement we are guiltie of the whole Law but no man can fulfill the whole Law ergo Answer I denie the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite as by all the properties of merite may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merite set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good father Luc. â5 Do on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bene proued at large in a seuerall question To that of Saint Iames although it belong not to this matter I answer that he who offendeth in one is made guiltie of all that is hee shall be as surely condemned as if he had broken all See Saint Augustine Epist 29. ad Hieron R. ABBOT M. Perkins saith that he that will merite must fulfill the whole Law M. Bishop denieth that and saith that one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merite Now happie men are they with whom one good worke is of so great worth But what doth a man merite by that one worke Surely if it be a merite of heauen I doubt not but M. Bishop for his part in that meriting facultie wherein he liueth hath in his opinion by many merits deuoured a number of the heauens of Democritus his innumerable worlds But I pray you tell vs M. Bishop if he be a Gal. 3.10 cursed that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law how should any man merite by performing onely one thing If life be tied onely to the doing of all why do you make so many merites of that which by the sentence of the Law can yeeld onely one Nay S. Iames plainely telleth vs as M. Perkins alledgeth that b Iam. 2.10 he that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guiltie of all that is he is in generall guiltie of breaking the Law and therefore lieth vnder the curse that is pronounced by the Law But this place M. Bishop saith belongeth not to this matter and why but because he knew not what to say vnto it for that that he doth say doth fully make against himselfe For how should one worke done with his due circumstances bring forth merite when notwithstanding the doing of many workes with their due circumstances a man for offending in any one is as surely to be condemned as if he had broken all Marry saith he a man may merite and after by falling into any mortall sinne he loseth his merite But that cannot be for the Law as hath bene said maketh no promise but to him that fulfilleth all and therefore till a man haue fulfilled all he can merite nothing and therefore hath merited nothing by any former act or acts if afterward he fall into any trespasse of the Law Now therefore there can be no rising againe to former merit where there is no merite at all and the place which he citeth in that sort as he citeth it may import a renewing to the former estate but as touching merit it importeth nothing at all But whether those words of S. Iames belong to this matter or not let S. Ierom tel him who thereupon infers thus c Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 2. Quis nostruÌ aliquando non peccauit Si autem peccauit quod negari nou potest per vnum peccatum omnium est reui peccatorum non suis viribus sed Dei misericordia saluatur Which of vs hath not sometime sinned And if he haue sinned which cannot be denied and by one sinne be guiltie of all sinnes then is he not saued by his owne power but by Gods mercie The place then by his iudgement taketh away from man all power of being saued by any thing in himselfe and leaueth him to be saued onely by the mercie of God To the other proposition of M. Perkins argument he answereth also by deniall and saith that in a seuerall question he hath proued that a man may fulfill the whole law but by that he hath read the disproofe of his proofe it will appeare to him I hope that he hath proued nothing Now it is to be obserued how silly he omitteth the place of S. Iohn alledged by M. Perkins d 1. Ioh. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues c. which inuincibly proueth that no man fulfilleth the whole law because there is no man without sin and euery sinne is e Cap. 3.4 the transgression of the law 12. W. BISHOP His fift reason We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our dayly bread where we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God much more must we confesse heauen to be Answ M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomly that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerly the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Pauls rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not eate Yet because our trauels are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God dayly to giue vs our nouriture either by sending or preseruing the fruites of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stirring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse termes R. ABBOT It well appeareth that M. Perkins better vnderstood the Lords prayer then that he had any need to learne of any such slender master as M. Bishop is The argument which he vseth is very effectuall and strong If we cannot merit the food of this life but must craue it of gift much lesse can we merite euerlasting life But saith M. Bishop our dayly bread is not so meerly the gift of God but that we must either make it ours with our penie or trauell we must labour for our lining c.
performed vnto God the transgressing whereof to be a sinne against God not onely mediatly by not yeelding subiection to the Law-giuer but immediatly in the very thing it selfe which it hath done or left vndone It is the prerogatiue of God onely to tie the conscience in this sort and whosoeuer else taketh vpon him thus to do he is an vsurper against God And thus doth the Pope bind mens consciences he maketh his lawes matters of religion and of the worship of God and will haue men beleeue that in the very doing of the things which he commandeth they immediatly please God merit at the hands of God make satisfaction to him for their sinnes and purchase eternall life On the other side that in the trespasse thereof not onely in respect of disobedience to the higher powers but for the very not doing of the things themselues there is sinne against God a breach and wound of conscience and the guilt of euerlasting death This is one speciall matter for which we iustly detest that Romish idol and do chalenge him not onely for sitting in the Temple of God by vsurping an outward superioritie in the visible state of the Church but also for y 2. Thes 2.4 sitting as God in the temple of God by chalenging to himselfe and possessing in such sort as hath beene sayd the consciences of men in which God onely ought to raigne As for Princes and temporall gouernours if they keepe them within their bounds they make no lawes in that kind for causes seeming good vnto them they require outward conformity and obedience to their lawes for conscience sake of the authority committed vnto them of God but they leaue the conscience free from any inward opinion or perswasion of the things themselues wherein they require to be obeyed Here therefore a man is outwardly bound and seruant to the law but inwardly he still continueth free to God being perswaded that the doing or not doing of such or such a thing in and for it selfe maketh him to God neither the better nor the worse and therefore the thing in it selfe being either way indifferent to God he yeeldeth himselfe in the outward man vpon conscience of giuing obedience to the power seruiceable and comformable to the law And this is that Christian libertie which the Scripture teacheth which is not as some men would haue it a licentious immunity in outward things to do euery man what we list but a freedome of the heart from any seruile opinion of any thing that we do The doctrine whereof Luther very excellently propounded in two paradoxes as they seemed to them that vnderstood them not as touching conuersation in outward things that z Luther de libert Christiana a Christian man is free from all men a Lord and subiect to no man And again that a Christian man is a diligent seruant and vassall to all men and subiect to all Inwardly in conscience he is free and bound to nothing but saith a 1. Cor 10.23 All things are lawfull for me Outwardly in conuersation he is bound to that that is expedient and serueth for edification whereby he may yeeld obedience to gouernours loue to neighbours instruction to the ignorant strengthening to the weake comfort to the strong good example to them that are without auoiding all scandall whereby he should cause the libertie whereof he is inwardly perswaded to be blasphemed and slandered Now therefore Princes in their lawes are to be obeyed vpon conscience of their authoritie being from God but this hindereth not but that the Pope is iustly accused for thrusting Christ out of his place by requiring obedience vpon conscience of the things themselues which he commandeth As for the opening and shutting of heauen we doubt not but that the Pope if he be the minister of Christ may chalenge the office and function thereof according to the tenor of the commission wherewith Christ hath left it to his Church But he not contented with that authoritie which Christ hath left indifferently to the ministery of the Church immediatly from Christ himselfe deriued in common to the whole body of the Church vsurpeth vnto himselfe a singularity in this behalfe making himselfe in Christs steed the head from whence the power of binding and loosing is deriued to all the rest and in that respect at his owne pleasure reseruing to himselfe a prerogatiue of speciall cases and causes which are most for his aduantage wherein no man may meddle but himselfe It is true that the master by appointing afterward ouer his houshold or a porter at his gates doth not diuest himselfe of his supreme authoritie but sith it is the peculiar honour of the Lord to giue that power and to determine the offices and places of his seruants surely he who being left but afterward of a house will lift vp himselfe to be a Lieutenant generall of a Realme and of a porter will make himselfe a Potentate and take vpon him to be euen as the Lord himself he is to be taken for no other but a traytor to his Lord and therefore is by his fellow seruants to be resisted in his course This is the Popes case He had the keyes of heauen committed vnto him in common with his fellow seruants to euery man for his part and portion of the Lords house and to the great disturbance and disorder of the house he hath chalenged vnto himselfe the soueraigntie and Lordship of the whole He hath made himselfe master of the Church and all the rest seruants vnto him By this extrauagant and exorbitant power he handleth all things as he list and abuseth the keyes to shut them out of heauen so farre as he can who in the behalfe of their maister do seeke to hinder his wicked and vngodly proceedings What then shall we adiudge him but a traytor to his Lord and maister Iesus Christ vsurping that which is proper to Christ alone In a word M. Bishop must vnderstand that though the Popedome were drowned in Tiber and Babylon were cast as a milstone into the sea yet Christ needeth not to be maister and man to but without the Pope hath seruants enough to attend him in his seruice W. BISHOP Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I maruell in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merit and so become our owne sauiors This is a phrase vnheard off among Catholikes that any man is his owne sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we apply vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good wo kes as the Protestants auouch they do
commandement auaileth nothing from the mouth of God himselfe where he himselfe worketh not within that which he commandeth To this agreeth in effect the exposition of Ambrose though taking the words by way of accusation which Austin construeth by way of precept or exhortation k Amâr de Cain Abel li 2. ca. 7. In te reuertitur crimen quod ae te câpit Non habes in quo necessit item magis quam menteÌ tâaÌ arguas In te retârque tur improbitas tut âu princeps illâus es Ben aât Tit princeps es illius Et enim impretas mater quaedaÌ est delictoram c. The sinne saith God returneth vpon thee which began of thee Thou hast not wherein to blame necessitie more then thine owne mind Thy wickednesse is turned backe vpon thee thou art the beginner of it Rightly doth he say thou art the beginner of it for impietie is a mother of sinnes c. Thus he maketh God in those words to accuse Cain of sinne not to attribute to Cain Free will for conuerting vnto God The other exposition of Austin is in reading the place l Aug. vt supra Cum commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis ad aliquid perperam committendum si acquiescatur Apostolo dicenti Ne exhibeatu membra c. ad mentem domita victa conuertitur vt subditae ratio dominetur Ad te conuersio eius erit c. The conuerting or turning thereof shall be to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it vnderstanding sinne to be meant of carnall concupiscence or lust and making the construction thus that when carnal concupiscence is moued or stirred to commit any wicked thing if a man rest and harken to the Apostle saying Let not sin reigne in your mortall bodies giue not your members weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne then it being tamed and ouercome is conuerted and turned to be in subiection to the mind that reason may haue the rule and dominion ouer it Therefore he taketh it as if God had willed Cain to giue ouer that which by his owne wicked desire and lust he had intended and if he did resist it it should turne and yeeld to him and whilest it was not suffered to worke without it might be the better accustomed not to stirre within Prosper bringeth these latter expositions all into one as if God had sayd to Cain m Prosper de vocat gent lib. 2. ca. 4. Tuus hic error est enumque peccatum quiâsce noli in insontem fratrem movert ad te potius tua culpa reuoâitur Noli peccato regnum in te dareâsed tu potius in ipsum sume dominatuÌ Paenitendo enim nec in manus facinus progredieres ab eo in quo te doles displicuisse mundaberis This is thy error and thy sinne be quiet and be not mooued against thy harmelesse brother rather let thy sinne be charged vpon thy selfe yeeld not to it that it shold reigne in thee but do thou take on thee the dominion rule ouer it By repenting thou shalt not go to any further wickednesse thou shalt be reformed in that wherein thou shalt grieue that thou hast offended me Thus here is counsell and commandement to Cain but no assertion of Free will and by Cains going forward in his wicked course we see that Free will auaileth nothing to true obedience and keeping of Gods commandement Now then that M. Bishop can find nothing in Austin let vs see what Hierome hath to iustifie Cains example to be the maintenance of Free will Hierome hath indeed the words and exposition which he alledgeth n Hieron tradit Hebrat in Genes Quia liberi arbitrises monto vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris Because thou hast Free will I admonish and warne thee that sinne do not ouer-rule thee but that thou ouer-rule sinne But that this neither helpeth him nor hurteth vs it will easily and plainly appeare if we consider what was accorded before betwixt him and vs. For we deny not Free will in morall and ciuill outward actions as hath bene before acknowledged by him For in vaine were education and lawes and exhortations and all precepts and directions of life if there were not left in man a power to conforme himselfe outwardly to the prescriptions thereof God hath left in nature o August desp lit cap. 28. Non vsqueadeo in anima humana imago Dei detrita est vt nullae in ea velut lineamenta extrema remanserint Origen cont Celsum lib. 4. Impossibile vt eius imaginis lineamenta in totum delcantur c. some outward most lineaments some vnperfect shadowes and portraiture of his image for the preseruing of publike order and societie amongst men which could not stand if men for feare or shame or other respects could not containe and bridle themselues from those mischiefes and villanies whereto corruption of nature doth incline them To this the words of Hierome are to be referred For Cain was p Chrysost in Gen. hom 18. Sciebat ab initio quòd fratrem hic adoriturus esset ideo antea verbu reprâmit now contriuing and plotting the murder of his brother There was now no law to terrifie him from the accomplishing of that which he had intended but God himselfe taketh vppon him to set before him the horrour of his fact and to reclaime him from proceeding any further If therfore we do with Hierome referre the words here questioned to sinne God speaketh to Cain to this effect Why art thou so much offended that thy brother is better accepted then thy selfe why art thou thus moued with enuie towards him and intendest mischiefe against him If thou doest well as he doth assure thy selfe thou shalt be accepted as well as he But if thou do wickedly if thou go forward with that horrible villanie that thou hast conceiued know for a suretie that thy sinne shall lie waiting for thee at the doore and shall neuer cease to attend and follow thee till it haue brought vpon thee iust reuenge Wherefore I aduise thee to giue ouer bridle thy passion be maister thus farre of thine owne affections let not enuie carrie thee forward to commit so monstrous and vnnaturall a fact it is yet in thine owne power and therefore stay thy selfe and giue no further way to this bloudie designement to be sorie when it is too late Thus much and no more do Hieromes words expresse vnto vs and we doubt not but Cain had Free will as touching committing of this cruell act For if some man had stood in his way with a sword drawne to slay him if he should attempt the killing of his brother who doubteth but that it would haue made him hold his hands which he could not if he had not had in him power and libertie to forbeare And if M. Bishop meant no more when he speaketh of Cains power not to sinne if he had listed we would
of faith is sinne Why so because he hath not the faith and knowledge of him for whose sake he should do it For of whom shall he receiue reward Of him whom he hath not sought after whom he knoweth not whom he beleeueth not nor confesseth He shall receiue no reward of him but iudgement and wrath and condemnation For as nothing is delightsome to vs without light so is nothing delightsome or pleasing to God without the light of faith Onely this I will adde that God to such actions amongst the Gentiles gaue temporall rewards for temporall respects not to shew any approbation thereof in respect of himselfe to whom the doers thereof had no respect but onely to entertaine the liking thereof for the common good of mankind and for the maintenance of ciuill order and societie which God would vse to such ends and in such sort as pleased him for the benefit of his Church And therefore euen them who most excelled in the renowme and commendation of these vertues God sometimes gaue ouer temporally also to such ends as to the world seemed vnworthie to their former life to shew that he stood not in any sort bound to them for the vertues if we so call them wherein they had not respected him in that he would neither be the defender of them in this world nor the rewarder of them in the world to come 17. W. BISHOP 2 Obiection God hath commanded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall Free vvill by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord vvill not commaund any man to do that which he is no way able to do Answer M. Perkins answereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commandeth that vvhich vve be not able to performe but that vvhich vve should do Then I hope he vvill admit that he vvill enable vs by his grace to do it or else hovv should vve do it God surely doth not bind vs by commaundement to any imposble thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweete and his burthen easie Mâth 1â Iohn 5. And Saint Iohn vvitnesseth that his commandements are not heauie He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tie any man by lavv to do that vvhich he vvas altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth R. ABBOT Where they obiect that God commaundeth all to beleeue and repent and therefore that all haue Free will to do that which he commandeth M. Perkins answereth that the argument is not good because God by such commandements doth not shew what men are able to do but what they should do though of themselues they cannot do it Which answer why M. Bishop calleth obscure I know not but that his head haply fell out to be somewhat cloudie when he came to consider of it Yet he replieth then I hope that he will admit that he will enable vs by his grace to do it or else how should we do it We will admit that God by his grace enableth whom he thinketh good to do his commaundements for the state of his life so farre as he thinketh good and to them onely the yoke of Christ is sweete and his burthen easie and his commandements not grieuous because of him a Aug. de perfect iustitia Cui grauia sunt intelligat se nondum accepisse donum quo grauia non sint they receiue a gift whereby they become not grieuous vnto them And to these the vse of the law and commandements doth properly beloÌg which God did not deliuer as exspecting that any man could fulfill the same b Ambr in Gaelat cap. 3 Lex ad hoc data est vt peccatores reos se scirent apud Deum Manifestatu enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt vt se excusare noÌ posseÌt sed quaererent misericordiam c. but thereby to bring men to the knowledge of sinne and of condemnation thereby due vnto them that by this meanes he might moue them whom he would call to apprehend that meanes of saluation which he had promised in Iesus Christ who by his spirit giuen vnto them c Rom. 7.22 delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but by the rebellion of the law of sinne are holden backe in this life from attaining to the perfect righteousnesse of the law To the rest the law is a conuiction of sinne no helpe of righteousnesse whilest God d August de bono perseuer cap. 14. by vnsearchable but iust iudgement denieth to them that grace which to others he vouchsafeth because e Rom. 9.18 he sheweth mercie to whom he wil and whom he wil he hardeneth Albeit that man is vnable to fulfill the law it is not any default of God but of man himselfe and therefore there was no cause why f August de peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 16. Neque peccatum erit siquid erit si non diuinitus iubeatur vt non sit Et iteruÌ Quomodo non vetatur peâ iustitiam si peccatum est the iust God should diminish any thing of the rule of righteousnesse though vnrighteous man had by sinne disabled himselfe of the performance thereof the righteousnesse of God I say required that God should iustifie himselfe from seeming to approue any sinne by the defect of the commaundement howsoeuer man could not iustifie himselfe from sinne by the keeping of it But of the end of Gods giuing the law and the possibilitie of keeping it there will be occasion afterwards to entreate more largely and therefore with this briefe answer I referre that point to his due place 18. W. BISHOP 3. Obiect If man haue no Free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answer supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne 3. Pet. 3. cannot chuse but sinne For by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affoordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so chuse whether he will sinne or no and consequently hath Free will to sinne or not to sinne And that example of a bankrupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditors who content not themselues with his repentance without repay of their money as God doth Now concerning the force of this argument heare Saint Augustines opinion De duab animab cont Manich. in these words Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthie of dispraise or punishment which doth not that which he cannot do for saith he do not
shepheards vpon the dounes sing these things Do not poets vpon the stages act them Do not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them Do not maisters in their schooles and Prelats in their pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the whole world confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not chuse but do Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest companie of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this strange light of the new Gospell R. ABBOT As touching ciuill and outward actions we doubt not as before is sayd but that God hath left a libertie and power to the will of man and therefore iustly are they punished who runne wilfully into enormous actions from which it is in them to forbeare And this addeth much to the iust condemnation of man that euen in those things wherein he hath power to do otherwise yet he carieth himselfe frowardly and rebelliously against God And yet of outward actions in some degree Hierome rightly obserueth a Hieron cont Pelag. li. 3. Dicimus posse hominem non peccare si ve lit pro tempore pro loco pro imbecillitate corporea quamdus intentus est animus c. Quòd si se paululum remiserit c. discit fragilitateÌ suam multa se non posse cognoscit that a man can forbeare to sinne if he will at a time or in some place or by some let of bodily weaknesse or so long as the mind is intent and heedie but he soone findeth that wholy not to sinne it is not possible To speake then indefinitely of sinne it is true that man left in the power of his owne Free will cannot chuse but sinne For how can he chuse but sinne who of himselfe is nothing but sinne Yea we know that the corruption of sinne lieth as a punishment vpon the whole nature of man and therefore is sayd to haue befallen b August de nat grat ca. 34. by the iust reuenge of God and is called c Idem de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Poenalis vitiositas a poenall vitiousnesse or subiection to sinne Now if it be as it were a prison or punishment it is not in our choise to be rid thereof because a man cannot rid himselfe of a prison or punishment which he hath drawne vpon himselfe And therefore doth Saint Austin affirme it to be d De nat grat cap. 67. ex lib. 3. de lib. arbit cap. 18. Approbare falsa pro veris vt erret inuitus resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculà non posse à libidinosis operibus teÌperare non est natura instituti hominis sed poenâ damnati the punishment of man by condemnation to approue falshood for truth so as to erre against his will and being vexed with the griefe of the bond of the flesh yet not to be able to temper himselfe from libidinous actions Thus haue we heard him before to auouch e Sect. 3. a necessitie of sinning and this necessitie he acknowledgeth in some part to continue still in the state of grace f De nat grat cap. 66. alledging thereof the words of the Prophet Dauid g Psal 24.18 De necessitatibus meis educ me deliuer me from all my necessities And therefore vainely doth M. Bishop except that by the helpe of God a sinner may call for grace and repent him and chuse whether he will sinne or no. For in men conuerted it is true that they cannot chuse but sinne in repentant men it is still true that they cannot chuse but sinne For the forbearing of this or that action doth not put a man in case to chuse to sinne but though he arise one way yet the law of sinne holdeth him still vnder a necessitie to fall another way vntill h August de nat grat cap. 66. Opitulante gratia c. mala necessitas remouebitur libertas plena tribuetur this euill necessitie be taken away and full libertie granted which shall i Idem in Ioan. tract 41 Quando plena atque perfecta libertas trit Quando nullae inimicitiae quaÌdo nouissimae inimica destructur mors then be when we shall see him face to face Or if M. Bishop will say otherwise let him bring vs foorth the man that can chuse to sinne the man that can do more then euer Patriarch or Prophet or Apostle or Euangelist could do For if they could chuse to sinne why did they sinne or if they did not sinne why did they say Forgiue vs our trespasses If he will needs follow the Pelagian deuice that k Hieron epist ad Cresiph Licet alius non fuerit tamen potest esse qui esse voluerit though no man be indeed without sinne yet a man may be so if he will I will answer him with Hieromes words l Ibid. Quae est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit c. dare cui libet quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis nequâas approbare What a reason is this that that may be that neuer was and that he should yeeld that to I know not whom which in the Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles he cannot proue Repentance therefore and conuersion so altereth the course of a mans life in the maine as that euen in the way of righteousnesse it still leaueth in him a necessitie of sinne Neither doth this conuersion stand indifferent to all as he dreameth nor doth God affoord to all sinners grace sufficient to bring them to repentance He noteth for his purpose the place of Peter that God would not haue any to perish c. but let him take the whole words and they will cleere themselues m 2. Pet. 3 9. He is patient TOVVARDS VS not willing that any namely of vs should perish but that all of vs should come to repentance He speaketh of Gods elect of them whom he hath chosen to make vp the body of his Church of whom our Sauior Christ saith n Iohn 6.39 This is the will of the Father that hath sent me that of all that he hath giuen me I should loose nothing but should raise it vp at the last day Of these he will haue none to perish but doth patiently beare till he haue accomplished the nuÌber that he hath decreed for himselfe So did God say by the Prophet o Ezech. 33.11 As I liue saith the Lord I desire not the death of a sinner but rather that he be conuerted liue but he said it
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 froÌ 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 vnderstaÌd 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 stroÌger 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 commeÌdeth 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 reneuââur 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. Alâud volumus quia sumus in Câristo 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 profâtiuÌâ ad DeuÌ vt etiam Spiritu suo maximè aggrauante corruptibili corpore taÌquam siââ hominum quibusdam moribus âumanis deficiant ad seipsoâ ideb pecceÌt 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 coÌtra 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 Ieâusaeus 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 meÌbris 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 meÌte 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 velcoÌtinendo fraenâtur 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 Simplââ quaest 2. Est piccatuâa hominis mordinatio atque peruârsita ââd est à prae âamiore conditore auersio ad cond iââife ââra 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 recalâitrans 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 pubescentâbus 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
deliuered from the body of death For i De nat et grat ca. 55. De corpore mors corporis separat sed contracta exillo vitia cohaeâent 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 queÌdam 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
the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes the pride of life is not of the Father but of the world He speaketh of the things of the world which are of the Father because they are his creatures S. Iohn speaketh of the things of the world which are not of the Father He speaketh of the world which is the creature and frame of heauen and earth all things therein S. Iohn speaketh h August cont Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 13. Nouimus Ioannem non mundum istum id est coelum terram omnia quae in eo substaÌtialiter sunt reprehendisse cum diceret Omnia quae in mundo sunt c. not of the world in that meaning but of the world of maÌkind corrupted defiled with sinne according to which the vnregenerate are called i Luk. 16.8 the children of this world and as our Sauiour Christ saith that k Iohn 7.7 the world hated him because he testified of it that the workes thereof are euill And doth he not then thinke you bring vs a good proofe that euery thing in the world tempteth vs to sinne The meaning of S. Iohn is plaine that in the world that is to say in the men of this world there is nothing but corruption the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes the pride of life and the following of all these all which are not of the Father nor haue accord with him but are of men themselues perish together with themselues What is this then but profanely and lewdly to abuse the word of God thus to cite it to proue a falshood when it hath not so much as any shew of that for which it is cited If it be grosse to say that whatsoeuer allureth to sinne is sinne I am sure it is much more grosse that he hath sayd for the disprouing of it He addeth further that it is as wide from all morall wisedome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sins But we iudge not of these things by morall wisedome which is the wisedome of this world because l 1. Cor. 1.21 the world by it owne wisdome knoweth not God in the wisdome of God we esteeme hereof as God by the foolishnesse of the Apostles preaching hath taught vs to beleeue And out of their preaching we haue learned to say as S. Austin did that m August cont Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 2 Ipsa per se ipsaÌ libido rectissimè omnino suis ipsis motibus accusatur quibus ne excedat obsistitur lust it selfe by it selfe is very iustly accused or blamed in the very motions of it wherein it is resisted that it exceed not and that n Ibid. li 5. ca. 5. Quantumlibet in isto conflictu superiores simus c. tamen ipsis certè nostrae cogitationis motibus affectibus si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus c. howsoeuer in this conflict of the spirit against the flesh we get the better yet if in the very motions and affections of our thought we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. But saith he heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sudden passions of the mind and vices But what is it to vs what heathen Philosophers haue distinguished seeing Christian Philosophers haue taught vs to cal these passions o See after Sect. 9. vices inward vices vitiousnesse vitious affections vitious concupiscences or lusts Let M. Bishop follow Philosophers if he please as for vs we say in these questions of Diuinitie as Tertullian sayd that p Tertul de praescript adu haeret philosophia temeraria interpret diuinae naturae dispositionis philosophie is but a sawcie interpreter of Gods nature and disposition that Philosophers are q Idem cont Hermogen Haereticorum patriarchae philosophi the patriarches of heretikes We take our instructions out of Solomons porch not out of the porch of Zeno from Hierusalem not from Athens and there we haue learned to call it sinne whatsoeuer swarueth from the law of God as before hath bene declared Yea but M. Bishop will proue out of that very text which M. Perkins alledgeth that concupiscence is not sinne r Iam. 1.14 Euery man saith S. Iames is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is allured afterward concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Marke well the words saith he First concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue But how doth he proue that by any argument out of S. Iames his words What is it not sin because S. Iames doth not expresly call it sin Why then neither shall the consent be sin because S. Iames expresseth the consent first and afterwards inferreth the bringing forth of sinne But though S. Iames do not call it expresly sinne yet S. Paul doth For what S. Iames speaketh of concupiscence stirring vp euill motions and thereby tempting and entising the very same S. Paul expresseth in these words Å¿ Rom. 7.8 Sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Which is the same as if he should haue said that concupiscence which is the habite of sin did stir vp in him all maner of euill motions and affections to tempt him thereby The same Apostle saith t Cap. 6.12 Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof calling it by the name of sin where it raigneth not nor is obeyed in the lusts of it He distinctly noteth sinne and the lusts of it and the obeying that is consenting to those lusts and so plainely sheweth that in the roote and from the beginning it is sinne Thus the faithfull elsewhere are warned to take heed not to be hardened u Heb. 2.13 by the seducing or deceitfulnesse of sinne where it is also plaine that it is sinne which seduceth and enticeth euen as the Apostle saith x Rom 7.11 Sinne seduced me or deceiued me and thereby slue me giuing to vnderstand that these seducings and enticings that is the first motions of concupiscence are so farre sin as that thereby he felt himselfe in himselfe to be but a dead man Thus the Apostle S. Paule thwarteth all that M. Bishop gathereth out of S. Iames his words but yet the most deepe Doctor S. Austin sifteth out the matter very profoundly for him And indeed he sifteth well but leaueth to M. Bishop nothing but the very branne y Aug. contra Iulian. lib. 6. cap. 5. Profectò in his verbis partus à pariente distinguitur Pariens est coÌcupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit Nec concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetraÌdum obtinuerit voleÌtis assensum In these words saith he the birth is distinguished from that that bringeth foorth That that bringeth foorth is concupiscence the birth is sinne But concupiscence bringeth
blindnesse of heart is properly sinne therfore concupiscence is so also Rebellion against the law of the mind wherby is meant the law of God is properly sinne as before is shewed But concupiscence is a habite of rebellion against the law of God it is therefore properly to be accounted sinne And whereas Austin when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne saith it is therefore called sinne because it is the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne here he affirmeth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne and the cause of sinne but otherwise also sinne and therefore properly and truly sinne But M. Bishop telleth vs that Austin in more then twentie places of his workes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly Yet S. Austine in those twentie places saith nothing of sinne properly or vnproperly taken and indeed taketh sinne vnproperly when he denyeth concupiscence to be sinne as anone shall appeare He saith further that when Austin calleth concupiscence sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not onely all sinne but also all motions and enticements to sinne and so it may be tearmed sinne And this large taking of sinne we say is the proper taking of it and thereby concupiscence is properly called sinne But the motions and enticements to sinne being the same with concupiscence we see what a proper secret he hath here deliuered that concupiscence may be tearmed sinne as sinne is taken largely so as to comprehend concupiscence A learned note But because the reason that he hath before deliuered is starke naught he should haue giuen vs here a better reason why the name of sinne is not properly to be vnderstood when concupiscence is called sinne He telleth vs that with Austin it is more commonly called an euill and indeed it is true that very often he so calleth it but yet such an euill as maketh a man euill so that by reason thereof a Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 3. Quamuis Patriarcha sit aliquis quamuis Propheta quamuis Apostolus dicitur eis à Domino Saluatore Si vos cùm sitis mali c. though a man be a Prophet a Patriarch an Apostle yet saith Hierome it is said vnto them by our Sauiour If we being euill do know to giue good gifts to your children c. Now there is nothing that maketh a man euill but that which is properly sinne Concupiscence therefore is properly a sin But of this shall be spoken more at large anone Onely here it is to be obserued how M. Bishop vnderstandeth it to be an euill because it prouoketh vs to euill So he will haue it no otherwise called an euill then it is called sinne It is sinne because it prouoketh to sinne and so euill because it prouoketh to euill and so indeed properly shall be neither sinne nor euill whereas S. Austin acquitting it in some meaning from the name of sinne leaueth it simply and absolutely in the name and nature of euill as shall appeare To this place he bringeth another testimonie of Austin which M. Perkins alledgeth in the fourth reason and giueth to it a very vnproper answer b August in Ioan. Tract 41. Quamdiu viuis necesse est esse peccatum in meÌbris tuâs So long as thou liuest saith Austin of necessitie sinne must be in thy members sinne is there also taken vnproperly saith M. Bishop And yet S. Austin deduceth that assertion from the words of S. Iohn c 1. Iob. 1.8 If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs alledging the one and concluding the other by occasioÌ of the words of our Sauior Christ d Ioh. 8.34 He that committeth sin is the seruant of sinne and the seruant abideth not in the house for euer For hereupon he asketh the question What hope then haue we who are not without sinne and answereth at large that sinne though according to the words of S. Iohn we cannot be without it so long as we liue here yet shall not hurt vs if we do not by suffering it to raigne make our selues seruants vnto it because he onely that committeth sinne by course and practise of euill conuersation is the seruant of sinne that is to say of inward corruption Now therefore if we will follow M. Bishops construction we must vnderstand S. Iohn also of sinne vnproperly taken and affirme contrarie to the auncient receiued Maxime of Christian faith that if sinne be properly taken it may be truly said of some men that they are without sinne because he saith it is not true of sinne properly taken that so long as a man liueth it must needs be in him as S. Austin speaketh Now he will proue that sinne is there vnproperly taken because S. Austin placeth it in the members For according to S. Austin and all the learned the subiect of sinne properly taken is not in any part of the bodie but in the will and soule Where we may iustly smile at his ridiculous and childish ignorance Why M. Bishop is concupiscence any otherwise in the members of the bodie but onely by the soule Iulian the Pelagian was not so grosse but that he knew that e Aug. contra Julian lib. 6. ca. 5 Quia carnalitèr anima concúpiscit the flesh is said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh which S. Austine confirmeth and saith that f Ibid Motibus suis anima quos habet secundum spiritum aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem rursuâ motibus suis quos habet secundum carnem aduersatur alijs motibus suis quos habet secundum spiritum ideò dicitur âare concupiscere aduersus spiritum c. it is the soule it selfe which by it owne motions which it hath according to the spirit is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to to the flesh and by it owne motions which it hath according to the flesh is contrarie to other motions of it owne which it hath according to the spirit and that therefore the flesh is said to lust contrarie to the spirit and the spirit contrarie to the flesh Who knoweth not this saith he to Iulian which thou like a great Doctor so often tellest vs And what doth not M. Bishop know it that will be taken for so great a Doctor in the Church of Rome Let me tell him once againe that the soule is the proper and immediate subiect of concupiscence that to lust is an act of a nature endued with life and sence which the bodie is not of it selfe but onely by the soule and therefore that that exception of his maketh nothing to the contrarie but that S. Austin by sinne in the members doth vnderstand that that is properly and truly called sinne to say nothing of that I haue before declared that by concupiscence is also vnderstood the will it selfe thrall and subiect vnto sin For conclusion of this point he
when they are done they are past yet the guilt still abideth and except it be pardoned shall abide for euer so the guilt of concupiscence when it is pardoned is taken away though it selfe abide For not to haue sinne is all one as to say not to be guilty of sinne He that hath committed adultery though he doe it no more is still guilty till it be pardoned Therefore he hath his sinne still though that which he hath committed now is not in being being past with the time wherein it was done Such sinnes therefore remaine except they be forgiuen But how do they remaine being now past but because they are past as touching their actuall being but remaine still as touching the guilt Euen so saith he it may well be that concupiscence of the flesh remaineth still as touching the actuall being but yet as touching the guilt is past and gone He calleth this concupiscence h Ibid. cap. 23. Propter damnabile vitium quo vitiata est natura humana daÌnatur a damnable pollution and vncleannes wherewith the nature of man is defiled and for which it is condemned And he saith thereof that i Contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 2. Est in homine aliquid mali quod non ipsum sed reatus qui ex illo contractus fuerat auferiuâ in Baptismo not the euill it selfe but the guilt that is gathered thereof is taken away in baptisme that this sinne is k Jbid. Mortuâ est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs that l Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 13. Reatus eius generatione tractus regeneratione dimissus est ideo iam non est peccatum the guilt thereof which we haue drawen by generation is pardoned by regeneration and therefore now it is not sinne Thus when Iulian obiected to him that if concupiscence were euill then the baptised should be without it he answereth that m Contr. Iulian. lib 6. cap. 5. Baptizatus caret omni peccato noÌ omni malo quod plantùs ita dicitur caret reatu omnium maloruÌ non omnibus malis the baptised is voided of all sinne not of all euill Which saith he is more plainly spoken thus He is voide of the guilt of all euill not of all that is euill affirming the guilt onely to be taken away but that the euill that before made him guilty remaineth still Therefore he saith that n Ibid. lib. 2. NoÌ eodem modo appellatur paccatuÌ quo facit reum priùs Cuius manentis reatus in sacro fonte remissus est concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guiltie because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration The places are infinite wherein he speaketh to the same effect that o De peccat mer. remissa ib. 1. cap. 39. Ipsa lex peccati soluâo reatus vinculo manet c. the law of sinne the bond of the guilt thereof being loosed continueth still that p Jbid. lib. 2. cap. 28. Manente ipsa lege concupiscentiae reatus eius soluitur the law of concupiscence is still abiding but the guilt thereof is released that q Cont. Iulian. lib 2. Sauet vitiatum à reatu statim ab infirmitate paulatim God healeth the corruption of man from the guilt foorthwith but from the infirmity by litle and litle that r Ibid Remittitur in baptismate lex peccati non finitur the law of sin is remitted and pardoned in baptisme but not ended that Å¿ Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 5. Vitia ista curantur priùs vt reatu non teneant deinde vt conflictu non vincant postremò vt omni ex parte saenata nulla omnino remaneant the vices of concupiscence are cured by the grace of Christ that they hold vs not in guilt but that they remaine for vs to fight with and conquer and last of all to be perfectly healed not to be at all still beating vpon this that there is still remaining the same thing that was before the law of sinne before the law of sin still euill before euill still a vice or corruption before a vice and corruption still onely the guilt taken away and therby onely denied to be sin Now in this we contend not with Austin nor Austin with vs we shall easily accord with him that concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne as sinne importeth and implieth guilt because the guilt thereof is remitted and pardoned But setting aside the respect of guilt and considering sinne as it is oposite to righteousnes doth he in that respect acquit concupiscence from the condition of sinne No verily for he acknowledgeth that t Contr. Julian lib. 2. Non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum sed quod sit reatu primi hominis faction quod rebellando nos trahere uttitur ad reatum though it be not called sinne in that sort as that it maketh guilty yet it is called sinne for that by rebelling it laboureth to draw vs into guilt And when Iulian the Pelagian tooke hold of that that he said that concupiscence and rebellion of the flesh was iustly laid as a punishment vpon the disobedience of man and hereupon argued that then it was no euill but rather a thing to be commended as Gods seruant for reuenge vpon him that had deserued it to refute his collection answereth that it is not onely the punishment of sinne or the cause of sinne but also very sinne it selfe u Contr. Iulian. lib. 5. cap. 3. supr sect 7. because there is in it a rebellion against the law of the mind and therfore that vainely he inferred that concupiscence because it was a punishment was to be commended Where to say that S. Austin taketh sin vnproperly as M. Bishop doth is to make him to speak very absurdly if we consider the occasion wherupon he speaketh But to shew that concupiscence though in respect of guilt it be not sin yet otherwise it is truly so he calleth it in the regenerate x De pecca mer. remis lib. 2. cap. 28. PeccatuÌ remissum superatuÌ pereÌptum a pardoned sin a sin conquered destroyed y De nupt coÌcup lib. 1 ca. 33. Peccatum illud quod remissum tectum est non imputatur Et lib. 2. cap. 34. a sin forgiuen couered not imputed and out of S. Ambrose z Conâr Iulian. lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat donec sepulturae perfectione sanctur rebellat mortâum a dead sin because saith he it is dead as touching the guilt wherein it held vs and being dead yet rebelleth vntill by accomplishment of buriall it be healed So then as touching guilt it is conquered destroyed dead and it is not sinne but by rebellion it still liueth therin it is truly sin And therefore doth he
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 mââbo Et cap. 31. Vbi est morbidus carnis affectus Ab capeste morboque sanâta 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 insaâuâ demens qui cùm peccata maia esse fiteatur neget esse malam concupiscentiam peccatorum etiaÌ si aduersur eam concuââscântiam 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 Ocâânum Psal 50. if any sin be left remaining in vs Againe if holy Dauid say Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter then snow how can the blacknesse of hell still remaine in his soule briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious bloud of our Sauiour to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost-through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence Rom. 5. so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie albeit other defects and infirmities do remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument stands insoluble Now to the second R. ABBOT This argument as it was long ago vrged by the Pelagians so in them long ago hath receiued a full answer It was rightly sayd by S. Austin to them a August cont 2. epist Pelag. li. 3. ca. 3. Quisquis baptismati derogat quod modò per illud accipimus corrumpit fidem quisquâ autem tam nunc tribuit quod quidem per ipsuÌ sed tamen postea accepturi sumus amputat spem Whosoeuer doth derogate or detract from Baptisme that which now we receiue by it corrupteth Christian faith but he that euen now attributeth to it that which by it indeed but yet hereafter we are to receiue cutteth of Christian hope We confesse that Baptisme doth seale vnto vs the full remission and forgiuenesse of all our sinnes that thereby we are engraffed into Christ to become members of his body and to be made partakers of his spirit that by the sanctification of the same spirit sinne may be destroyed and decayed in vs from day to day that the corruption of the old man being wholly put of in death perfect righteousnesse may thenceforth take place for euer at the resurrection of the dead But this doth not satisfie M. Bishop he will haue it that Originall sinne is not onely forgiuen in Baptisme but also quite taken away and therefore reiecteth M. Perkins answer that it is abolished as touching imputation but that otherwise it remaineth still Yet the answer fully accordeth with S. Austin that b Cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Maliâ quod non ipsum sed reatut eius au fertur in baptismo not it selfe but the guilt of it is taken away in Baptisme that c Ibid lib 6. ca. 8. Manet actu praeterijt reatu it remaineth as touching the actuall being but is taken away as touching the guilt Now his confutation hereof must needs be a very poore one that thus directly crosseth S. Austins assertion and hath no further warrant but his owne bare word We haue examined
two wiues one before he was baptized another after and was therupon questioned whether he might be Bishop or not because the Apostle saith that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife He disputeth at large that if Baptisme take away sins much more it should take away the imputation of that that is no sin but neither hath the words which M. Bishop alledgeth nor any other that can serue M. Bishops turne It is further alledged that Dauid saith p Psal 51. â Thou shalt wash me and I shal be whiter then snow how then saith he can the blacknesse of hell remaine in his soule But let me aske him if Originall sinne be taken quite away in the regenerate how then commeth it to passe that Dauid hauing receiued the effect of Baptisme in the Sacrament of Circumcision and now a long time continued in the state of grace doth yet complaine of Originall sinne and doth mention it as the fountain of those enormous sins which in that Psalme he bewaileth and bemoneth vnto God q Ver. 5. Behold saith he I was borne in iniquitie and in sin hath my mother conceiued me Why doth he thus r Ambros Apoleg Dauid ca. 12. Peccatorum specialium atque communiem colluuium confitetur confesse as Ambrose saith the filth both of speciall and also of common that is to say Originall sinnes if there were now no Originall sin in him to be confessed And as for that which M. Bishop vrgeth the same Ambrose telleth vs therof Å¿ Ibid. Suprae niuem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur that he is made whiter then snow to whom the fault is pardoned who yet affirmeth the continuing of Originall sinne in him that is pardoned as we haue seene before He was therfore whiter then snow as touching imputation and guilt when the fault was pardoned according to the saying of Austin that t Aug. Retract li. 1. c 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur quaÌdo quicquid non fit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned that is not done But yet when he had heard it deliuered vnto him by the Prophet Nathan that u 1. Sam. 12.13 the Lord had taken away his sinne he prayed notwithstanding x Psal 51.7.10 Create in me a cleane heart renew in me a right spirit wash me and I shal be whiter then snow thereby acknowledging an vncleannesse in himselfe from which he had still need to be renewed and washed from which when he should be washed he should be whiter then snow but from which no man is so fully washed in this life but that he hath need still to pray to be washed and cleansed more and more For what is it by washing to be made whiter then snow but to be made y Eph. 5.27 without spot or wrinkle or any such thing But to be made without spot or wrinkle z August de nu coââ pââ lâb â cap 34 Vt eâde a eam seâ non in âsto e culost in âuâuco non habââae maââ tât c. befalleth to no man in this life as S Austin well obserueth Therfore no man in this life becommeth whiter then snow by being free from all internall blot of vncleannesse and sinne And therefore to take away from M. Bishop all matter of cauill Basil plainly saith that a Bast in Esa cap. 1. lib vsâ quâ ideo siâââtiâns perâet tregâneran vto lati tirum vt totum proââcutat ad alââtem muâs adââa â sed op ri reqârutur n c perfâscterâ aut quaâ cunquc d li ââtâa est opus adhoc vt lauârum quidem sit âffâctitium pucit etit expuâgationis a sor lib a c Et quem admodum in tincturis quod repetitis vicibus at multo cum labore in tinctum est tincturam excipit pressiùs inhaerescentem c. Ad eundem se habet modum anima sante peccatorum suppurata in habitudine constiânta malââiae Ista e nim mâth assuetudo vix ac multo negotio potest eâus c. the washing of Baptisme sufficeth not to bring a man to the whitenesse of snow but that there needeth also great labour and diligence and that as to make a perfect and abiding colour there needeth often dipping much paines so it is also in the soule corrupted with the filth of sinne and being in a habite of euill that hardly and with much ado it can be wâshed and cleansed from it But saith M. Bishop it is a notorious wrong to the precious bloud of our Sauiour Christ to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. And what doth he say therein more then we also say We acknowledge as much and not onely so but we say further as he saith that we recouer more by Christs grace then we haue lost by Adams fault according to the words of the Apostle which he citeth to that purpose What inferreth he now hereof If then saith he we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sin left in the newly baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocencie But this conclusion followeth not For although we recouer more in Christ then we lost in Adam yet we do not presently receiue the same God hath b Eph 1.3 blessed vs in Christ with all manner spirituall blessings in heauenly things but we haue not as yet the fruition thereof Christ hath recouered for vs immortalitie and incorruption yet mortalitie and corruption hitherto continue still The grace of Christ doth not onely yeeld vs the state which Adam had Posse non peccare to haue power not to sinne but also a higher perfection c Aug. de correp grat cap. 11. non posse peccare to be without possibility of sinne and yet who seeth not that we haue not attained to this perfection God hath d Eph. 1.6 raised vs vp together with Christ and made vs sit together in heauenly places e Aug. de bapt lib. 1. cap. 4. Nondum in re sed in spe not yet indeed but in hope saith S. Austin Thus haue we receiued more in Christ then we haue lost in Adam not yet actually and indeed but in assurance of hope f Tertul. de resurrect carnis Contemplatio est spei tu hoc spatio per sidem noÌ praeseâtatio nec possessio sed expectatio Our state here saith Tertullian is a contemplation of hope through faith not a presenting of things to vs it is not possession but expectation And this the Apostle confirmeth saying that g Rom. 8.24 we walke by faith and not by sight that we are saued in hope but hope which is scene is no hope that h Vers 23. we waite for the adoption euen the redemption of our bodies i Eph. 1.14 ãâã ãâã
To which purpose he addeth further that albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme Which now how farre it is from truth it appeareth by that that hath beene alreadie sayd I will here adde only the words of Hilary who saith t Hilar. in Psal 118. Gimel Habemus etiaÌ nunc admixtam nobit materiam quae morus legi atque peccat bonoxia est in huius caducae carius infirmaeque domicilio corruptionis labeÌ ex eius consortio mutuaâur ac nisi glorificato in naturam spiritus corpore vitae verae in nobis non potest esse naturae c. Scit hanc mundi istius sedeÌ regionem no esse viuentium scit nos adhuc secundum praefiguraetionem legis emundandos esse Nunc enim admiscemur morticinae in lege quisquis mortuis contrectas immundus est c. We haue as now a matter mingled with vs which is subiect to the law of sinne and death and that in the house of this mortall and weake flesh we gather a blot of corruption by the societie thereof and vntill the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit there cannot be in vs the nature of true life that this world is not the land of the liuing but that we are here still to be cleansed by reason of being blended with the carion of concupiscence and that this was the thing figured in the law where a man was vncleane for touching any dead body Surely if in this life we remaine still in case to be cleansed if there be still a blot of corruption by reason of concupiscence still cleaning fast vnto vs and it can be no otherwise till the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit then it is vtterly false as indeed it is to say that in Baptisme all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out of our soules But whereas all men find by experience both in themselues and others that there is a wonderfull prauity and corruption of nature still continuing whereby we are all forward to that that is euill and altogether backward and vntoward to goodnesse to preuent the obiection hereof M. Bishop acknowledgeth a remainder of somewhat but he qualifieth the opinion thereof with fauourable and gentle termes He saith that defects and infirmities remaine in vs marry in no case must we thinke them to be sinnes But these defects and infirmities are such as for which it is true of vs which Saint Austin saith u August in Psal 37. Resumus adhuc filij irae spe non sumus By reall state and being we are still the children of wrath it is in hope as touching which we are not so How are we yet the children of wrath but by hauing in vs the matter of x In Psal 101. Jââ cum qua omnes âati sumââ âra de propagine âaqudaetu âe massa âeccati that wrath wherewith we were all borne which what is it but onely sinne These defects then and infirmities what are they properly and in truth but onely sinne But M. Bishop in vsing these termes alludeth to S. Austin who oftentimes so calleth concupiscence and the lusts and motions thereof which if he did in the same meaning as S. Austin doth there should be no matter of great question betwixt him vs. For S. Austin calleth concupiscence vitium a defect not as vnderstanding thereby as the English word importeth a meer priuation and want of somewhat that should be but a positiue euil quality that ought not to be a vicious corrupt condition of man such a defect if we wil so cal it let vs call it y De lib arbit lib 2 cap 1. ãâ¦ã âeâtmi âites esse corruptio a corruption as he himself expoundeth it as z Fââst to âispra Sect. 8. by reason wherof the same S. Austin saith that no man liuing shall be found righteous in the sight of God as we haue seene before It is vitium such a defect as whereby a De ciuit Dei lib. 12. cap. 3. the nature of man is vitiated and corrupted and so farre as it is corrupted is euill and there is nothing that maketh an euill man but onely sinne It is b Cont. Iul. li. 2. defectus à iustitia a defection or swaruing from righteousnesse hindering that c De perfect iust Rat. 17. sup sec 4 we loue not God with all our soule d Cont. Iul. l. 4 c. 2. InquantuÌ inest nocet etsi non ad perdenauÌ de sorte sanctorum tameÌ ad motuendam spiritualeÌ delectationeÌ sanctaruÌ mentium illaÌ de qua dicit Apostolus CoÌdelector legi c. diminishing that spirituall delight that we ought to haue in the law of God and e De perfect iust Rat. 15. Supra Sect. 2. it is sinne when there is not that loue in vs that ought to be or the same is lesse then it ought to be But it is not onely after Baptisme that S. Austin giueth to concupiscence this name of vitium a defect or rather a vice or vicious qualitie he calleth it from the beginning f De nupt concup l. 1. c. 23. vitium quo vitiata est natura humana a vice or vicious qualitie wherewith the nature of man is vitiated and defiled Now before Baptisme there is no doubt but S. Austin by vice importeth sinne because for it he saith g Ibid. Propter quod damnatur propter hoc damnabili diabolo subrugatur the nature of man is condemned and is vnder the power of the diuell and the thing being still the same how should it after Baptisme be no sinne Albeit after Baptisme he calleth it h Cont. Iul lib. 2. Quia mortuum est in eo reatu quo nos tenebat vitium mortuum a vice or vicious qualitie that is now dead because saith he it is dead as touching the guilt wherewith it held vs but otherwise it liueth still He calleth the lusts thereof i Ibid. vitia à quorum reatu absoluti sumus vices from the guilt whereof we are released importing still that saue the guilt they are still the same that they were before Therefore albeit he forbeare the name of sinne after Baptisme in respect that they haue not the effect of sinne to make guiltie before God because they are alreadie pardoned yet he cannot be supposed otherwise to exclude them from the nature and name of sinne They did make guiltie before and should make guiltie still but that they are pardoned which cannot agree but to sinne onely And this did Pighius a friend of M. Bishops see very well k Pigh de peccats Org. cont 1. Vt vna eade nque manente aequitatis iustitiae regula iâleÌ aliquid in se manens nuÌc propriè primò verèque
peccatum sic nunc non sit fieriprorsus non potest that it is impossible that the nature of sinne and the nature of concupiscence abiding still the same that concupiscence before Baptisme should be sinne and after Baptisme should be no sinne Now as both before Baptisme and after Baptisme it is called by S. Austin a defect so is it also called infirmitas an infirmitie laâguor a faintnesse or weaknesse not growing of a bare priuation as I said before but of a vicious constitution a corrupt and euill habite which therefore he compareth to a l Aug. de nupt con uââs l. 2 c. 34 Sicut utala in corpore valetudo c. Et cont Iul. l. 6. c. 7. Quodam operamte contagio id est cocupiscentra affectir sicut de pare âtibus morbidis mârbida soboles procreatur corrupt and noysome distemper of the body wherby diseases are propagated in generation from the parents to the children The Apostle expresseth the whole corruption of mans nature by the name of infirmitie or weaknesse when he saith m Rom. 5.6 When we were yet infirme or weake Christ died for vs. Whereas S. Austin witnesseth the Apostle by n Aug epist 59. Hos dixit infirmos queâ impios quos infirmos eos peccatores c. infirme or weake meaneth the same as he doth when he saith immediatly vngodly sinners enemies vnto God Infirmitie therfore implieth and importeth sinne vngodlinesse enmity against God Thus doth Austin say that o De Triuit lib. 3. cap. 10. Lâue aliquid vinetur infirmitas sed aliquando talis est vt impietas nomiâciur infirmitie seemeth a light matter but yet sometimes it is such as that it is called impietie And thus doth he call the penall disease of Originall sinne p Dâ peccat mer. remiss lib. 2 cap. 17. an infirmitie as before was sayd This is q De nupt coâcupisc lib. 2. cap 34. languor quo benè viuendi virtus perijt the fainting weaknesse whereby we lost the power of liuing well otherwise by him termed r Ibid. vulnus quod vulnerat ipsam vitam qua rectè viuebatur a wound that woundeth that life whereby man should liue aright This infirmitie S. Austin acknowledgeth euery where to continue still Å¿ De pecâât mer reââss l. 2 âap â Non ex qua nota quisqu mi bap izatur omnis vetus infirmitas eius absumitur It is not he saith wholy consumed in Baptisme t Cont. 2. epist Pelag lib 3. cap. 3 Propter hoc dicens miserere mei Domine quonium infirmus sum of it and for it we haue still cause to cry Haue mercy vpon me for I am weake u Ibid. Haec infirmitas cum qua vsque ad corporis mortem defectu profectus alternante contendimus with it we are still to wrastle and striue so long as we here liue which being the same that it was before x Gal. 5.17 contrary to the spirit of God y Rom. 7.23 rebeling against the law of God though the guilt thereof be pardoned must needs in it selfe be sinne as it was before And thus much of M. Bishops insoluble argument containing nothing in it against vs which the ancient Church doth not wholy disauow 11. W. BISHOP 2. Obiect Euerie sinne is voluntarie and not committed without the consent of man but this concupiscence whereof we talke hath no consent of man but riseth against his will therefore is no sinne M. Perkins answereth That such actions as are vsed of one man towards another must be voluntarie but sinne towards God may be committed without our consent For euery want of conformitie vnto the law euen in our body although against our will be sinnes in the Court of conscience Reply Full little knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience the secret faults indeed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that facultie which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine Lib. 3 de lib. arâ cap. 17. That sinne is so voluntarie an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntarie And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformitie to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chance to dreame of vncleannesse whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxeÌ of sinning without a mans consent is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason Lib de vera Relig. cap. 14. that S. Augustine auerreth Neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned to hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to denie this and greater matters too R. ABBOT To the obiection here propounded M. Perkins hath giuen a double answer To the one M. Bishop replieth making choice of that that his wit would best serue him to play vpon but to the other which is the same that S. Austin still vsed against the same obiection of the Pelagian heretikes he vseth not a word Let vs aske M. Bishop himselfe What is there not sinne in infants before they be baptized He will tell vs that there is But then we vrge him with their owne rule Euery sinne is voluntarie but that that is in infants vnbaptized is not voluntarie because they haue no act of will therefore that that is in infants vnbaptized is no sinne Will he not here say as M. Perkins doth according to S. Austins doctrine which indeed is true that the sinne that is in infants is a Aug. Retraât lib. 1. cap. 13. Supra Sect. 2. voluntarie by the will of him that first sinned but not by the will of them to whom it is originall that it is now b De ciuiâ Dei li. 12. ca. 3 Quod vrtium consuetudine âmio è progressu roboratum naturaliter ânolenit à voluntate sumpsit exerdium naturall to man but yet the beginning of it was by the will of man Which answer when he hath giuen vs let him take it backe againe to himselfe that the sinne of concupiscence is voluntarie by the will of him by whom it first came not by our will and that if he meane that to be voluntarie which is by the act of a mans owne will his rule is true onely in actuall sinnes and not in sinne Originall whereof we dispute But of this point I haue answered sufficiently before in the question of c Sect. 18. Free will and need no further here to stand vpon it only I wish the Reader to obserue how M. Bishop hath here foisted in that sin is not committed without mans consent whereof M. Perkins mentioned nothing And therefore as Austine said to Iulian obiecting how should
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fixâ Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for theÌ that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
we will any thing by how much the more certainly we know how good it is and more earnestly are delighted therein Therefore ignorance and infirmitie the one in the vnderstanding and the other in the will it selfe being the p De nataet grat cap. 67. Paenalia omni animae ignorantia difficultas two penalties of euery soule of man are defaults or corruptions hindering the will both in the doing of that that is good and eschewing of that that is euill So long then as these defaults of ignorance and infirmity do remaine so long there cannot be a perfect rectifying of the will But ignorance and infirmity are not taken away in baptisme Therefore baptisme doth not wholly take away the deordination of the will Of the former of these it is manifest which S. Ambrose saith q Ambros in Psal 118. ser 3. Omnes sanctem vmbra sunt quamdus sunt in corpore non perfectè videns sed ex parte cognoscunt All the Saints are in a shadow so long as they are in the body they do not see perfectly but know in part onely He learned it of the Apostle saying r 1. Cor. 13.9 We know in part we prophecy in part we see through a glasse darkly And if it might be so said of the Apostles how much more is it to be vnderstood of the common condition and state of men We cannot but acknowledge much blindnesse much errour much imperfection of knowledge and therefore resolue that the vnderstanding cannot giue due information to the will And so long as we are thus weake in knowledge all other things must needs be vnperfect in vs because we cannot loue beyond that we know nor delight beyond our loue Therefore our loue is vnperfect our desire is vnperfect our delight is vnperfect and yet not onely because our knowledge is vnperfect but also because we haue yet receiued not the perfection but Å¿ Rom. 8.23 the first fruites onely of the spirit by whom all these things are effected in vs. For this cause S. Austine euery where acknowledgeth that this default of infirmity continueth still in the regenerate and that there is not perfect newnesse in the mind and inner man as we haue seene before by reason whereof the will is distracted and diuided in it selfe and by one motion of it selfe fighteth against another whilest t August in Ioan. tract 81. supra sect 1. we will one way because we be in Christ and will another way because as yet we are in this world Now sith there is not by baptisme perfection of knowledge to direct the will and the will it selfe by corruption yet remaining is infirme and weake to the loue and delight of the law of God it cannot be but absurdly said which M. Bishop saith that the will in baptisme is fully rectified and set in order againe towards the law of God Or if the meaning be that it is rectified and set in order but yet not fully and perfectly then he saith as we say that the deordination of the will continueth yet still in part and because sinne consisteth in the deordination of the will therefore sinne by baptisme is not altogether and wholly done away Thus we see him very hardly bested that making choise himselfe yet he cannot find one corner where he can in safetie shrowd himselfe 13. W. BISHOP 4. Obiect Lastly saith M. Perkins for our disgrace they alledge that we in our Doctrine teach that Originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose roots remaine in the flesh growing and encreasing after they be cut as before His answer is that they teach in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne to receiue his deadly wound in the root neuer after to be recouered Conferre this last answer with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly wounded in the root there it remaineth still with all the guiltinesse of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this be comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the roots In deed they do him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Originall sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his works and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter R. ABBOT This obiection they haue borowed of the Pelagian heretikes who altogether denying Originall sinne and acknowledging onely sinnes actuall by voluntary imitation and custome defended that those being pardoned and forgiuen in baptisme a man was made fully and perfectly without sinne When therefore the Catholike Bishops and Pastours of the Church did teach that after baptisme there was concupiscence still remaining whence did grow euill motions and lusts tempting and entising to sinne and wickednesse they hereupon fell to cauilling in this sort that a August cont duas epist Pelag lib. 1. cap. 13. supra sect 9. sinnes then were not wholly remitted and that baptisme did not take away sinnes but onely pare them and shaue them so as that the rootes did still stick whence other sinnes should grow againe in like sort to be cut off Now this Saint Austine denieth and teacheth that baptisme giueth to the regenerate b Dicimus baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum auferre crimina non radere vt omnium peccatorum raâices in mala carne teneantur remission and release of all sinnes and doth not pare of faults crimina faults of behauiour and conuersation but doth wholly take them away because of actuall sinnes which onely and no other they acknowledged there remaineth nothing when the same are forgiuen and pardoned c Sed de ista carnis coâupiscentiae falli eos credo vel fallere cum qui necesse est vt etiam baptizatus et hic si diligentissimè proficit et spiritu dei agitur pea mente confligat But as touching concupiscence saith he I hold that they are deceiued and do deceiue others with which the regenerate hath still to fight albeit he haue well profited and be guided by the spirit of God Yet this he saith is no sinne to him that is it is not imputed for sinne because the guilt thereof drawen by generation is remitted and forgiuen by regeneration Now this concupiscence as S. Ambrose saith is d Ambros Apolog Dauid cap. 13. mala radix an euill root e August de verb. Dom. serm 12. radix omnium malorum the root of all euils saith Austine euen as charity is the root of all
the benefits of God looke how farre thou treadest the foote of thy faith so farre thou shalt possesse For as Cyprian saith m Cypr. lib. 2. ep 6. Dat credentibus tantuÌ quantum se credit capere qui sumit God giueth to them that beleeue so much as he that receiueth beleeueth himselfe to receiue He doth therefore vndoubtedly perseuere in faith and prayer who praying for perseuerance beleeueth that he shall receiue the same And this is further confirmed by the words of Saint Iohn n 1. Ioh. 5.14.15 This is the assurance that we haue in him that if we aske anie thing according to his will he heareth vs and if we know that he heareth vs whatsoeuer we aske we know that we haue the petitions that we haue desired of him To which M. Bishop answereth But where doe we find that it is Gods will to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall Saluation Where the limitation that he vseth at the first entrance into his seruice before also deliuered is but an idle tricke of his vagating wit For the question is not of assurance at the first entrance into Gods seruice but whether first or last there be any assurance at all For he denieth whether in the entrance or in the continuance that God by faith doth giue any man assurance of his owne Saluation Or if that be not his meaning but that though not at the first entrance yet afterwards God doth by faith giue that assurance let him tell vs and we shall be glad that he hath so farre foorth forsaken the doctrine of his Romish mistresse But because that is his meaning he must acknowledge his absurd folly in makings a shew of exception in words where he intended none As for vs we say indeed that God euen at the verie first entrance into his seruice offereth vs this assurance For euen at the very first entrance he saith as he did to the iaylor o Act. 16.31 Beleeue in the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt be saued and from the beginning our faith as it is greater or lesse so either strongly or weakely apprehendeth and embraceth this assurance And in this assurance we labour and endeuour to grow and to go on p Rom 1.17 from faith to faith from q Psal 84.7 strength to strength till we learne to stand as it were vpon the battlements of heauen and to set the world at defiance saying r Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ c. But that answer of his is otherwise also a ridiculous and vaine shift Where do we find that it is Gods will to assure euerie man of eternall Saluation Marrie speaking of them that beleeue euen in the verie place alledged M. Bishop if you dissemble it not By other places we are taught to pray for forgiuenesse of sinnes for Saluation for eternall life and you denie not but that we are thus to pray according to the will of God By this place we haue assurance and are taught to knovv that we haue the petitions that vve desire of him and therefore that according to our prayer we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes we haue Saluation and euerlasting life Speake strictly to the point M. Bishop let vs haue no shifting of words We haue assurance to knovv that vve haue vvhat vve aske of him according to his vvill It is according to his will that we aske of him forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life We haue therefore assurance and are to know that we haue forgiuenesse of sinnes and life eternall M. Bishop is dumbe and to this hath nothing more to say but goeth forward to aske the question Is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour towards him I answere him No it is not sufficient For God made that promise by the former couenant Å¿ Gal. 3.12 He that doth these things shall liue in them and it auailed not t Heb. 8.9 for they continued not in my couenant and I regarded them not saith the Lord. Therefore God made another couenant and promise not like the former not conditionall vpon faithfull seruice and good behauior but absolute and without exception the performance whereof should depend wholy and onely vpon his mercie so that he would not expect as of vs but did vndertake to giue vs to worke in vs whatsoeuer faithfull seruice and good behauiour should be necessarie thereunto Therefore he saith u Vers 10. I vvill put my lawes in their minds and in their hearts vvill I vvrite them and I vvill be their God and they shall be my people they shall all know me for I will be mercifull vnto their vnrighteousnesse and I will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more So that although comparing the one part of the worke of our Saluation with another the latter is vsually tied to a condition of the former and God accordingly proceed in the execution thereof yet if we entirely consider the whole it issueth absolutely out of the purpose and promise of God who intending the end disposeth and worketh himselfe whatsoeuer belongeth to the accomplishment and attainment of the end Inasmuch therefore as true faith expecteth all of God and on Gods part M. Bishop confesseth we are most assured it must follow that by true faith we stand assured of Saluation because God is neuer wanting to do that that appertaineth vnto him 19. W. BISHOP The fourth reason is Whatsoeuer God commaundeth that a man must and can performe But God commandeth vs to beleeue our Saluation ergo we must beleeue it The proposition is true yet commonly denied by all Protestants for God commands vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaunds vs to beleeue our Saluation is proued saith M. Perkins by these words Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it written in that Gospell beleeue your owne particular Saluation shew vs once but one cleare text for it and we will beleeue it I do beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercie and merits but know well that vnlesse I keepe his words I am by him likened to a foole Math. 7. that built his house vpon the sands He commaunds me to watch and pray Math. 26. least I fall into temptation and elsewhere Math. 25. warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certaine to be shut out with the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions find we in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this securitie of our Saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and diligent to traine our selues in godly exercises of all vertue R. ABBOT The proposition saith he is true and yet
as he propoundeth and vnderstandeth it it is not true nor was euer intended by M. Perkins to be true and iustly is it denied by all Protestants that we can performe whatsoeuer God commandeth as in the next question God willing shall appeare in the handling of that point But the proposition as M. Perkins expresseth it is Whatsoeuer we are commaunded in the Gospell that we must and can performe The reason whereof he taketh from a distinction of the commaundements of the law and the Gospell because the Gospell is the ministerie of spirit and life giuing vs to do whatsoeuer it doth coÌmand which the law doth not Now M. Bishop confoundeth Law and Gospell and maketh the proposition generall and without exception being stil desirous to shew himselfe like himselfe But that God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the remission of our sinnes and life euerlasting Maister Perkins sheweth by the words of Christ Repent and beleeue the Gospell being the briefe summe of the ministerie and preaching of Christ and the same in effect as if he had said Repent you of your sinnes and beleeue the tidings that God hath sent vnto you of the forgiuenesse thereof by Iesus Christ through faith in his name For the declaring of which point he sheweth that to beleeue the Gospell is not onely generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for then the diuels may be said to beleeue the Gospell and we suppose that Maister Bishop hath more wit and grace then to say that Christ in saying Beleeue the Gospell did commend nothing to vs but what the diuels may do and therefore that the repentant is hereby willed particularly to beleeue for himselfe to haue the forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ Which declaration being very effectuall to the point this Hickscorner because he knew not what to answer to it passeth ouer with Spectatum admissi c. and Where is it written in that Gospell beleeue your owne particular Saluation shew vs once faith he but one cleare text for it and we will beleeue it euen as the Iewes said of Christ a Mat. 27.42 Let him come downe from the crosse and we will beleeue in him Though he had come downe from the crosse yet would they not haue beleeued in him because they had seene him do greater works then that and yet they did not beleeue and euen so Maister Bishop whatsoeuer is shewed him remaineth still b Psal 58.4 like the deafe adder that stoppeth his eares refusing to heare the voice of the charmer charme he neuer so wisely But tell vs Maister Bishop in what sence it is that the repentant man is willed to beleeue the Gospell Do not make the beleeuing of the Gospell a thing incident to the diuell because we shall then hold you a partaker with the diuell This you would haue told vs and not onely haue recited the place but spoken to that that was inferred vpon it had you not resolued to play the part of a lewd sycophant and sought to carie the matter with bare words The Gospell is c Luk. 2.10 1â the glad tidings of great ioy that vnto vs a Sauiour is borne d Esa 9 6. vnto vs a child is borne vnto vs a sonne is giuen e Ambrosi deââ de lib 3 cap â Propâciaâââ âââis hoâceââ creâââ ãâã increaââ that is vnto vs that do beleeue To beleeue the Gospell is to beleeue this and how do I beleeue vnto vs if I beleeue not vnto me Therefore by beleeuing the Gospell I beleeue that Christ is borne and giuen a Sauiour vnto me f Mat. 1.21 to saue me being one of his people g 1. Thess 1.10 from my sinnes and from the wrath to come The Gospell is that h Act. 10.43 through the name of Christ euery one that beleeueth in him shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes i Iohn 3.15 euery one that beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue euerlasting life If I beleeue the Gospell I beleeue this and therefore because I beleeue in Christ I beleeue that I shall haue forgiuenesse of sinnes that I shall not perish but haue euerlasting life If I beleeue in Christ and yet beleeue not this that I haue euerlasting life I beleeue not the Gospell because the Gospell saith k Ibid. ver 36. He that beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life l 2. Iohn 5.10 He that beleeueth not God saith S. Iohn hath made him a liar because he beleeueth not the record that God witnessed of his Sonne and this is the record that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life and this life is in his Sonne Vnto vs saith he namely vnto vs that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God as afterwards he expoundeth If then I beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God and do not beleeue that God hath giuen vnto me eternall life I make God a liar in not beleeuing the record that God hath witnessed of his Sonne Therfore he addeth m Ver. 13. These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God that ye may know that ye haue eternall life Where is now this pelting Sophister that asketh vs where it is written in the Gospell to beleeue our owne particular Saluation It is written there where it is written to them that beleeue to know that they haue eternall life But saith he I beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits But take heed you lie not M. Bishop take heed you lie not vnto God You haue told vs before that n Sect. 3. to beleeue in God is to loue God with all your heart and that you are not assured of your loue towards him How then can you dare to to say that you beleeue in God You haue told vs that o Sect. 6. hope and charitie are seated in the darke corners of the will and that you haue but a coniecture and probable opinion therof in your selfe why then do you here tell vs an vncertaine tale of you know not what that you hope to be saued through the mercie and merites of Christ Againe whereas you say that you hope to be saued through the mercie and merits of Christ you therein againe dissemble with Christ because notwithstanding the mercie and merits of Christ you hang your Saluation vpon that that you are to merit and do for your selfe and make your owne Free will the finisher and perfecter of that that by Christ is onely but begun You will haue the mercie and merits of Christ to serue to make you able to saue your selfe and it you do so you will thanke your selfe but you will haue nothing further to thanke Christ for And so whereas you would auoid to be like vnto the foole you shew your selfe a foole outright building so as that you know not whether you build or not you
done it because he could do it He could haue made man with wings to flie but yet he hath not done it You should proue plainly out of the Scriptures that he would so do As for worthinesse it is but a matter of conceit and fancie No creature can contend vpon worth with the Creator If Adams worth were such as he speaketh of hee had beene worthy to be preserued and he may as sawcily dispute with God that he did him wrong in suffering him to fall As for that which he alledgeth as out of Master Perkins that man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnesse it is a deuice of his owne neither doth Master Perkins say any thing that should yeeld him anie such construction For conclusion he telleth vs that their doctrine is better to be liked then ours if for no other reason yet for that it doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christes merits and bringeth greater dignitie vnto men Where the vaine man seeth not that by the one part of his speech he crosseth the other The thing whereto the true doctrine of the Gospell tendeth is entirely the honour and glorie of God but their doctrine forsooth serueth to bring dignitie vnto men But in that it bringeth dignitie vnto men it detracteth from the glorie of God whose light is most cleerely seene in our darknesse a 2. Cor 12.9 his power in our weaknesse his goodnesse in shewing mercy to vs that are euill his b Dan. 9.7 righteousnesse in the confession of our shame the worth of Christs merits in the true acknowledgement of our vnworthinesse and want of merits God hath appointed vs to be c Ephes 1.6 for the praise of the glorie of his grace and therefore so disposeth d 1. Cor. 1.29 that no flesh shall reioyce in his presence and e Esa 2.11 that he onely may be exalted at that day Therefore f Aug. epist 29. Cùm rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor c. when the iust king shall sit vpon his throne who shall glorie that he hath a cleane heart or reioyce that he is free from sinne Our plea then must not be Merit and worth but only g 2. Tim. 1.18 to find mercie with the Lord. But the thing that they seeke for as M. Bishop telleth vs is the dignitie of man as indeed it is They labour to set vp their owne righteousnesse against the righteousnesse of God They extoll their owne Merit their owne worth The Merit of Christ onely yeeldeth matter of grace to their Free vvill to worke vpon and thereby they worke for themselues they Merit for themselues they saue themselues but in seeking this glorie to themselues they purchase their owne shame What we can alledge for imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs to be our Iustification will appeare in that that followeth 3. W. BISHOP M. Perkins first reason is this That which must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfic the iustice of the law which saith Do these things and thou shalt liue Gal. 5. but there is nothing that can satisfie that iustice of the law but the Righteousnesse and obedience of Christ Ergo. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Gal. 5. Gal. 5. Do this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answer with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the law that is he is a Iew and no Christian that would haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice which God requires in his law Isay 6.4 and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth I answer that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the vvicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainely by the text it selfe For he saith before But lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue beene euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the vvords be generall and seemes to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others vvho vse to speake in the persons of them for vvhom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lied vvhen he sayd There is none that call vpon thy name vvhen as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercie Luther and Caluin on this place all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alledged against the vertue of good vvorkes Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That vvhich the Prophet spake of some euill men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places R. ABBOT This reason saith M. Bishop is not worth a rush but I am sure that his answer is not worth a rush as wherein we may see the absurd blindnesse of these men who take vpon them to be the only maisters of the world That saith M. Perkins vvhich must be our Righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the lavv vvhich saith Do these things and thou shalt liue inferring hereof that because no Righteousnesse of ours doth answer the iustice or Righteousnesse commaunded in the law therefore no Righteousnesse of ours but onely the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is our Iustification before God For answer to this M. Bishop demandeth what law he meaneth whether Moses law or Christs law But we make to him a counter-demand What he meaneth by Moses law and what by Christs law He should more plainly haue declared his distinction if he would haue made an answer of it but that that we conceiue of it is that by Moses law he meaneth the ceremonies of the law by Christs law the morall law of the commandements commonly so called But had he so little vnderstanding of the law as to thinke that of the ceremoniall law it was sayd Do this and thou shalt liue Surely the ceremonies of the law were but a Col. 2.14 a handwriting against vs because they were an acknowledgement of vncleannesse and sinne and trespasse against that law that faith Do this and thou shalt liue and because an acknowledgement of sinne therefore
a conuiction of guilt of death incurred thereby and yet could yeeld no remedie against death being afterwards b Heb. 7.18 disanulled because of the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof so farre should we be from thinking that of the ceremoniall law it should be sayd Do this and thou shalt liue The yong man demandeth of Christ c Mat. 19.16 What good thing shall I do that I may haue eternall life Now looke of what law our Sauior answereth him as M. Bishop hath cited before d Vers 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements of the selfe same law doth he answer another to the same question vpon recitall of a briefe of the commandements e Luc. 10.28 This do and thou shalt liue namely of the morall law to which it hath reference f Leuit. 18.5 where it is first spoken as appeareth by that that followeth for declaration of it Of which also it is rehearsed by g Ezech. 18.11.13 c. Ezechiel the Prophet and is by the Apostle Saint Paul further alledged to shew the difference betwixt h Rom. 10.5 the Righteousnesse of the law and the Righteousnesse of faith Moses saith he this describeth the Righteousnesse of the lavv that the man vvhich doth these things shall liue thereby i Gal. 3.12 The lavv is not of faith but he that doth these things shall liue in them Of which law he saith k Rom. 3.20 By the lavv commeth the knowledge of sinne that it saith l Cap. 7. ver 7.16.22 Thou shalt not lust that he consenteth to it that it is good that he delighteth in it as touching the inner man that the m Cap. 13. v. 9. Gal. 5.14 summe thereof is Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe all which doe vndeniably point out vnto vs the morall law as both n August de spir lit ca. 14. Saint Austine and o Hieron epist ad Ctesiphont Saint Hierome out of the same and such like places haue expresly affirmed Of the same law therefore he saith p Gal. 3.10 So manie as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them And because no man continueth in all he concludeth hereof q Ver. 11. cap. 2.16 that by the law no man is iustified in the sight of God that by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified Now of the selfe same law doth he say that which M. Bishop hath cited for the cutting of his owne throat r Cap. 5.4 Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law thereby teaching vs to resolue that Iustification by Christ and Iustification by the worke of the law cannot possibly concurre in one Now whereas the Apostle for auouching Iustification onely by faith in Christ taketh it for a ground that no man fulfilleth the Righteousnesse of the law M. Bishop that he may be wholy thwart and crosse vnto him affirmeth that by the helpe of Gods grace men are made able to fulfill the law to be iustified thereby Against which assertion to proue that the Righteousnesse of the regenerate and faithfull is not such as that it can answer the iustice and Righteousnesse required in the law M. Perkins alledgeth the common confession of all endited by the Prophet Esay Å¿ Esa 64.6 All our Righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloth For if the Righteousnesse commaunded by the law be most exact and perfect and no righteousnesse is performed by vs but what by our weaknesse and corruption is blemished and stained then can no righteousnesse of ours satisfie the commandement of the law But M. Bishop answereth that the Prophet speaketh these words in the person of the wicked of that nation and that time and therefore that they are madly applied vnto the righteous Where a man would wonder that he should be so mad as to imagine that prayer to be vttered in the person of wicked men or that wicked men should make mention or any their Righteousnesse vnto God And as for the time it fitteth not the age wherein the Prophet himselfe liued but was prophetically written in respect of a time long after succeeding He foresaw in the spirit the desolation of Ierusalem and the temple and that whole land and thereupon putteth himselfe into the person of the faithfull and maketh himselfe as one of them that should liue at that time This is verie apparent by the Prophets words t Vers 10. Thine holy cities lye wast Sion is a wildernesse and Ierusalem a desert The house of our sanctuarie and of our glorie where our fathers praised thee is burnt vp with fire and all our pleasant things are vvasted This prayer then was to serue for a direction to the faithfull that then should be to make their mone vnto God and to intreat mercie at his hands And very answerable to this propheticall prayer is the prayer of the Prophet Daniel made presently at that time For whereas M. Bishop to proue that the Prophet speaketh in the person of the wicked alledgeth those words u Esa 64 5. Lo thou hast bene angrie for we haue offended and haue euer bene in sinne the Prophet Daniel likewise saith x Dan 9.5 We haue sinned and haue committed iniquitie and done wickedly y Vers 7. O Lord Righteousnesse belongeth vnto thee and vnto vs open shame z Vers 10. We haue not obeyed the voyce of the Lord our God to walke in his wayes c. And whereas he alledgeth the other words a Esa 64.7 There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold of thee the Prophet Daniel in like sort saith b Dan. 9.13 We haue not made our prayer before the Lord our God Both of them say We haue offended We haue sinned We haue not prayed as shewing plainely that they so spake of other men as that they implied themselues also Nay saith M. Bishop that is but the manner of Preachers and specially of such as become Intercessours for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue Where he maketh the holy Prophets and seruants of God as verie hypocrites to God as he himselfe is as if they tooke vpon them to accuse themselues to God when they intended nothing lesse But to driue him out of this hole the Prophet Daniel saith of himselfe that in that prayer c Dan. 9.20 he confessed his owne sinnes and the sinnes of his people and why should Daniel the Prophet be sayd to confesse his owne sinnes and not the Prophet Esay or those iust and faithfull in whose person Esay spake Nay both the one and the other spake out of the true affection of the faithfull at all times who alwayes find in themselues defects and defaults whereby they find iust
savv nothing in himselfe to hinder his Iustification yet God vvho hath sharper eye-fight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no other fault in me in Gods sight then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am guiltie of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our Iustification as I haue before shewed But M. Perkins addeth that vve must remember that vve shall come to iudgement vvhere rigour of iustice shall be shewed We knovv it vvell but vvhen there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from Originall sinne Pag. 28. as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about Originall sinne vvhat then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had runne a good race c. and therefore there was a crowne of iustice layd vp for him by that iust iudge and not onely to him but all them that loue Christs comming And concerning both Inherent iustice and the abilitie of it to fulfill the law and what law heare this one sentence of S. Augustine Serm. 18. de verb. Apost He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the law albeit the law be good but he shall fulfill the law not by iustice which he hath of himselfe but which is giuen of God for charitie is the fulfilling of the law and from him is this charitie powred into our hearts not certainly by our selues but by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. R. ABBOT There is none so readie to call harlot as is the harlot none so readie to obiect cosinage to another as he that is the cosiner himselfe I pray thee gentle Reader whether wilt thou rather thinke to be the cosiner him that saith that the Apostle saying I am not thereby iustified doth meane as he saith I am not thereby iustified or him that will make thee beleeue that the Apostle thereby meaneth I cannot tell whether I be iustified or no. Indeede cosiners commonly vse colours and labour for craftie and cleanly conueyance but M. Bishop is none of those that make daintie of the matter he sticketh not in euerie mans sight to cut the purse that which in euerie mans eyes is expresly denied he maketh no bones at all to turne into a matter of question and doubt The place hath bene sufficiently handled in the former question a Sect. 12. Of the Certaintie of Saluation here I will onely set downe what Gregorie Bishop of Rome conceiued of this place b Greg. Moral lib. 5. cap. 8 Sape ipsa iustitia nostra ad examen diuinae iustitiae deducta iniustitia est sordet in districtiene iudicis quod in aestimatione fulgeâ operantis Oft times saith he our verie Righteousnesse being brought to the examination of the Righteousnesse of God is vnrighteousnesse and it is loathsome in the seueritie of the iudge vvhich in the opinion of the vvorker shineth bright Whereupon Saint Paul when he sayd I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing by and by added but I am not iustified thereby Who forthwith insinuating the cause vvhy he vvas not iustified saith But he that iudgeth me is the Lord. c Acsi dicat Idcirco in eo quòd nihil mihi conscius sum iustificatum me abnego quia ab eo quime iudicat examinari me subtiliùs sâto As if he should say Therefore doe I denie my selfe to be iustified by my being guiltie of nothing because I know my selfe to be more neerely sifted by him that iudgeth me c. d Quia ipsa nostra perfectis culpa non caret nisi hanc seueâus iudex in subtilâ lance examinâ misericorditèr penset Because euen our perfection is not vvithout fault vnlesse the seuere iudge do vvith mercie vvaigh it in the strict ballance of his examination Againe he saith of the same place e Ibid. cap. 23. Districtionem diuinae iustitiae contemplantes etiam de ipsis operib iure pertimescimus quaenos fortia egisse putabamus Ducta namque ad internam regulaÌ nostra rectitudo si districtum in dicium inuenit multis tortitudinum suarum sinibus in intimam rectitudinem impingit Beholding the strictnesse of Gods iustice vve are iustly afraide of those very vvorkes which we thought we did with strength For our Righteousnesse being brought to the internall rule if it find seuere iudgement by many creekes of wryings and turnings offendeth against the most inward or perfect Righteousnesse Whence the Apostle Paul seeing himselfe to haue the bones that is euen the strength of vertues and yet these bones of his did tremble at strict examination saith I am guiltie to my selfe in nothing yet am I not thereby iustified f Acsi diceret Recta egisse me recolo attamen demeritis non praesumo quia ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur sub quo nostrae fortitudinis ossa turbantur As if he should say I remember I haue done the things that be right but yet I presume not of any merit because our life is brought to the censure of him before vvhom the verie bones of our strength are troubled Thus by the iudgement of him whose iudgement M. Bishop by no meanes may refuse S. Paul plainely denieth himselfe to be iustified because though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he had to do with him who in his very best workes much more in many secret sinnes could find sufficient to condemne him And this is the true meaning of those words that howsoeuer a man if it be so know nothing by himselfe yet the Lord hath matter enough against euery man that he may be iustified in that which he hath sayd g Psal 143.2 that no man liuing shall be iustified in his sight But yet the same Apostle who here saith of himselfe I know nothing by my selfe namely as touching any vnfaithfulnesse in the stewardship that God had committed vnto him which was the matter spoken of yet in other respect found cause to say of himselfe h Rom. 7.14 I am carnall sold vnder sinne i Vers 19. I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. k Vers 23. I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne that is in my members O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death So that here is a further fault committed by M. Bishop in that he vrgeth the words of the Apostle as simply and generally true which were meant onely respectiuely as if he had absolutely sayd that he knew nothing at all against himselfe when he meant it as touching any default in his seruice and charge that
Dei not of Pauls owne iustice saith S. Bernard but of the iustice of God For it is iust with God to pay that he oweth and he oweth that which he hath promised And this is the iustice saith he vpon which the Apostle presumeth euen the promise of God Now verie much doth M. Bishop mistake to thinke that God rendereth by the rigorous sentence of a iust iudge that which as a iust iudge he rendereth by promise according to the law of faith In a word it toucheth the Apostle Paul which Saint Austine sayeth vnto God y August in Psal 129. Si nobiscum seuerus iudex agere volueris non miserecors pater quis stabit ante oculâs tuos If thou vvilt deale as a rigorous iudge and not as a mercifull father who shall stand in thy presence The place of Austin by him cited maketh nothing at all against vs nor helpeth him at all He would thereby proue Inherent iustice and we denie it not onely we say that in this life we are farre from the perfection of it In this life we are z August de verb. Apost ser 15. Vtatores non habitatores non possessores trauellers to it not dwellers in it not possessors of it as Saint Austin speaketh in the same Sermon misquoted by M. Bishop the eighteenth for the fifteenth a Ibid. ser 16. Puto hoc esse dicere Iustus sum quod est peccator non sum I thinke it is all one for a man to say I am iust saith he as to say I am no sinner and who is there liuing that can so say Therefore aduisedly he saith implebit legem he shall fulfill the law not he doth fulfill He now fulfilleth it in part but shall perfectly fulfill it when charitie shall be perfect which is b Rom 1.3.10 the fulfilling of the law which c August epist 29. Plenissima charitas quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine shall be in no man so long as he liueth here Therefore in another place he bringeth in the Apostle himselfe saying d Idem de verb. Apost ser 5. Non implet legem infirmitas mea sed laudat legem voluntas meae My weaknesse fulfilleth not the law but yet my will commendeth the law referring it to the commaundement Thou shalt not lust This is the state of our Righteousnesse here rather a desire to fulfill the law then any perfect attainment of our desire And thus M. Bishops answer to the first argument is indeed not worth a rush 5. W. BISHOP Now to the second argument He which knew no sinne 2. Cor. 5. was made sinne for vs that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God which is in him Hence M. Perkins reasoneth thus As Christ was made sinne for vs so we are made the Righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he being most holy Therefore a sinner is made righteous in that Christs Righteousnesse is imputed vnto him I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our Iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any likelihood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sinne in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers An host or Sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truly made his bodie being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see S. Augustine Tract 26. in Ioh. Jtem Epist 120. ad Honorat cap. 30. Item in Psa 30. Conc. 1. De spirit lit c. 9. One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the faith of Christ Iesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by which Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberalitie they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of workes but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs and that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to worke that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted R. ABBOT The words of the Apostle are plaine yet M. Bishop denieth that there is any signification of a similitude that Christ vvas so made sinne as vve are made iust M. Perkins to approue that there is a similitude alledged the exposition of Anselmus a Anselm in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Ille peccatum vt nos iustitia non nostra sed Dei non in nobis sed in illo sicut ille peccatum non suuÌ sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis He vvas made sinne that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods not in our selues but in him as he was made sinne not his owne but ours not in himselfe but in vs. M. Bishop answereth that Anselme shall be answered when the place is quoted He was loth of his labor to search for it being left vnquoted by M. Perkins because he saw that all his wit could not deuise what to say against it But when he will answer he must not answer Anselme only but Austin also from whom Anselme borrowed that exposition as he vsed to doe verie much b August Enchirid cap. 41. Ipse ergò peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine catâis peccati in qua crucifixus erat demonstrauit He then was made sinne saith Austin that we might be made Righteousnesse not our owne but Gods nor in our selues but in him euen as he by the similitude of sinfull flesh vvherein he vvas crucified did shew foorth sinne not his owne sinne but ours not being in him but in vs. In which words we see it plainely affirmed which M. Bishop denieth that the Apostle in those words did intend a comparison betwixt Christs being made sinne and our being made Righteousnesse that as Christ not being a sinner yet was reputed as a sinner for our sakes and for the sinne that is in vs so we not being in our selues iust and righteous
yet are reputed iust and righteous for his sake and for the Righteousnesse that is in him To this purpose the exposition of Hierome was also brought in and the place quoted He omitted to answer to Anselme because the place was not quoted but why did he ouerpasse the other place cited directly to the point but because he intendeth nothing but treacherie and falshood and wilfully shutteth his eyes against apparent truth The words of Hierome are as cleare as the sunne c Hieron in 2. Cor. cap. 5. Christus pro peccatis nostris oblatus peccati nomen accepit vt nos efficeremâr iustitia Dei in ipso non nostra nec in nobis Christ being offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that vve might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him not ours nor in vs. Where it is euident that the Righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is not any Righteousnesse that is in vs but it is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs euen as our sinne was imputed vnto him Now then it should seeme that it was not M. Perkins his vaine glosse to make this comparison but it was some likelihood thereof in the text that made all these to conceiue thereof as M. Perkins did As touching the other proposition But Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinnes he saith that it also is false and denieth that Christ vvas made sinne by imputation But how then if not by imputation Forsooth by being made a sacrifice for sinne But how was he made a sacrifice for sinne if not by hauing sinne imputed vnto him The ancient writers well obserued in the description of the sacrifices of Moses law that the sacrifice for sinne was sometimes called by the name of sinne As where Moses saith d Leuit. 4.29 He shall lay his hand vpon the head of the sinne that is of the sinne offering and he shall slay the sinne that is the sacrifice for sinne Now because they found the name of sinne to be thus giuen to the sacrifice for sinne therefore where it is sayd of Christ that he was made sinne for vs they tooke the meaning to be this that he was made a sacrifice for sinne Which being admitted helpeth M. Bishop nothing because there is yet question to be made why the sacrifice for sinne should it selfe be called by the name of sinne Surely it could be for no other cause but because the sinne of the man for whom it was offered was imputed to the dumbe beast in figure of Christ and it was to die as if it had committed the sinne Therfore the man that had sinned was appointed e Leuit. 1.4 to lay his hand vpon the head of his offering as it were there to lay his sinne So saith Theodoret f Theod in Leuit quaest 1. Qui victimam offerebat imponebat super caput eius manus tanquam suas ipsius operationes pro quibus hostiam offerebat He that brought the sacrifice layed his hands vpon the head thereof as to lay vpon it his owne workes for which he offered the sacrifice Thus doth God himselfe expresse the meaning of that ceremonie * Leuiâ 16.21 Aaron shall put his hands vpon the head of the Goate and confesse ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their trespasses in all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the goate so the goate shall beare vpon him all their iniquities Sith Christ then was made a sacrifice for sinne it followeth that the sinne of them for whom he was sacrificed was layed vpon him and imputed to him Therefore Origen to apply that figure saith that g Origen in Leuit lib 1 Peccata generis humans imposuit super corpus suuÌ Christ layed the sinnes of mankind vpon his owne bodie And thus the Scripture teacheth vs h Esa 53.6 All we like sheepe haue gone astray c. and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquities of vs all i 1. Pet. 2.24 He hath borne our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree Thus Hierome bringeth in our Sauiour Christ saying k Hieron in Psal 87. Irâm protellam furoru tui quâ in gentibus effâsurus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi Thou hast brought vpon me that wrath and storme of thy furie which thou wast to power forth vpon the nations because I haue taken vpon me their sinnes How are our sinnes layed vpon Christ how did he beare them how hath he taken them vpon him but by hauing the same imputed vnto him Therefore Saint Austin saith l August in Psal 22. Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit vt iustitiam suam nostâanâ iustitiam faceret He made our sinnes his sinnes that he might make his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse God made him sinne that is saith Elias Cretensis m Elias Cretens in Gregor Nazianzen Orat. 5. He suffered him to die as a sinner because of our sinne But Chrysostome goeth yet further not onely n Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 11. he made him sinne that is he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner but also o Ibid. Iustum fecit peccatorem vt peccatores faceret iustos he made the iust a sinner saith he that he might make sinners iust All which speeches can no otherwise be made good but by graunting the imputation of our sinnes to be layed vpon Iesus Christ especially the last which seemeth verie hardly spoken but yet the Fathers doubt not thus to speake to signifie this imputation as shall appeare further hereafter in the eleuenth Section Now as touching that which he citeth out of Saint Austine to declare what Saint Paul meaneth by the iustice or Righteousnesse of God there is nothing in that exposition that maketh against vs. For we also say that the iustice of God is meant not that whereby God himselfe is iust but whereby he iustifieth vs. For Christ needed not for himselfe to be made vnder the lavv so to performe the Righteousnesse thereof for his owne Iustification before God being otherwise simply and absolutely iust but what he did he did it for our sakes that we thereby through faith in him should be iustified in Gods sight And this iustice or righteousnesse we acknowledge to be giuen vnto vs by Gods free liberality and bounty euen as Christ himselfe is giuen vnto vs and therefore are we said therein p Rom. 5.17 to receiue the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse Which cannot be vnderstood of inherent iustice because we do not yet receiue the abundance of that gift but only q Cap. 8.23 the first fruits it being such as that S. Austine saith thereof so long as we liue here that r August de ciuit Dei li. 19. ca. 27. Jpsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita vt potius remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum it rather consisteth in
priorum debito vniuersos posteros obligante the debt or trespasse of our first parents did binde all their posteritie after them Adam then bare the person of all mankinde either standing to stand for all or falling to fall for all being to beget children according to his owne image either wherein he should continue if he did continue or whereto he should fall if he did fall Therefore h Ibid. vt supra when he sinned we all being in his loines as Bellarmine saith sinned in him and by him and his sin by imputation lieth vpon vs all But saith M. Bishop euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his own personal iniquity sticking in him which is commonly called Originall sinne In which words he somewhat toucheth the reputation of his scholership in that he hath not learned to put difference betwixt personall and Originall sinne which writers commonly distinguish one from another For personall sinne is that which groweth from the person whose sinne it is and is taken to be that which we call actuall sinne but originall sinne is that which being actuall and personall to the first man is deriued by propagation and thereby becommeth naturall to all the rest Thus Cyprian mentioneth them as diuers when speaking of the Patriarches and Prophets and other iust and holy men he saith i Cyprian de ieiunio tentat Christi Nec originals nec personali caruere delicto they neither wanted originall nor personall sinne So Bellarmine M. Bishops good Maister seuereth them in saying that k Bellarm. vt supra Originale peccatum noÌ minus verè propriè peccatuÌ est quà m personale In Adamo actuale personale in nobis originale dicitur Originall sinne is no lesse truly and properly sinne then personall and that Adams sinne in him is called actuall and personall but in vs originall It is wonder that so great a man as M. Bishop should be ignorant in this point But now what will he make of this originall sinne Marry saith he we receiue the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation Indeede we receiue the nature of man polluted with infection but doth your learning serue you no better but to make infection the whole matter of originall sinne You should know that originall sinne conteineth l Bellarm. de Amiss grat statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 10. reatum maculam first a guilt of actuall transgression and consequently a blot of infection For of this infection or pollution of nature S. Austine in infinite places doth rightly obserue that it is m August Retract li. â ca. 15. Peccatum tale vt idem sit paena peccati so a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne Now a punishment presupposeth a guilt of that sinne whereof it is a punishment For n Idem cont Iulian lib. 2. Non erat iustum sine crimine transire supplicium it is no iustice as Austine saith that the punishment should passe without the sinne Seeing therefore the punishment of the sinne of Adam is lying vpon vs it must necessarily follow that there is lying vpon vs an imputation of the sinne And so the same S. Austine saith that o Idem Retract li. 1. cap. 15. Dicimus eos reatu eius implicatos ob hoc poenae âbnoxiââ denneri we are holden enwrapped in the guilt therof and thereby are holden subiect to the punishment M. Bishop theÌ we hope wil learn henceforth to see that it ariseth of imputation that we receiue the nature of man polluted really with infection But by this meanes he is now become in a pitifull case hauing no way left to auoid the argument but that it standeth firme and sure that as from Adam we are first sinners by imputation and consequently sinfull by corruption so from Christ we are first iustified by imputation consequently renewed to inherent iustice by sanctification In moment of time both these concurre together but in order of nature there is first righteousnesse by imputation and thereby is way made to inward regeneration At this argument they are all faine to hoodwinke themselues because they cannot truly describe the state of originall sinne according to their owne grounds but they giue it way ineuitably to proceede against them They will haue it as M. Bishop here telleth vs out of p Bellarm de grat lib. arb li. 1. ca. 4. Bellarmine that the Apostles meaning is that we are made sinners by inherent corruption But we tell them and they can by no meanes auoid it that the condition of being sinners by inherent corruption because it is a punishment of sinne must presuppose vs to be formerly sinners otherwise and that is onely by imputation As therefore we are first sinners by imputation from Adam so are we first iustified by imputation from Christ regeneration to inherent righteousnesse following of the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ euen as inherent corruption followeth of the imputation of Adams sinne as before was said And hereof S. Bernard speaketh most notably q Bernard epist 190. Cur no aliundè iustitiae cùm aliuna è reatus Alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui iustificat a peccato alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non iustitia in Christi sanguine sed iustitia inquiet si cuius est quid ad te Esto sed sit etiam culpa cuius est quid ad me An iustâtia iusti super eum erit impietas impij no erit super euÌ Non conueniâ filium portare iniquitatem patris fraterna fieri exortem iustitiae Why should not righteousnesse be of another seeing guilt is of another It is another that maketh me a sinner it is another that iustifieth from sinne the one in his seede the other in his bloud Is there sinne in the seede of a sinner and is there not righteousnesse in the bloud of Christ But thou wilt say If there be a righteousnesse of any ones what is that to thee Be it so but then let the fault also be whose it is what is that to me shall the righteousnesse of the righteous be vpon himselfe and shall not the wickednesse of the wicked be vpon himselfe It is not meete that the sonne should beare the iniquitie of the Father and be denied to be partaker of the righteousnesse of his brother In which words we see that most clearely he affirmeth both the imputation of Adams sinne to condemnation and the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ accordingly to iustification I will conclude this point with the words of Chrysostome r Chrysost in Rom. hom 10. Si tibi Iudaeus dixerit Quo pacto vno rectè agente Christo vniuersuâ orbis saluus factuâ est possit illi respondere Quo pacto vno non obediente Adam vniuersus orbis condemnatus est If a Iew shall say
Righteousnesse in the sight of God that through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Iesus Christ our sinnes are forgiuen vs and thereby no accusation is liable against vs either as hauing done what we ought not to do or not done what we ought to do according to the words of the Apostle d Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect If we respect inherent qualitie there is inough to charge him with but by forgiuenesse of sinnes the same becommeth as if it had neuer bene In a word therefore we are not formally iust in qualitie if God iudge vs thereby being stained and defiled in all the Righteousnesse that we haue but we are formally iust in law by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ for that thereby a satisfaction is interposed and our sinnes are remitted and pardoned so that there is no let but that God mercifully for his sake accepteth vs vnto euerlasting life 10. W. BISHOP 2. Obiect If we be righteous or iust by the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs then is euerie iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe hauing the same iustice his which is Christs but that is too too absurd Ergo M. Perkins answer Christs Righteousnesse is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ in him it is infinite but of it so much is applied to this or that man as will serue for his iustification And to helpe this answer forward I will adde his marginall note euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne with the rest so far forth as the light makes it to shine Reply That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kind Or it is not infinit but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs infinit iustice for all the parts of an infinite thing are infinite according vnto true Philosophie It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of iustice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this or that man as in his owne example The light of euerie starre is receiued from the Sunne beames yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sunne for one accident cannot be in two subiects so farre distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skies as it is euident but is a farre dimmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueyed into this or that mans soule wherby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charitie but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which Saint Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying Lib. 12. conf cap. 15. How much difference there is betweene the light that doth lighten and that which is lightened that is the Sunne and the starre light so much difference is there betweene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice which is made by that iustification to wit betweene the iustice of Christ and that which is in euerie good Christian R. ABBOT M. Bishops learning might here haue informed him but that his will outranne his wit that the Righteousnesse of Christ as he is man is not infinite because it is the Righteousnesse of a finite creature which is not capable of that that is infinite True diuinitie distinguisheth the things of the manhood from the things of the godhead the one finite the other infinite thereby to vphold the integritie of two natures in the one person of Iesus Christ Yea and the Righteousnesse of the manhood of Christ as I conceiue may two wayes be considered either absolutely as in himselfe or respectiuely as for vs. The absolute Righteousnesse of Christ though it be finite yet is next to that that is infinite being aboue all the Righteousnesse of men and Angels in that the a Ioh. 3.34 spirit was giuen him without measure and therefore his perfections were the vttermost that a creature in any sort can be capable of But the respectiue or dispensatiue Righteousnesse of Christ is that whereby he is b Bernard in Cant. ser 70. Iustus pro hominibus iust for men as S. Bernard speaketh the righteousnesse which he performed for vs in fulfilling the law c Gal. 4.4 being made vnder the law to redeeme vs. According to this Righteousnesse therefore it is true that by the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ we are as righteous as Christ not absolutely but as Christ was for vs in fulfilling the law The infinite value and force of which Righteousnesse in Christ arose not from any infinitenesse of it selfe being but the Righteousnesse of the law which is but the description of that image of God to which man was first created and ought to be in man but it arose from the infinitenesse of the person of him by whom it was performed being both God and man and thereby is of that large extent to iustifie all and to purchase euerlasting life to all that do beleeue in him Rightly the refore doth M. Perkins say that the Righteousnesse of Christ is not applied to euerie particular man according to the infinite value of it selfe because that infinitenesse proceeded not of the nature of it selfe but according to that measure whereby it appertaineth to vs which is described in the law Neither is his comparison of the Sunne and the starres further to be strained but onely to shew that euerie thing that receiueth from another receiueth according to the stint and measure of it selfe he neuer meant that the Righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed vnto vs is deriued to vs to be actually inherent in vs as the light of the Sunne is deriued from it to be actually inherent in the starres Yet we denie not but that the beames of inherent Righteousnesse are deriued vnto vs by regeneration and new birth through the spirit of Iesus Christ but that is not the Righteousnesse here spoken of and M. Bishop might take occasion out of his owne words to call it a dimme light as indeed it is more dimme and darke then that by it we can find the way to God and euerlasting life 11. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike partie If men be made truly and really iust by Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men imputed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrarie but one may as well be made vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easily and more wayes then good M. Perkins answer is that we may say Christ was a sinner
we are to be iustified is the obedience of Christ for n Rom. 5.15 by the obedience of one saith the Apostle shall many be made righteous and what is the obedience of Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ The righteousnes of Christ then is the thing to be apprehended and receiued for our iustification And how should we be o 2. Cor. 5.21 made the righteousnesse of God in him but by apprehending and receiuing a righteousnesse which is in him He is called the p Ierem. 23.6 Lord our righteousnes not who maketh vs righteous only but who himselfe is our righteousnes and how should he be our righteousnes but by his righteousnesse Therefore in apprehending and receiuing Christ by faith we apprehend receiue the righteousnes of Christ to be our iustification before God But I need not stand vpon this for seeing through this whole Chapter we shall proue that we receiue no gift of inherent righteousnesse whereby we can be iustified in the sight of God it followeth as is also proued that the righteousnesse which we receiue by faith for iustification is the merite and obedience of Christ imputed vnto vs. Now M. Bishop telleth vs that he can gather a disproofe of all this out of M. Perkins owne explication For saith he if faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there needes no Sacraments for that purpose But such disproofes will make men thinke that he is runne not out of his learning onely but also out of his wits If he will apply that answer to M. Perkins it must be thus If faith be the onely instrument whereby we apprehend Christ what neede we anie Sacraments to offer him vnto vs And why did he not as well say what neede there anie word of God to that purpose for his disproofe standeth as good in the one as in the other But M. Perkins setteth both downe as meanes on Gods part to offer Christ vnto vs not as instruments or meanes on our part to apprehend and lay hold of Christ and notably obserueth how the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants in the Lords Supper is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and bloud with all his merites to euery of them by faith in him Yea saith M. Bishop but how then are infants iustified who cannot haue any such act of faith I answer him that infants dying are iustified and saued meerely by vertue of the couenant and promise of God to which they are entitled by the calling and faith of their parents and in right whereof they are baptized and entred into the bodie of the Church God hauing sayd q Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed For where the offer of the couenant hath no place there the meanes of acceptance cannot be required but by meere and absolute gift righteousnesse and life are giuen and in the Sacrament sealed vnto them who according to the purpose of the grace of God are by inward regeneration made the seed of the faithfull according to the intendment and meaning of the couenant Yet nothing hindereth but that we may conceiue that God calling infants froÌ hence doth in their passage by the power of his Spirit giue them light of vnderstanding and knowledge and faith of Christ as an entrance to that light and life which after by Christ and with him they enioy for euer Who when he will maketh babes and sucklings to praise him and euen in young children sometimes in our sight sheweth the admirable fruit of his grace in their death far beyond that their yeares are capable of As for infants baptized and continuing to elder yeares they are not alwayes iustified in being baptized but God calleth them some sooner some later some at one houre some at another according to his good will and pleasure and then the medicine long before applied beginneth to worke the effect that doth appertaine vnto it 20. W. BISHOP But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M. Perkins finds fault with it one that we teach faith to go before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Ioh. 6.54 Marrie this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and bloud of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answer that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthily obtaineth thereby life euerlasting as Christ saith expresly in that place And so this proofe is vaine Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification Rom. 10. first by that of S. Paul Whosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in whom they do not beleeue how shall they beleeue without a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterward to call vpon God for mercie and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification This Saint Augustine obserued De praedest sanc cap. 7. De spirit lit cap. 30. when he said Faith is giuen first by which we obtaine the rest And againe By the Law is knowledge of sinne by faith we obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured If we list to see the practise of this recorded in holy writ reade the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were striken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must do who willed them to do penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then lo they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification In like maner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that IESVS CHRIST was the Sonne of God no talke in those dayes of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnesse yet was he not iustified Act. 8. before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three dayes passed betwene S. Pauls conuersion and his iustification Act. 9. as doth euidently appeare by the historie of his conuersion The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this saies M. Perkins is as much to say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned
them will loue him more He saith the Pharisee to whom he forgaue most Here is loue expresly set downe as a thankfulnesse following after in respect of a forgiuenesse gone before Christ then in effect inferreth thus Thou hast giuen me smal tokens of thy loue since my entring into thy house but thus and thus hath she shewed her loue What is the cause h August hom 23. O Pharisaee ideo parum diligis quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris non quia parum dimittitur sed quia parum putas esse quod dimiâttiur O thou Pharisee therefore thou louest little because thou thinkest that little is forgiuen thee not because it is little but because thou thinkest it to be but little But this woman knoweth that much hath bene forgiuen her therefore she loueth much And this exposition is apparently confirmed by the words which Christ addeth To whom a little is forgiuen he doth loue a little which if we will fit to the words going before Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much we must make the meaning of these former words to be this But she loueth much it is a signe therefore that much hath bene forgiuen her In this meaning Ambrose maketh this woman a figure of the Church of the Gentiles i Ambros de Tobia cap. 22 Pluâ remissum est ecclesiae quia plus debebat sed ipsa plus soluit c. Mentor gratiae eo plura soluit quâ plura meruissât to which there was more forgiuen because she was indebted more but being mindfull of this grace hath paied so much the more in loue by how much the greater mercy she had obtained And to the same sence doth he expound it k In Luc. cap. 7. writing vpon the place euen as Basil also doth when alluding to that place he saith l Basil exhort ad baptism Plâs debenti plus remittitur vt vehementius amet To him that oweth more more is forgiuen that he may loue the more So doth Hierome take it saying m Hieron adu Iouin lib. 2. De duobus debitoribus cui plus dimittitur plus amat Vnde saluator ait c. Of two debters to whom more is forgiuen he loueth more thereupon our Sauiour saith Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she hath loued much which cannot hang together if loue be taken for an effect of forgiuenesse in the one speech and a cause thereof in the other But now we expect that Maister Bishop so peremptorily reiecting that exposition should giue vs some great reason of the denying of it First saith he Christ saith expresly that it was the cause of the pardon because she had loued much But his learning should teach him that the word because doth not alwaies note an antecedent cause but sometimes a succeeding effect or signe As where our Sauiour Christ saith of the diuell n Iohn 8.44 he abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him he did not meane to say that the cause of his not abiding in the truth was because now there is no truth in him but that hereby as by an effect and signe it appeareth that he abode not in the truth So where he saith o Jbid. cap. 15. v. 15. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. I haue called you friends because all things that I haue heard of the Father I haue made knowne vnto you he maketh this imparting of all things to them not a cause but a token of accounting them his friends Which being euident and plaine M. Bishops first reason hindereth nothing but that Christes words may well be vnderstood that he nameth the womans loue onely as a signe and token of many sinnes to be forgiuen vnto her And to take it otherwise as he doth ouerthroweth the rule that is deliuered by S. Austine p August epist 120 cap. 30 Ex hoc incipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur non quia praecesseruÌt iustificamur Good works begin from the time that we are iustified we are not iustified for any good works that go before His second reason is lesse worth and he sheweth therein either his ignorance or his negligence For whereas he argueth out of the Tenses that her loue is expressed by the time past she hath loued much and her forgiuenesse by the time present Many sinnes are forgiuen her importing that the former cannot be the signe and therefore must needes be the cause of that that followeth if he had bene so carefull as to looke into the Greeke text he should haue found that her forgiuenesse of sinnes is expressed also by the time past by the Atticke preter perfect tense ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Many sinnes haue bene forgiuen her because she hath loued much albeit it should not haue noted necessarily a present act but a continuation of the benefit if it had bene expressed in the present tense The exposition therefore alledged being direct and arising simply out of the text it selfe what reason hath M. Bishop to force another which plainly thwarteth that which Christ after saith Thy faith hath saued thee To conclude let him take for his reproofe that which Origen saith q Origen ad Rom. cap. 3. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam Remittuntur c. For no worke of the law and therefore not for her loue but for faith onely doth Christ say to the woman Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee and let him learne to condemne his owne presumption in that he taketh vpon him so rashly to define that which he is not able by reason to make good As for the Ministers they are very simple men if they cannot better approoue their expositions and doctrines then he hath done 22. W. BISHOP Gal. 5.6 2. Reason Neither Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any thing but faith that worketh by charity Hence Catholikes gather that when the Apostle attributeth iustification to faith he meanes not faith alone but as it is ioyned with charity and other like vertues as are requisite to prepare the soule of man to receiue that coÌplete grace of iustification M. Perkins answereth that they are ioyned together But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christs righteousnesse and maketh it ours It vseth charity as an instrument to performe the duties of the first and second table but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our iustification Reply That it hath the chiefest part and that faith is rather the instrument and handmayd of charity my proofe shall be out of the very text alledged where life and motion is giuen to faith by charity as the Greeke word Energoumene being passiue doth plainly shew that faith is moued led and guided by charity Which S. Iames doth demonstrate most manifestly saying that Euen as the body is dead without the soule so is faith without charity Making charity to be the life and
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 theâe 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
necessarie as faith Be it so yet he doth not say that we are iustified by charity We say as he there saith that Å¿ Basil ser de fide Character insigne Christianorum loue is the badge and cognizance of Christian men much commended vnto vs by our Sauior as a marke whereby he will haue vs to be knowne to be his disciples We say further that it is as necessarie as faith to the full perfection of a Christian man and yet we say it hath nothing to do in the act of iustification To his question as touching the words alledged If a man know himselfe iustified by faith in Christ how can he acknowledge that he wants true iustice I answer him that a man acknowledgeth himselfe to want in himselfe true inherent iustice confessing himselfe to be sinfull and corrupt when yet he wanteth not that iustice or righteousnesse of which S. Paule saith t Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not that is u Oecumen in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus fiduciaÌ non habet who hath no confidence by workes but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is reputed for righteousnesse and so as Basil saith he is iustified by faith alone x Bern. in Cant. ser 23. Charitas patris ipsoruÌ cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Et ser 61. Iustitia tua in me operit multitudinem peccatorum the loue of the Father and the righteousnesse of Christ the Sonne couering the multitude of his sinnes so that they are as if they had neuer bin and he as if he had offended nothing as before hath bene declared Origens testimonie which is the last of all declareth plainly the same that Basils doth that y Orig. in Rom. cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credeÌs tan tummodo quis iustificetur etiaÌsi nihil ab eo operis fueriâ expletum the iustification of faith alone is sufficient so that a man onely beleeuing is iustified though there haue bene no good worke performed by him For example hereof he alledgeth the Thiefe on the crosse z Pro sola fide aâ ei Iesus AmeÌ dâcot tâbi c. to whom for faith alone Christ said This day shalt thou be with me in paradise M. Bishop answereth againe that Origen excludes no good disposition in vs to iustification A strange matter that these Fathers should haue so little discretion still to be vrging faith alone faith alone and yet should meane to leaue a place to M. Bishops good dispositions whereby faith alone is ouerthrowne But he addeth out of his maister Bellarmine that faith is opposed to outward workes so that Origens meaning is that a man may be saued without doing outwardly any good workes if he want time and place And what are those outward workes Forsooth Bellarmine nameth to fast and to giue almes Absurd Friar as if there were no outward good workes to be done but onely fasting and giuing of almes M. Bishop here vnder the name of dispositions setteth forth vnto vs many good works of the theefe in that short time of his being vpon the crosse the feare of God hope faith repentance confession of sinnes loue towards God and his neighbor in reprehending his fellowes blasphemie and defending Christs innocencie and yet of him Origen affirmeth the same that Chrysostome did before of Abraham that not for any workes but he was iustified by faith alone a Super hoc non requisiuit Dominus quid priùs oporatus esset nec expectauit quid operis cùm credidisset explesset sed sola confessione iustificatum comitem sibi Paradisum in gressurus assumpsit Christ did not enquire concerning him saith he what he had wrought before nor did looke what worke he performed when he had beleeued but being to go into Paradice tooke him to accompany him being iustified onely by his confession that is by his faith which he vttered and shewed by his confession of Christ The other example there alledged by Origen maketh the matter as plaine which is of the woman in the Gospell that washed Christs feet with her teares and wiped them with the haires of her head whose good workes M. Bishop hath noted also b Sect. 21. before to whome notwithstanding c Origen ibid. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide not for any worke of the law but for faith only saith Origen Iesus said Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and againe Thy faith hath saued thee Yea but Origen faith d Idem in ca. 4. that faith cannot be imputed to iustice to such as beleeue in Christ vnlesse they do withall put off the old man And we say no lesse that iustification cannot be separated from sanctification but where the one is there is the other also and yet it is distinctly to be considered what belongeth to the one and what belongeth to the other He correcteth the opinion of them who thinke profession of faith to be faith and thereupon saith as we do that to such their faith because indeed it is no true faith cannot be reputed for righteousnesse Therefore of faith he said before e Jbid Ne putes quòd si quis habeat talem fidem ex qua iustificatus habeat gloriaÌ apud Deum possit simul cum ea habere iniustitiam si enim quâ credit quòd Iesus est Christus ex Deo natus est qui natus est ex Deo non peccat manifestuÌ est quia qui credit Jesu Christo non peccat quòd si peccat certum est quia non creditet c Certum est eum qui verè credit opus fidei iustitiae operari totius bonitatis Do not thinke that he that hath such a faith as whereby being iustified he hath to reioyce with God can together therewith haue vnrighteousnesse For if he that beleeueth that Iesus is Christ be borne of God and he that is borne of God sinneth not it is manifest that he that beleeueth in Iesus Christ sinneth not and if he do sinne that is giue himselfe to sinne it is certaine that he beleeueth not Certaine it is that he that truly beleeueth doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnesse and of all goodnesse Thus he saith as we do that true faith cannot be separated from godly life so that a man cannot haue fellowship with Christ by iustification who by sanctification also hath not fellowship with him But the roote of all is faith by which alone we are iustified and so the barre of sinne is taken away that diuided before betwixt God and vs that so the sanctifying spirit of God may haue accesse vnto vs to worke in vs the good worke of God and so to prepare vs to that inheritance to the hope wherof he hath called vs. As for the other place that he citeth it is the same in effect with that of Ignatius f Sect. 26. before alledged and containeth nothing
fully absolute and perfect according to the prescript forme of the law the same being vndertaken for our sakes and performed in our name But whereas we acknowledge the increase of inherent righteousnesse there groweth a question of the cause of this increase The Romish doctrine is that the grace of God is c Coster Enchir. cap. 5. Est haec gratia in arbitrio voluntatis quemadmodum baculus in manu conualescentis cuius auxilio si velit vtetur siâ minùs poterit eam remouere like vnto a staffe put into a mans hand to stay him and that it is left to his free will either to vse this staffe to keepe him vp or to leaue it and so to fall Free will then say they vsing well the grace that it hath receiued deserueth thereby an increase of iustice and righteousnesse Thus they still hang all vpon the merit and free will of man they thinke scorne to haue any thing of gift but one way or other will deserue all But the doctrine of truth teacheth vs to conceiue all to be of grace both the first gift of sanctification and all the succeeding increase thereof For although it be true that God to the thankfull receiuing and vsing of his gifts doth adde greater measure thereof according to that of our Sauior e Mat. 25.29 To him that hath shall be giuen that is saith S. Austin f Aug. de doct Christ lib. 1. ca. 1. Dabitur habentibus id est cum benignitate vtentibus eo quod acceperââit To them that vse well that which they haue receiued yet that which is added is but g Joh. 1.16 grace for grace and h Fulgent ad Monim lib. 1. Dona sua donis suis reddit the rendring of one gift to another gift God himselfe giuing himselfe occasion by one gift of the bestowing of another As he giueth faith and to faith giueth that for which we beleeue as he giueth vs to pray and to our prayer giueth that for which we pray so in all the rest he giueth grace and giueth to vse well the grace that he hath giuen and to the well vsing thereof giueth also further measure and increase of grace that both in the gift and in the increase all prayse and glorie may redound to him The means in vs whereby this increase is wrought vnto vs is our faith which as it first receiueth the spirit so receiueth also the increase of it whilest by the growth thereof we grow more into Christ and thereby are more and more partakers of his life i Ambros in Luc. ca 11 li. 10. Mihi fide mea Sol ille coelestis vel minuttur vel âugetur That heauenly Sunne saith Ambrose is increased or diminished vnto me according to my faith Now theÌ to determine the point wherupon we are here to insist it is not whether inherent righteousnesse may be increased for that we denie not nor whether good workes be meritorious causes of the increase of it for that beoÌgeth properly to the question of merits but the question is whether in the increase of righteousnes which they tearme second iustification we grow to any such perfection as that thereby we may be found perfectly iust in the sight of God by vertue and force thereof to be accepted vnto euerlasting life 32. W. BISHOP M. Perkins pretends to proue that they are no cause of the increase of our iustice and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose but repeates those obiections and proposeth them now at large which we made before against the first iustification the which although impertinent to this place yet I will solue them first and then set downe our owne We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law Answer The Apostle there speaketh of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glorie of God wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either works of the law as not necessary vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessarie or else against the Gentils any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for we acknowledge very willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ onely and without any merit of the sinner himselfe and yet is not a sinner being of years of discretion meerly passiue in that his iustificatioÌ as M. Perkins very absurdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repent and this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our soules as well as theirs For as they must graunt that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truly boast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberalitie of the Father of lights and for the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto faith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it Yet obserue by the way that S. Paule forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting Rom. 5. For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Sonne of God 2. Cor. 10. and in his tribulations Againe He defineth that we may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power 2. Cor. 12. and that he was constrained to glory in his visions and reuelations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure due season acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull Ephes 2. So that by grace ye are saued through faith and that not of our selues it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast himselfe is nothing against our doctrine of iustification Lib. 83 q. 76. but too too ignorantly or malitiously cited against it and not also with S. Augustin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our works which went before and might seeme to the simple to haue bene some cause why God bestowed his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation
concupiscence to be restrained and bridled Therefore he saith f De Temp. Ser. 45. Plenitudo est virtutis quòd lex dixit Ne concupiscas Hoc modo impleri non potest The perfection of vertue is that which the law saith Thou shalt not lust this now in this life cannot be fulfilled And againe g Ibid. Ser. 49. Hoc dicit legem implere hoc est non concupiscere Quis ergo hoc qui viuit potest To fulfill the law is not to iust and who is there liuing that can so do It is manifest then by S. Austin that that commandement requireth a perfection which in this world we neuer are able to attaine vnto because it doth not onely forbid consent but euen the very hauing of any euill motions or affections contrarie to the law And by those motions we do not onely breake the commandement Thou shalt not lust but we faile of yeelding loue to God with all our heart with all our soule c. because euil motions and lusts do occupie some part of the heart and soule and withhold the same from God Therefore S. Austin saith againe h Aug. de perf iust Cùm est aliquid concupisceÌtiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus Neque enim caro sine anima concupiscit quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carnaliter anima concupiscit so long as there is any part of carnall concupiscence by continencie to be bridled God is not perfectly loued with all the soule for the flesh lusteth not without the soule although the flesh be said to lust because the soule lusteth according to the flesh Now therefore albeit it be true that a man may resist such euill motions and deny consent vnto them yet is he not therby freed froÌ transgression of the law But yet M. Bishop falsely alledgeth S. Austin to that purpose who in the place i August Confess lib. 10 cap. 30. Saepe etiam in somnis resistimus c. Potens est manus tua abundantiore gratia tua lasciuos motus etiam mei sopotu extinguere c Lugens in eo quod incomsummatus sum sperans perfecturum te in me misericordias tuas vsque ad pacem plenariam quam habebunt tecum interiora exteriora meacùm absorpta fuerit mors in victoriam cited not the seuenth as he quoteth but the thirtieth Chapter affirmeth indeed that somtimes men resist those concupiscences euen in their sleepe that it is in Gods power to make him alwaies so to do He signifieth his longing desire after that puritie and perfection but his expectation of it onely then when death shall be swallowed into victorie howsoeuer God be able if so it were his pleasure to giue it euen now also in the meane time And indeed there is no man liuing to whom can be attributed that perfection to be altogether and wholy free from consent of sinfull lust There is no man that fighteth so warily but that sometimes yea many times he receiueth grieuous wounds and findeth cause to cry mournfully vnto God for the cure thereof A man resisteth in one thing and is ouertaken in another at one time he checketh those corrupt desires with which as nets he is strongly intangled at another This is the state of all flesh and of this we haue cause to complaine so long as we liue here 41 W. BISHOP Iac. 3.2 1. Ioan. 1. We do offend in many things and if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Answer I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily led by the craft of the diuell into many offences which we might auoyde if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the law which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we commit some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing with it But of this matter more fully in some other place R. ABBOT There is no doubt but if all impediments were taken away whereby we are hindered from keeping the commandements of God it should be possible enough perfectly to fulfill the same It is true which S. Austine saith that a August de spâ lit cap. 19. Non vitio suo non implebatur lex sed vitio prudentiae carnis it is not by any default of the lawe that we fulfill it not but by default of the wisedome of the flesh which as the Apostle saith is b Rom. 8.7 enmitie against God and is not subiect vnto the law of God nor indeed can be We are by our frailtie led into many offences saith M. Bishop and we might auoyde the same if we were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be But so long as this frailtie hangeth vpon vs and by the weaknesse and corruption of flesh we are not so warie and watchfull as we ought to be why doth he attribute vnto vs a power and ablenesse to fulfill the lawe And what is that that he saith but euen the deuice of the Pelagian Heretickes who affirming c Hieron Epist ad Ctesiphont Hominem posse esse sine peccato si velit c. Cùm ab eis quaerimus qui sint quos absque peâcato putent noua stropha eludere cupiunt veritatem se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint sed qui esse possint that a man may be without sinne if he will and being demaunded who they were whom they tooke to be without sinne by a wily shift answered that they said not what men are or what they haue bene but what they may be Euen thus M. Bishop being vrged by the confession of the Apostles themselues that in many things we all offend and sinne that is do trespasse and breake the commandements of God confesseth it to be true but yet notwithstanding saith that it is vnpossible to keepe them But as Hierome answered the Pelagiaâs so we answer him d Jbid. Qua est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit Posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris dare nescio cui quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis fuisse nequeas approbare What a reason is this that that is possible to be which neuer was and may be done which thou bearest witnesse that neuer any man did and to giue to euery man that which in the Patriarkes and Prophets and Apostles thou art not able to make good To be short as it is not possible for a man being feeble and weake and sicke to beare a
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 commaââd 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. Retraât lib. 1. ca. 19. Omnia Dei mandaâa facta deputaÌtur 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 maledictioââ 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 âustificacio 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 peteÌtibus largitèr adâciat et quod coÌfitentibus clemeÌter 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 Iuliân lib 4. cap. 2. InquaÌâm inest nocet aâ minuendam spiritualeÌ deleââationem sanctaruÌ mântium illam scilicet de qua dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei c. carnall coÌcupiscence 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 quaÌdo 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 ân his going To be short the same S. Austine well obserueth that q IdeÌ de nat grat cap. 69. CoÌsideret 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
shall perfectly restore vs to our spirituall health and strength it shall be easie and delightfull vnto vs to keepe all the righteousnesse which God hath commanded but so long as we continue in this weakenesse and frailety we can by no meanes be said to attaine to the perfection of the law But here M. Bishop vnstringeth his tongue against God and faith that it is the part of a tyrant not of a true lawmaker to commaund his subiects to do that vpon paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe A silly foolish man that by his brainsicke fancies measureth the wisedome and righteousnesse of God and taketh vpon him presumptuously to giue law vnto God in what sort he shall make lawes for men But God is able in this behalfe to acquit himselfe z Rom. 3.4 that he may be iustified in his sayings and found cleare when he is iudged For the iust God was not in making of lawes to regard mans ablenesse but his owne righteousnesse and therefore to forbid all sinne that he might not seeme to approoue any and to commaund all righteousnesse that he might not seeme to neglect any It should not haue bene knowne to be sinne which he had not regarded to forbid nor taken for righteousnesse which he had not vouchsafed to commaund Was it fit that the rule of righteousnesse should haue bene abridged in fauour of mans sinne when the want of power to fulfill the law was not by Gods default in creating man but by mans disabling himselfe in turning away from God But M. Bishops folly and ignorance appeareth herein very plainly for that the Scripture teacheth vs that the vse of the law we not being able to fulfill it was to be a Gal. 3.24 our Schoolemaister to traine vs vnto Christ God had not any opinion in giuing the law of our performance thereof but he intended it to be as a glasse for vs to see our selues and to conceiue thereby our owne estate that finding our selues to be miserable and vtterly lost in our selues we might the more readily accept of the saluation that is freely offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ Thus saith the Apostle againe b Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth Therefore S. Austine saith that c Aug. de nat grat cap. 12. Haec est intentio legis arguentu vt propter ea quae perperà m fiuât confugiatur ad gratiam Domini miseraÌtis c. vbi et remittantur quae malè fiunt eadeÌ gratia iuuante noÌ fiant the intent of the law reproouing vs is this to make vs for our misdoings to flie to the grace of the mercifull God where what we do amisse may be pardoned and by the helpe of the same grace may not be done To some part whereof we are come already by repentance and amendment of life and mortification of fleshly lusts but yet not so but that still we do many things amisse and stand in neede of pardon The law in the meane time serueth vs for a patterne of true righteousnesse teaching vs what we are to striue vnto what the purity is whereunto God hath called vs that though in the prison of corruptible flesh we cannot fully answer the same yet we may still be labouring towards it sighing groaning at that infirmity and disease that hindereth vs from it praying instantly vnto God to bring vs to it that his grace and mercy may in the end make vs partakers of our desire and thenceforth we may neuer do amisse d Jdem de perfect iustit Rat. 17. Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis eam in hac vita nemo habeat NoÌ enim rectè curritur si quò currendum est nesciatur Quomodo auteÌ sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur Why should not this perfection be commaunded to man saith Austine although no man haue it in this life For we cannot runne aright if we know not to what to runne And how should we know if by no commaundements it were declared vnto vs Againe he saith e De grat lib. arbit cap. 16. MagnuÌ aliquid Pelagians se scire putant quaÌdâ dicunt Non iuberet Deuâ quod sciret ab homine non posse fieri The Pelagians he might haue said the Papists thinke they know some great matter when they say God would not commaund that which he knew could not be done by man Let M. Bishop take knowledge of his obiection vsed of old by the Pelagian heretikes S. Austine answereth f Quis hoc nesciat sed ideò iubet aliqua quae non possumus vt sciamus quid ab illo petere debeamus Ipsa est fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat Who knoweth not so much But therefore doth he commaund some things which we cannot do that we may know what we are to aske of him It is faith which by praier obtaineth that which the law commaundeth The commaundements of God then are not vnpossible for if they were vnpossible we could neuer hope to attaine to the keeping of them But now we pray vnto God that he will and according to his promise we beleeue that he will bring vs to that state of innocencie and perfection wherein we shall fully answer the image of perfect righteousnesse which is set before vs in the law In the meane time there is a let that hindereth vs and holdeth vs backe that it is not possible for vs so long as it continueth to do those things which yet are possible to be done The Arausican Councell saith nothing of fulfilling the law but speaketh generally of doing those things which belong to saluation Now to our saluation it belongeth to know and confesse that g Rom. 3.20 by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified in the sight of God To our saluation belongeth an humble acknowledgement of our vnablenesse to satisfie the law true repentance of our sinnes the faith of Iesus Christ that by him and in him we may haue supply of that wherein we are found defectiue by the law In a word it is the way to exclude vs from saluation to place our affiance and trust of obtaining the same in our fulfilling of the law the Apostle telling vs that h Gal. 3.10 so many as are of the works of the law are vnder the curse because it is written Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to do them whereas i Eccles 7.22 there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not The words of Christ k Mat. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements were spoken to the young man to the same end to which the law generally was giuen to giue him occasion to measure and know himselfe by the commaundements that so he might seeke the way of
saluation in Christ which in the law being a transgressour thereof he could not finde But of these words enough hath bene said before in the question of l Cha. 3. Sect. 3. the Certaintie of Saluation For conclusion of this point to quit M. Bishop I will alledge the words of S. Bernard m Bernard in Cant. ser 50. Non latuit praeceptoreÌ praecepti ponduâ humanas excedere viâes sed iudicauit vtile ex hoc ipso suae ipsos insufficientiae admoneri et vt scirent sanè ad queÌ iustitiae fineÌ niti pro viribâs oporteret Ergo mandando impossibilia non praeuaricatores fecit sed humiles vt omne os obstruatur subditus fiat to tus mundus Deo AccipieÌtes quippe mandâtum sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum miserebitur nostri Deus sâtemus in die illa quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit It was not vnknowne to the commaunder that the waight of the commaundement doth exceede the strength of man but he held it expedient that hereby men should be aduertized of their owne vnsufficiencie and that they should know to what end of righteousnesse they should labour to their vtteâmost Therefore by commaunding things vnpossible to vs he hath not made vs trespassers but humbled vs that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be made subiect to God For receiuing the commaundement and feeling our owne defect and want we shall cry to heauen and God will haue mercy vpon vs and we shall know at that day that not for the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done but of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. In which words he giueth vs to vnderstand that God had reason sufficient to giue the law though he knew it vnpossible for vs in this state of mortality and weakenesse perfectly to fulfill the law 44. W. BISHOP Now that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I prooue first That good works be not stained with sinne by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single hearted and an vpright man Cap. 2. departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy Cap. 1. when you shal fall into diuers temptations knowing that the probation of your faith worketh patience And let patience haue a perfect worke that you may be perfect and entire failing in nothing 2. King Dauid thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himselfe Thou hast O Lord prooued my heart Psal 16. thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tried me in fire and there was no iniquity found in me It must needes then be graunted that some of his workes at least were free from all sinne and iniquity And that the most of them were such if you heare the holy Ghost testifying it I hope you will beleeue it reade then where it is of record 3. Reg. 15. That Dauid did that which was right in the sight of our Lord and not onely in the sight of men and turned from nothing that hee commaunded him all the dayes of his life except onely the matter of Vrias the Hethite 3. The Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 3. That some men do build vpon the onely foundation Christ Iesus gold siluer and pretious stones that is being choise members of Christes Catholike Church doe manie perfect good workes such as being tried in the fornace of Gods iudgement will suffer no losse or detriment as he there saith expresly Wherefore they must needes be pure and free from all drosse of sinne otherwise hauing bene so prooued in fire it would haue beene found out 4. Many workes of righteous men please God Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2. Make your bodies a quick sacrifice holy acceptable to God the same offering spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God Phil. 4. And S. Paul calleth almes bestowed on him in prison an acceptable sacrifice of sweet sauour and pleasing God But nothing infected with sinne all which he hateth deadly can please God and be acceptable in his sight God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sin or as the Protestants speake not impute it to the person but to say that a sinfull worke is of sweet sauour before him and a gratefull sacrifice to him were blasphemie wherefore we must needs confesse that such workes which so well pleased him were not defiled with any kind of sinne Mat. 5. 1 Tim. 6. Ephes 2. Finally many workes in holy writ be called good as That they may see your good workes To be rich in good works We are created in Christ Iesus to good workes but they could not truly be called good workes if they were infected with sinne For according to the iudgment of all learned Diuines it can be no good worke that faileth either in substance or circumstance that hath any one fault in it for bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Wherefore we must either say that the holy Ghost calleth euill good which were blasphemie or else acknowledge that there be many good workes free from all infection of sinne R. ABBOT The wise man hauing prefixed this title That good workes be not stained with sinne which we say they be taketh vpon him in his text to proue that iust mens workes be no sinnes which no man saith they be We must beare with him because his vnderstanding doth not serue him to take that for gold wherein there is any drosse for if it did he would easily conceiue that the staine of mans sinne doth not destroy or take away the nature of the good worke which in man by man is wrought by the grace of God But leauing that peece of his folly let vs examine his proofes that good workes be stained with sinne And first he will proue it by the example of Iob because it is said of him that a Iob. 2.3 he continued still a single hearted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocencie But it were very hard to say how M. Bishops purpose should be made good out of these words We find here a relation of Iobs goodnesse but we find nothing to proue that that goodnesse of his was no way touched or stained with sin Now the reader is to vnderstand that this coÌmendation of Iob set down in the 1. Chapter after repeated in the 2. chapter to shew his constancy therin was of old vrged by the Pelagian heretikes as now by M. Bishop to prooue the perfection of the righteousnesse of man But S. Austine well waighing the circumstance of the text how it is withall said There
h Hilar. ibid. Corpora nostra vitiorum omniuÌ materia pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis mundum nihil innocens obtinâmus whereby being polluted and filthie saith Hilary we haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane They are good then but yet not perfectly good yea if God should strictly and narrowly deale with vs he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof for that we by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy and pure and good from him Now therefore whereas he saith that it can be no good worke wherein is any defect he saith vntruly because good and euill haue their latitude and degrees and accordingly as contraries expell each other the one alwaies growing by the impairing of the other accordingly as S. Austine saith i August de verb. Dom ser 11. Non nâbis infârt bona sua nisi auferat mala nostra in tantuÌ illa crescunt inquantum ista mi nuuntur nec illa perficientur nisi ista finiantur God doth not bring his good gifts into vs except he take away our euils and so far do the good things increase as the euill are diminished neither shall the one be perfected till the other be fully ended Now in this mixture of contraries that giueth the name that preuaileth most so that k Hier ad Ctesiphont Iusti non quod omni vitio careant sed quod maiori virtutum parte commendântur men are called iust as Hierome saith not for that they are without all vice but in that they are commended for the greater part of vertues That therefore may rightly and truly be called a good worke in some measure and degree of goodnesse which yet entirely and perfectly and wholy cannot be called good But that we may see how vainely and idlely he talketh his conclusion is diligently to be obserued that there may be many good workes free from all infection of sinne There be many such but all good workes then it seemeth be not free from all infection of sinne And if all be not so then let him tell vs how those good workes which be not free from all infection of sinne be called good workes as he importeth seeing no worke can be called good as he hath told vs before that faileth either in substance or in circumstance or hath any fault or defect in it Let him answer vs for those some and his answer shall serue vs for all the rest 45 W. BISHOP In lieu of the manifold testimonie of Antiquity which doth nothing more then recommend good workes and paint out the excellencie of them I will set downe one passage of S. August wherein this very controuersie is distinctly declared and determined Lib. 3. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 7. thus he beginneth The iustice through which the iust man liueth by faith because it is giuen to man by the spirit of grace is true iustice the which although it be worthily called in some men perfect according to the capacitie of this life yet it is but small in comparison of that greater which man made equall to Angels shall receiue Which heauenly iustice he that had not as yet said himselfe to be perfect in regard of that iustice that was in him and also imperfect if it be compared to that which he wanted But certainly this lesser iustice or righteousnesse breedeth and bringeth foorth merits and that greater is the reward thereof Wherefore he that pursueth not this shall not obtaine that Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from al iniustice and iniquitie then that it is also perfect not failing in any duty which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth foorth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it selfe so farre as mans capacitie in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs froÌ all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath S. Augustin hath the like discourse where he saith directly De spir lit vlt. cap. that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that we haue out of this oracle of Antiquity that many workes of a iust man are without sinne R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop notably abuseth S. Austin and maketh him in stead of all antiquitie a witnesse of that which he oppugneth euen in that very Chapter whence he citeth the words here set downe Which that we may the better discerne let vs examine particularly the collections that he maketh from the words First that the iustice that we haue in this life is true iustice We acknowledg the same euen as it is true gold wherein notwithstanding there is found drosse euen as it is a true pearle which notwithstanding with handling hath a spot or staine It is true righteousnesse a Bernard de verb. Esa Ser 5. Humilis iustitia sed non pura but not pure saith S. Bernard b Idem in fest sanct Ser. 1. Si districtè iudicetâr iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra âânùs habens it will be found vnrighteousnesse and scant if it be strictly iudged Therfore M. Bishops exposition of true iustice is false where he maketh the same to be pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Secondly he maketh S. Austin to say that our righteousnesse in this life is perfect not failing in any duty which we are bound to performe But how lewdly doth he therein deale with S. Austin who plainely teacheth that c Aug. de Ciu. Dei lib. 19 ca. 27 Magis remissione peccatorum constat quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life standeth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues Yea in the Chapter cited by him he saith d Idem contra 2. Epist Pelag. li. 3. cap 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homi ne iusto hactenus perfecta nomina tur vt ad eius perfectioneÌ pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem perfecta ista pârua iustitia quando etiam quid sibi desit intelligit Ideoque Apostolus imperfectum perfectum sedicit imperfectum cogitando quantum illi ad iustitiam desit cuius plenitudinem adhuâ esurit sitiâ Perfectum autem quòd suam imperfectionem confitori non erubescit vt peruentat bene procedit The vertue which is now in the iust man is thus farforth called perfect as that to the perfection therof belongeth both the knowledge in truth and in humilitie the confession of the imperfection of it
vse are therefore deuided in the subiect or may be the one without the companie of the other as by infinite examples may be seene But he maketh faith and charitie more different yet in the Protestants opinion And how For faith sayth he layeth hold of Christs righteousnesse and receiues that in but charitie receiueth nothing in but giueth it selfe forth in all duties of the first and second table But what of this Will he conclude thus There is a difference betwixt faith and charitie therefore faith may be without charitie No forsooth but vnlesse faith may be without charitie the Protestants saluation is vnpossible And why so Marrie charitie is the fulnesse of the law and the Protestants hold it vnpossible to fulfill the law therefore they can haue no charitie and therefore by their owne doctrine they can haue no faith because without charitie there is no faith What a horrible disputer M. Bishop is how deepe a reach hath he into hell that hee can fetch from thence these profound conclusions against the Protestants The Protestants answer to his ridiculous and childish collections is easie and ready True and liuely faith by the consideration of the goodnesse and mercy of God towards vs in Iesus Christ enkindleth in our hearts true charitie and loue towards God and towards our brethren and neighbours for Gods sake The ayme and marke of which charitie is to giue foorth it selfe in all duties of the first and second table But charitie so long as here we liue is vnperfect in all men and but vnperfectly attaineth to that that it aymeth at Some attaine in some good sort to the performance of some duties others to the performance of some other duties but none attaineth to all as r Hieron aduer Pelag. lib. 1. Nullus in isto corpusculo cunctas potest habere virtutes c. Hierome well noteth against the Pelagian heretickes yea and in those that we do attaine vnto there is also some weaknesse and default some blot and staine as hath bene shewed by the corruption of sinne Å¿ Heb. 12.1 that hangeth so fast on and presseth vs downe whilest we are labouring and striuing to ascend vpward vnto God Thus therefore faith and charitie go together weake faith and charitie vnperfect running in the way but oftentimes through frailtie stumbling and falling striuing to the keeping of all Gods commandements but yet forced to say with the Apostle t Rom. 7.19 The good that I wold I do not but the euill that I would not that I do I delight in the law of God as touching the inner man but I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and leading me captiue to the law of sinne But faith is our comfort that God for Christs sake and for his righteousnes sake which he hath wrought for our redemption accepteth vs as perfectly righteous in him that he forgiueth all our sins winketh at all our imperfections and will heale all our wounds and infirmities that what is now impossible through the weaknesse of the flesh may be made expedite and readie vnto vs when there shall be no longer the flesh lusting against the spirit but sin and death and all enemies shall be destroyed and u 1. Cor. 15.28 God shall be all in all Thus the linking of faith and charitie maketh no impossibilitie of our saluation but it is the spirit of error that hath dazeled M. Bishops eyes that he cannot discerne how one truth agreeth and standeth with another 52. W. BISHOP Let vs annex vnto these plaine authorities of holy Scripture one euident testimonie of antiquitie that most incorrupt iudge S. Augustine saith flatly Lib. 15. de Trin. ca. 17. con Cresc lib. 1 cap. 29. that faith may wel be without charity but it caÌnot profit vs without charitie And That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church but that vnskilfully yet is it he Also that one faith is had without charitie and that also out of the Church neither therefore is not faith For there is one God one Faith one Baptisme and one immaculate Catholike Church in which God is not serued onely but in which onely he is truly serued neither in which alone faith is kept but in which onely faith is kept with charitie So that faith and that only true faith Ephes 4. of which the Apostle speaketh One God one faith may be and is in many without charitie R. ABBOT The former of these two places which he citeth out of Austin is answered a Sect. 22. before The faith of which he speaketh is not ãâã true iustifying faith but onely the outward profession of the doctrine of faith That is plaine by the second b August cont Crescon lib. 1. cap. 29. One faith is had without charitie euen without the Church that is one doctrine of faith euen as the Apostle meaneth when he saith One faith one baptisme c. Thus Saint Austin declareth it when he calleth it c Ibid cap. 28. Fides qua creditur Christum esse filium Dei viâi Et cap. 29. Fides qua coâfitemur Christum esse filium Dei viui the faith whereby it is beleeued that Christ is the Sonne of the liuing God the faith whereby we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God and in other meaning he could not say there is but one faith because of the faith of particular consciences the Scripture saith that euery man shall d Habac. 2.4 liue by his owne faith That that he maketh the matter of faith the diuels acknowledge and confesse who yet cannot truly say I beleeue in God I beleeue in Iesus Christ which is the voice and profession of a true iustifying faith and cannot be separated from hope and charitie as hath bene before made manifest by the acknowledgement of Austin himselfe yea and the doctrine of faith though in generall termes it may be sometimes found amongst heretikes yet according to the substance and true meaning thereof it is not to be found with them as the same Saint Austin acknowledgeth saying e August Enchirid cap. 5. Si diligenter quae ad Christum pertinem cogiteÌtur nominetenus inuenitur Christus apud quoslibet haereticos qui se Christianos vocari volunt te verò ipsa non est apudeos If diligently those things be considered which belong to Christ Christ is found as touching his name amongst all sorts of heretikes who will needs be called Christians but indeed he is not with them So as then there may be the true faith of Christ in generall words where the true meaning of the faith of Christ is denied and there may be the true meaning of the faith of Christ in the profession of the mouth when the same faith is not truly and effectually imprinted in the heart And in this sort there may be indeed faith without charitie but not the iustifying faith as hath bin often said If there be that
our merit and righteousnesse then it should be in giuing vs ablenesse to merit for our selues And by this the glory of the giuer is most of all set forth which then most clearely shineth when there is least shew or appearance of any thing to be attributed vnto vs. Which is not in their Popish doctrine where man by his merits is set on horsebacke and those merits are affirmed so to proceede from grace as that they proceede also in part from his owne free will Therefore to denie our merits is not to vndermine and blow out the vertue of Christes merits but to acknowledge the same to be in themselues entirely and perfectly sufficient without vs that whilest we yeeld nothing to our selues to reioyce in the glory of our saluation may redound wholy to him to whom wholy and onely it doth belong But to affirme merits on our part cannot be without singular derogation to the mediation and merits of Christ who hath taught vs to apply vnto vs the vertue of his merits not by meriting againe for ourselues but by beleeuing in him according to that which the Apostle hath taught vs that God hath m Rom. 3.25 set him forth to be an attonement for vs through faith in his bloud M. Perkins against this vaine presumption of merit alledgeth further that for one good worke that we do we haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and maketh them too light in the ballance of the law This M. Bishop lightly regardeth Tush his mortall sinnes are taken away by penance and his merits though they were gone yet returne againe and without doubt he will thereof make himselfe a ladder that shal serue him to climbe to heauen What saith he must we not speake of good because we may hap to do euill That is a faire perswasion and well worthy of a wise man It is but a hap we must think that he doth any euill and therefore he will not be barred from speaking of his good and is no foole I warrant you in the perswasion thereof Surely we thinke that Iob was somewhat wiser then M. Bishop and yet he thought that perswasion not to be vnworthy of him n Iob. 9.2 If I would contend with him I should not be able to answer him one for a thousand And when by the prouocation of his friends he had vsed that great iustification of himselfe being reprooued for it by the Lord he renounceth to speake of his good any more and saith o Iob. 39.37 I am vile what shall I answere thee I will lay my hand vpon my mouth Once haue I spoken but I will answer no more yea twise but I will proceede no further Dauid p Aug in Psal 129. Vidit propè totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis seeing the whole life of man in a manner on euery side to be barked at by his sinnes thought his euils sufficient to stop his mouth from talking of his good and crieth out vnto God q Psal 130.2 O Lord if thou straitly marke iniquities who can stand S. Austine thought it worth the while to consider and tooke it to be a barre against all pleading of Merit that if God strictly examine our behauiour r August Plarae inueniââ peccata quà m merita he shall finde more sinnes then merits or good workes and therefore he could cry out Å¿ Confess lib. 9. ca. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominuÌ siremotae miserecordia discutias eam Woe euen to the commendable life of man if thou O God examine it without mercy I wonder then what merit M. Bishop can finde in the commendable life of man The same S. Austine asketh againe t De verb. Dom. ser 15. Quis est qui noÌ sit debitor Dei nisi in quo nullum potest inueniri peccaââm Who is he that is not a debtor vnto God but he onely in whom can no sinne be found Now if we be all debtors vnto God by our sinnes can we by our good workes haue him a debtor vnto vs And what though God of his meere mercy and goodnesse do pardon our sinnes and putting out of sight and remembrance our euill deedes do still reserue the acknowledgement of our well-doings Shall we thereupon out of his mercy build a merit vnto our selues and thinke that we haue well deserued at Gods hands and bound him to vs by our good deedes when by our sinnes we haue a thousand times more prouoked him to destroy vs M. Bishop is no doubt a wise man and hath some great reason to settle himselfe in this perswasion but yet a foole may be so wise as to wish him to take heede that the golden house of merits that he buildeth now do not fall heauie in the end vpon his owne head 17 W. BISHOP Let vs to our third Argument God hath by couenant and promise bound himselfe to reward our workes with life euerlasting Therefore good workes do in iustice deserue it for faithfull promise maketh due debt Math. 20. The couenant is plainely set downe where God in the person of an housholder agreeth with his workmen for a penny a day that is to giue them life euerlasting for trauailing in his seruice during their life time as all auncient interpreters expound it Whereupon S. Paul inferreth that God should be vniust Heb. 6. if he should forget their workes who suffered persecution for him 2. Thess 1. and saith If it be iust with God to render tribulation to them that persecute you and to such as are persecuted rest with vs Li. 2. cont Iouin cap. 2. vpon the same ground S. Hierome saith Great truly were the iniustice of God if he did punish euill works and would not as well receiue good workes To all these and much more such like M. Perkins answereth that couenant for works was in the olde Testament but in the new the couenant is made with the workman not with the worke Reply All that I cited in this argument is out of the new Testament where expresse couenant is made for working and workes as you haue heard And as it was said in the old law Math. 19. Do these things thou shalt liue so is it said in the new If thou wilt enter into life keepe the coÌmandements and life eternall is the hire and wages for labouring in Gods vineyard and not of the imputed iustice or merits of Christ but looke about you and behold the goodly marke which M. Perkins sets vp Marke saith he that it is said God will render vnto euery man according to his workes not to the worke or for the worke O sharpe and ouer-fine wit doth he render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes If the rate of the workes be the measure of the reward that for fewer or lesser workes there is a lesser reward and for many and worthier a greater surely in
21.18 When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shall gird thee and leade thee whither thou wouldest not Thus spake he saith S. Iohn signifying by what death he should glorifie God Where when he saith Whither thou wouldest not there is plainly approued in Peters martyrdome a shrinking and drawing backe a resistance and opposition of the will so that though willingly he did vndergo it yet it was in some part also against his will Whereupon S. Austin maketh this collection e August in Psal 30. conc 1. St Petrus Apostolus tanta perfectione quò nollet ductus est volens nolens mortuus est sed volens coronatus est quid mirum si est aliquis pauor in passione etiaÌ iustorum etiam Sanctorum Pauor est ex humana infirmitate spes ex diuina promissione If Peter the Apostle being of so great perfection was led whither he would not and dyed with his will against his will but with his will receiued the crowne what maruell is it if there be some feare in the suffering euen of iust men euen of the Saints There is feare by humane infirmitie and hope by the promise of God And this resistance this feare this shrinking backe the same S. Austine imputeth to the corruption of sinne f Idem Epist 120 Mente seruiens legi Dei carne autem trahens desideria peccati quibus obedire vetat Apostolus mentis quidem ratione concupiscit homo dissolui esse cum Christo sed id sensu carnis recusat refugit A man saith he in mind seruing the law of God and in the flesh carying still the lusts of sinne which the Apostle forbiddeth to obey by reason of the mind desireth indeed to be loosed and to be with Christ but by sence of the flesh refuseth and shunneth it Now what ground hath M. Bishop to except Iohn and Stephen in their martyrdome from the coÌmon condition of the Saints and why should he thinke that Iohns preaching and reprehending of Herod was without that spot of resistance and feare when his martyrdome was not And why should we imagine that that weaknesse of the flesh which hath his worke in the martyrdome of the Saints had not the like also in Abrahams oblation of his son being a thing without doubt as crosse to his nature and will as his owne death was But saith M. Bishop Our Sauiour saith that g Mat. 6.22 Luk. 11.34 if the eye be simple the whole body is light some not hauing any part of darknesse in it It is true if the eye be wholy single and cleare but where is the eye that is so cleare Where is he that saith not with Dauid h Psal 13.3 Lighten mine eyes that I sleepe not in death i 119.18 Open thou mine eyes that I may see the wondrous things of thy law k Aug. de verb. Dom. ser 18. Tota opera nostra in hac vita est sanare oculum cordis vnde videtur Deus It is our whole worke or indeuour in this life saith S. Austin to heale the eye of the heart wherewith we should see God If it be our whole worke in this life to heale our eyes then we expect not in this life to haue them fully whole In the meane while therefore because it is Gods prerogatiue which S. Iohn speaketh of l 1. Ioh. 1.5 God is light and in him is no darkenesse at all it must needs be as S. Hierome collecteth thereof m Hieron contr Pelag. lib. 2. Quando dicit nullas tenebras in Dei lumine reperiri ostendit omnia aliorum lumina sorde aliqua maculari that all our lights are spotted and darkened with some filth But he telleth vs yet further that very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect And it may be indeed that his broken reason so teacheth him howsoeuer his conscience be contrarie to his reason But our reason teacheth vs that if there be yet darknesse in the vnderstanding and waywardnesse in the will and in both a stooping and inclining to the weaknesse and corruption of the flesh as indeed there is then all our workes fauour of our earthly vessels and nothing can come from vs but certainely carieth a blot and imperfection with it And therefore it was no silly shift of M. Perkins but a true defence that neuer any man did any one action with all his due circumstances because n Deut. 6 5. Aug. de perfect iustit Cùm est aliquid conâupiscentiae carnalis quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus all the soule which God wholy requireth in euery action of his seruice cannot be wholy bestowed therein so long as concupiscence possesseth any part thereof as perpetually it doth so long as we continue in the warfare of this life But here in stead of that fourth obiection proposed by M. Perkins M. Bishop bringeth vs foorth a leaden dagger of his owne If greater reward be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vnto them that do good workes But a greater reward is prouided for them that do better workes the conclusion should be Therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes In stead wherof in the end of this idle discourse he bringeth in this Whereof followeth most manifestly that there be merits and rewards But I pray you M. Bishop whereof doth that follow do merits follow in the conclusion when in the premisses there is no mention of them But we must pardon you it seemeth your trauelling to Rome hath iogged your Logicke out of your head and therefore such conclusions may easily slippe you But the direct conclusion of your argument we graunt therefore a reward is due vnto them that do good workes onely with this exception that it is due by the mercifull promise of God not by vertue of any our merit or desert and more your argument proueth not Now he taketh great paines in the handling of this worthy argument to proue inequality of reward and all to no purpose because we deny not but that as God in this life diuersly distributeth his graces to some in greater measure to some in lesse so in the life to come he will sort his rewards accordingly that it may be true which is written that o 1. Cor. 3.8 euery man shall receiue his wages according to his labour But whether greater wages to greater labour or lesser wages to lesser labour both are promised for Christs sake as hath bene shewed and God will performe the same p Ezech. 36.22 for his owne names sake and not for any merit of ours whereby he standeth bound vnto vs. As for the terme of merits which he alledgeth out of the Fathers what we are to conceiue thereof followeth anone after to be declared Of virginity and widowhood we are to intreat in
faults vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painful works done to appease Gods iustice were works of satisfaction M. Perkins answereth many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were types of Christs suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall find that they were principally made to obtaine remission of God as these words also do witnesse Leuit. 4. ver 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it R. ABBOT M. Bishop belike had no great conceit of this argument of theirs and therefore was angry that M. Perkins should disgrace them by putting it in the first place Ilfauouredly it is propounded and ilfauouredly maintained but yet such learning it is as he with great paines hath brought from Rome The foundation that he layeth is a lie and the building that he setteth vpon it a ridiculous consequence He telleth vs that Moses prescribing by the commaundement of God seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons did ordaine that they should be of greater and lesser prices according the diuersitie of the sinnes But where is that ordinance why doth he not exemplifie that which he saith where do we find in Moses law that for such or such a sinne greater or lesse shall be offered a sacrifice of such or such greater or lesser price Surely he is little acquainted himselfe in Moses law and some Register or other gaue him a gudgeon at Rome and made him beleeue that the Popes Taxa poenitentiaria whereby euery sinne is rated at a certaine price was framed according to the same law of Moses and according to the prices of the sacrifices prescribed therein We reade there indeed of diuers sacrifices as in sinnes of ignorance a Leuit. 4.3 for the Priest a yong bullocke b Ver. 14. for the whole congregation the same c Ver 22.23 for a ruler a he goate for any of d Ver. 28. the people a she goate e Chap. 5.15 for any consecrate thing by errour withholden a ramme of two shekels f Ver. 18. for other trespasse against holy things ignorantly done the same for g Chap. 6.6 sinne wittingly committed the same also for the high h Chap. 16.3 Priests yearly offering for himself and his house a bullocke and a ramme and for the whole people i Ver. 5. two he goates and a ramme This diuersitie we reade and some few other such like but of sacrifices of greater or lesser price according to the diuersity of the sinnes we reade nothing it is a thing that Moses and Aaron neuer knew Well let that go let vs see what argument he hath framed against vs. These mens faults saith he vpon their true repentance ioyned with faith and hope in Christ were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull workes done to appease Gods iustice were workes of satisfaction O what paines here was for the appeasing of Gods iustice to stand by and pray whilest the sacrifice was offering Such cruell paines doth M. Bishop impose vpon his penitents for their sweet sins that a man may sweare they are the worse for it all their life after Vaine man was this a paines to be spoken of for the satisfying and appeasing of the iustice of God for sinne But to let this passe if k Of the certaintie of saluation sect 2. the honest man of whom M. Bishop hath spoken before should out with a litle Latin and tell him here M. Doctor negatur argumentum how foully wold he be grauelled and so set at a Nonplus that he could not tell which way to turne him What because they that offered the sacrifice with true repentance in the faith of Christ were pardoned doth it therefore follow that their charges and their paines were the satisfaction for their sinnes The honest man would tel him Good sir you erre by assigning a wrong cause for it was not for his charges and his paines that he was pardoned but for his faith in Christ He laid not his hand vpon himselfe as to lay his sinne vpon himselfe but l Leuit. 1.4 he layd it vpon the head of the dumb beast as in figure of Iesus Christ m Esa 53.6 vpon whom the Lord would lay the iniquities of vs all Therefore his sacrifice if he offered it aright was onely a profession of the hope of redemption by Christ and he was therby instructed in him alone to expect full satisfaction and forgiuenesse of his sinnes Now thus in effect M. Perkins answered him and he reciting the answer by halues asketh What is this to the purpose Very much it is against his purpose if in the sacrifices themselues there were nothing else but a direction to seeke satisfaction in Iesus Christ n Heb. 10.1 The Law had the shadow of good things to come and not the liuely or substantiall image of the things themselues Therefore no satisfaction indeed but onely a shadow of satisfaction to come was to be found therein For o Ver. 4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of buls and goates should take away sin And therfore the Law was p Chap. 7.18 abolished for the weaknesse and vnprofitablenesse of it How should it be said to be weake or why should it be called vnprofitable if satisfaction for sinnes were to be found in it Albeit in some meaning M. Perkins acknowledgeth in them a satisfaction not to God but to the Church of God as testimonies of their repentance and of their desire to be reconciled to God and men What needed that saith M. Bishop when they had offended God onely and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth I answer him that because all men are sinners euery man was by these sacrifices to giue acknowledgement thereof as touching himselfe and to shew his care to be reconciled to God either for publike or priuate offences whereby he had with Achan prouoked Gods wrath against his people as well as against himselfe Vpon the doing whereof men were accounted to the Church and with men as sanctified and clensed from their sinnes and no exception was to be taken against their ioyning themselues to the Church And therefore for warrant of this distinction the Scripture
storie saith f 2. Sam. 24.1 The wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he moned Dauid against them in that he said Go number Israel and Iudah Here therefore necessarie it was and standing with the glorie of God by Dauids prayer that the sin of the people shold be forgiuen as well as Dauids sin Dauid prayed for them He offered a burnt offering as it were to tender vnto God the mediation of Iesus Christ that for his sake he might be mercifull vnto them Vpon this it is said g Ver. 25. The Lord was appeased towards the land the plague ceassed from Israel This maketh plainly against M. Bishop because it proueth directly that the forgiuing of the sinne was the staying of the plague not that the plague continued after the forgiuenesse of the sinne 11. W. BISHOP Our fourth reason The Prophets of God when the people were threatened with Famine the Sword the Plague or such like punishments for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to workes of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloth and the like to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Niniuites at Ionas preaching doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M. Perkins answereth that famine the plague and such like scourges of God were not punishments of sinnes but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israel And what is the correction of a father but the punishing of a shrewd sonne for some fault committed yet in a mild sort Or doth the Schoole-master which is Caluins example whippe the scholer or strike him with the Ferula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them or masters to beate such scholers as commit no faults But saith M. Perkins these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senslesse ryming is this by due correction of the fault the party is satisfied in iustice and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnesse of his offence did require there is both due correction of the offender and due satisfaction vnto the party offended M. Perkins finally flieth vnto his old shift of imputatiue satisfaction that forsooth our sufferings do not satisfie but the party punished by faith layeth hold on the satisfaction of the Messias and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance Reply As we first graunt that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs which is giuen vs for Christs sake so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction is iust to begge the principall point in question therfore an old triuants trick to giue that for a final answer which was set in the beginning to be debated looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuites of whoÌ it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias and therfore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction But most certaine euident it is in the text that God vpon the contemplation of their works of penance tooke compassion on them and was satisfied as by turning away the threatned subuersion is most manifest R. ABBOT It is an old saying a Tertul. adu Marc. lib. 4. Propter quod venimus hoc age Do that that we come for M. Bishop buildeth here beside his groundworke He propoundeth a Satisfaction to be made for sinnes past and pardoned that is after the forgiuenesse of the sins and bringeth vs arguments to proue a satisfaction for the obtaining of that forgiuenesse But we will take them as they come though by their owne grounds they be worth nothing there being no satisfaction to be made by a man as we shall see hereafter so long as he continueth in mortall sinne and still continuing in it vntill by forgiuenesse it be blotted out The Prophets denounce famine sword pestilence M. Perkins should not haue made any question but that they denounce them as the punishments of sinne as fruites and effects of Gods curse according to the law So did God accordingly execute them in fury and wrath for iust reuengement vpon a rebellious and vnthankfull people The point of question stood not in this neither needed M. Bishop to bestow so much paines for the prouing of it Yet it is to be obserued that although God in generall denounced and executed the same by way of reuenge and punishment yet in particular he had alwaies a respect to the calling and sauing of his elect turning those common iudgements to be vnto them occasions of repentance turning vnto God to obtaine of him remission of their sinnes and euerlasting life To them therefore vpon their repentance the nature of punishments was altered and they became meanes either to receiue them presently to endlesse blisse or to further them in the way wherein they were to walke for the attainement of it Of this enough hath bene said already but the matter here is this The Prophets denouncing such plagues do withall call the people to repentance to fasting to praying to putting on sackcloth and ashes This being performed saith M. Bishop God was satisfied Therefore he will haue vs to vnderstand that the doing of these things was a satisfaction that is the paiment of a iust price vnto God by which they merited the turning away of his fearefull and heauie wrath But this argument of his followeth not because we know that a man in fauour may hold himselfe satisfied towards another vpon his humbling of himselfe who yet receiueth not a satisfaction that is a iust and sufficient recompence for the debt that is owing him or the wrong that is done vnto him The seruant that ought his maister b Math. 18.24 ten thousand talents when he was called to paiment fell downe at his Maisters feete and besought him for patience His Maister herewith was appeased and satisfied and forgaue him all the debt and will any man hereupon say that he made his Maister satisfaction for the debt So is the case betwixt God and vs. We humble our selues before him we pray we intreat him to forgiue vs. He is herewith satisfied that is contented and appeased and remitteth the trespasse Shall we now hereupon say that our humbling of our selues our intreatie and praier to forgiue vs is the paiment of our debt This is a mad conclusion as we take it but such prety knots will serue at Rome to tye the Popes trinkets together and they hold fast enough there because no man must
the fire but still we say what is this to satisfaction We still require his proofe that for the vertue and woorth of these fruites it is that God is appeased towards vs. But that cannot be for a man cannot bring forth good fruite except first of all he be made a good tree for e Chap. 7.17 an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite And if he must first be a good tree that he may bring forth good fruite then God must first be appeased towards him which is by the faith of Iesus Christ f Rom. 3.25 whom God hath set forth to be our reconciliation or attonement through faith in his bloud Our good fruites then are not the causes but the effects of Gods being appeased towards vs. If we haue none we are sure that we are in state of iudgement and damnation and the sentence of Saint Iohn taketh hold of vs but if we haue them we are not to account them the redemption of our sinnes but testimonies of the remission and forgiuenesse thereof Yea but Saint Iohn saith M. Bishop seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Where or in what words Marry because he saith Say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father We may imagine that he had a vizard on his face wheÌ he wrote this that the paper might not see him blush Why what is there in these words against the laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith Forsooth he saith to them it will not helpe you to say that ye are the sonnes of Abraham who was father of all true beleeuers Well but what is this yet to laying hold on Christes satisfaction by faith It is as much saith he as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off ye generation of vipers This is a strange construction that say not in your hearts we haue Abraham to our father should be as much as to say Trust not to your faith But it grew at Rome and we know that things farre fetched are woont to be very strange As for vs we conceiue in our simplicity that Iohns meaning was to reprooue them for flattering themselues for that carnally they were the seede of Abraham as if that were sufficient security for them towards God when as in the meane time they neglected the repentance and faith and workes of Abraham The true children of Abraham are they g Rom. 4.12 who walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham and h Iohn 8.39 do the workes of Abraham which they not regarding could not be accounted the sonnes of Abraham whose of-spring was reckoned according to the spirit not according to the flesh Thus doth our Sauiour testifie of them that they beleeued not saying vnto them i Math. 21.31 Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdome of God For Iohn came vnto you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but Publicans and harlots beleeued him and ye though ye saw it were not moued with repentance afterward that ye might beleeue him Now is it not a wonder that whereas it is apparent that they had no faith yet Iohn Baptist should say vnto them Trust not to your faith Well all this is nothing he cannot serue the Popes turne that will not notably cogge and lye The rest of his commentarie accordeth with this where he foisteth in the satisfying of Gods iustice there being nothing in the words of S. Iohn that foundeth to that effect 14. W. BISHOP Cor. 7.10 The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof one is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainments properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments onely from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must do Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We graunt that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his bodie and mind too as Saint Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians but this sorow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chastisement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished for where there is no feare of paines much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester sort And an emulation and desire to flie as farre from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs froÌ that sorow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of S. Paul R. ABBOT The Greeke fathers Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Hierome amongst the Latines do referre the reuenge there spoken of by the Apostle to the punishment of the incestuous man whereby they maintained the authority and due regard of the lawes of God But we further very willingly yeeld that by reuenge is also meant a wreaking of a mans anger as I may terme it vpon himselfe being offended and grieued at himselfe for the sinne that he hath done and therefore bending himselfe to crosse and thwart those desires by which he was led vnto it This the Scripture teacheth vs by the termes of a Math. 16.24 denying our selues b Col. 3.5 mortifying our earthly members c 1. Pet. 4.1 suffering in the flesh d Gal. 5.24 crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts of it and e Rom. 6.6 destroying of the body of sinne Thus men occasion requiring giue themselues ouer to fasting and weeping and mourning and forbearing of accustomed delights yea and to open rebuke and shame with men hauing by publike offence made themselues a scandall to the Church This reuenge we denie not we say that hereby we testifie both to God and men the displeasure and offence that we haue taken against our selues we teach others to take heed and carefully to shun those occasions whereby we haue fallen we labour hereby that the teÌptations of sin may no more in the like sort preuaile against vs but we are still
which were before written by Moses and the Prophets who all prophecied of the Messias the Christ and annointed of the Lord in whom God should be God with vs who should procure our peace with God the remission of our sins and euerlasting blisse m Rom. 1.2 In their writings the Gospell was promised n Cap. 3.21 they testified the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ to all and vpon all that do beleeue o Act. 10.43 they gaue witnesse that through his name euery one that beleeueth in him should haue forgiuenesse of sinnes by them the doctrine of saluation was from time to time published to the Church The perfection and accomplishment of this hope depended vpon the incarnation death and resurrection of Iesus Christ These things in the p Gal. 4.4 fulnesse of time God made good he sent his Son made of a woman and made vnder the law to redeeme them that were vnder the law who to that end q 1. Cor. 15.3 died for our sinnes according to the Scriptures and was buried and arose the third day according to the Scriptures It remained now that it should be knowne that this was he whom the Father had sealed and sent for the working of our redemption Therefore S. Iohn to that effect saith These things are writteÌ that ye may beleeue that this Iesus is that Messias that Christ r Ioh. 1.41.45 of whom Moses in the law and of whom the Prophets did write the hope of the Fathers the light of the Gentiles the glory of Israel that so beleeuing ye may according to the promise of God haue life through his name Albeit therefore he hath in his Gospell coÌprehended the summe of all that we beleeue yet we may conceiue that he vseth those words not so much to set forth the fulnes of that that he himselfe hath written as to signifie that he hath sufficiently set foorth the accomplishment of those things which were written by Moses the Prophets in the beleefe wherof consisteth the obtaining of euerlasting life And yet thirdly without impeachment of any thing already said it is very likely that S. Iohn writing his Gospell last of al coÌpiling together the 4. Gospels spake these words not only as touching that which he himself had written but also of all written by the rest of the Euangelists to signifie the vse therof in such sort as I haue said to which Cyrils words before mentioned seem to haue respect But howsoeuer we wil conceiue thereof we cannot doubt but that S. Iohn would giue to vnderstand that by the written Gospel and word of God we are sufficiently instructed to that faith in Christ whereby we attaine to liue with him As for M. Bishops question if S. Iohns gospell alone be sufficient what need the other three gospels the Acts of the Apostles c it is but his cuckoes song which he hath sung before And he may euen as well say what needed any Euangelist to write any story which another had before written wheÌ S. Mathew had written the passioÌ of Christ what needed the rest to mentioÌ again any thing that he had written When S. Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians had first handled the question of iustification what need was there that he should handle it again in his Epistle to the Romanes When Dauids thanksgiuing for deliuerance from his enemies was set downe in the 18. Psalme what needed the same to be mentioned againe in the Å¿ 2. Sam. 22.1 second book of Samuel A number of such idle questions he might make of diuers things set downe in diuers places in the very self same words and of an infinite number of sayings which haue other to answer theÌ to the very same effect But the wisedom of God hath thus thought good to prouide for our saluation not onely sufficiently but abundantly by the consent of diuers persons writing diuersly in diuers places and at diuers times to confirme vs so much the more in the beleef of those things that are written to giue vs ofteÌ occasion to remember and consider the same things to exercise our meditation and studie in comparing those things that are diuersly set downe to sharpen our diligence in searching out the accord of those things that seem to differ to set forth in the variety of his words the riches of his wisdome that there may be therin both to edify the simple and weake and yet to busie the heads and vnderstanding of the learned that it may neither be abhorred by the one nor contemned by the other For these and other causes it hath pleased God that what is written sufficiently by one should yet be writteÌ by other also But M. Bishop in the end howsoeuer the matter go prouideth sufficiently for himself For he telleth vs finally that although S. Iohns gospel were al-sufficient yet should not traditions be excluded And why so for Christ saith in it in plaine termes saith he that he had much more to say vnto his Apostles but they as then being not able to beare it he reserued that to be deliuered vnto them afterwards And how then must we think that he deliuered those things Marry of those high mysteries S. Iohn recordeth not much in his gospel after Christs resurrectioÌ and so many of them must be deliuered by tradition vnwritten Here thou seest gentle Reader a budget large inough to receiue all the Popes traditions we shal not need to doubt now but that he wil proue what he list if it be for his turne without question it was one of those things that the disciples could not beare til after Christ was risen from the dead and then he left it to them by tradition But I wold haue thee to obserue what a note S. Austin gaue long ago concerning that speech of Christ August in IoaÌ tract 97. Omnes insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt au dacias figmentorum suoruÌ quas maximè exhorret sensus humanut hac occasione Euangelicae sententiae colorare conatur vbi Dominus au Adhuc multa c. quasi haec ipsa sint quae tunc discipulâ portare non poterant t All foolish heretiks who yet desire to be called Christians do seek to colour the presumptions of their deuices eueÌ such as humane sense abhorreth by the pretence of that sentence of the Gospell where Christ saith I haue many things yet to say vnto you but ye are not yet able to beare them as if these were the things which the disciples then were not able to beare M. Bishop then by alledging this place for the making good of their traditions hath gained thus much that we must now account him as also his fellows in the like case amongst foolish heretiks who affirming wicked abhominable deuices which they cannot proue wil make vs beleeue that they are things which Christ had to say to his disciples and they were not able to beare
That many of the Propheticall bookes were lost may be proued out of the history of Paralipomenon which they translate Chronicles Now as for M. Perkins guesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little roles of paper some prophane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word onely without either any reason or authoritie R. ABBOT Of this argument well propounded we deny the minor propositioÌ We say that some of the Scriptures though some other had miscaried should containe all doctrine needfull to saluation The consequence that he maketh thereof that then those other are superfluous is childish and absurdly iniurious to the Scripture The same doctrines are contained in a hundred places of holy Scripture and who will hereupon conclude that they are superfluous in one place because they are contained in another The Euangelists diuers times record the same stories and euen word for word and must it follow that the latter did superfluously write that which the former had set downe There is no point of necessary doctrine and faith contained in any one booke of holy Scripture but the same hath testimonie and witnesse of other bookes Matters of fact and circumstance there may be one where which otherwhere are not mentioned but points of necessary doctrine and faith haue manifold testimonie of the written word Supposing it then to be true which M. Bishop saith that some of the old bookes were lost which the wisedome of God thought necessary for those times though vnnecessary for vs yet it cannot be inferred hereof that any doctrine was thereby lost because though there might be some matters of storie there onely mentioned yet there could be no matter of doctrine that was not contained in Moses law And if Maister Bishop will needs perswade vs that some points of doctrine were there deliuered that are not in other scripture and must now be learned by tradition we desire to vnderstand whether by tradition he haue learned what those traditions were and that out of their Churches treasury of traditions he will discouer these secrets of which neither the Prophets nor Euangelists nor Apostles nor Fathers nor Councels were euer able to informe vs. He telleth vs that Chrysostome affirmeth the losse of those books but doth Chrysostome tell him of any doctrines deriued by tradition from those books Surely he wanted some proofe for the Popes triple crowne his yeare of Iubile and the great storehouse of merits and satisfactions at Rome and dreaming it in his sleepe beleeued it when he was awake that these matters were written of in these bookes and the bookes being now lost they come to vs by a tradition of which the world neuer heard any thing for the space of two or three thousand yeares But we must thinke that he wrote not these things for vs but for them who he thought would be more ready to beleeue him then we are Now M. Perkins further answereth that though those bookes were lost yet it followeth not that any part of the Canon of the Scripture was lost because there might be bookes which were not reckoned for Scripture bookes For proofe hereof he bringeth the words of the Apostle a Rom. 15.4 Whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning arguing hereof that because bookes that be lost cannot serue for our learning and all the books of scripture that were formerly written were to serue for our learning therefore no bookes of scripture formerly written could be lost M. Bishop after his manner calleth it a shamefull answer but saith not a word to disproue it He telleth vs that there were such bookes but he proueth not that they were bookes of scripture and to the reason alledged out of the Apostles words he replieth nothing at all and therefore I passe him ouer without any further answer 19. W. BISHOP Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our argument is this Moses who was the pen-man of the old Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certain points needfull to saluation by tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therfore not likely that our Christian law should be all written That Moses did not pen all thus we proue it was as necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applied to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedy prouided in the writen law to deliuer women from that sinne therefore some other remedy for them was deliuered by tradition Item if the child were likely to die before the eight day there was remedy for them as the most learned do hold yet no where written in the law Also many Gentiles during the state of the old Testament were saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I answer that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that tradition might preserue what was then lost R. ABBOT It concerneth M. Bishop to speake well of the Iewish Cabala for if the Cabala be not good certainly Popish traditions are starke naught the Iews hauing as good warrant for the one as the Papists for the other Both of them to purchase credit to their owne fancies and deuices betooke themselues to this shifting pretence that the word of God was deliuered first by Moses and then by Christ and his Apostles partly written and partly vnwritten Whatsoeuer they haue listed to bring in either of curiositie or for profit they haue referred it to the vnwritten word and this hath bene the sinke of all both Iewish and Popish superstition both verifying in themselues that which our Sauiour obiecteth to the one a Mat. 15.6 Ye haue made the commaundement of God of no authoritie by your tradition M. Bishop here like a louing brother taketh the Iewes by the hand and will help them for the maintenance of their traditions that by them he may gaine some reputatioÌ to his owne His proofs for them are such as that without doubt they being but dul-heads in coÌparisoÌ of him were neuer able for themselues to deuise the like That Moses committed not all to writing he proueth because it was necessary for women to be deliuered from originall sin but they could not be deliuered from it by circumcision not being capable therof and no other remedy is prouided in
the written law therefore some other remedie was delivered for them by tradition Further he alledgeth that there was remedy for children dying before the eight day before which they might not be circumcised but there is none found written therefore it was deliuered by tradition O the excellent wit of this man he hath with these arguments so troubled the whole pack of the Protestants as that not one of them can tel what to say But for our learning M. Bishop we are desirous to know of you what these remedies were that you speake of What was the ceremonie for the freeing of women from originall sinne and children dying before eight dayes old Where haue ye found or how can ye prooue that there was any such Surely you that can see so farre into a milstone of traditions are able I trow to informe vs what it was if any such thing were Ridiculous vain man bringing in steed of proofes fantasticall imaginations whereof he hath no ground nor can giue vs any testimony at all either from the Iewes themselues or from other ancient writers but only out of the presumptions and idle dreames of some of their owne schoolmen Yea and in this deuice of his he crosseth the doctrine of his owne part for tell vs M. Bishop did circumcision take away originall sin If it did so what difference then betwixt the sacraments of the old Testament and of the new You are wont to tell vs that the sacraments of the old Testament did signifie grace but not giue grace that they did signifie the taking away of sinne but not take it away that they did signifie iustification but did not iustifie Therefore Bellarmine accordingly determineth that circumcision did not iustifie or take away sinne but in that respect was of as little force as vncircumcision yea and argueth that if circumcision had iustified then iustification should haue bene proper to men because men onely are circumcised so farre is he from conceiuing that some other remedie was prouided for women in steede of circumcision For expounding the Apostles words b Rom 3.29 Is God the God of the Iewes onely as if he had said c Bellar. de effec sacram cap. 14. Quasi dicat Deus est omnium Deus quomodo igitur credibile est cum dedisse remedium contra peccatuÌ solis Iudaeis Possumus nos etiam hinc alitèr argumentari An masculoruÌ Deus tantuÌ nonne et foeminarum Quis ergo credat Deum dedisse remedium quod solis masculis prosit God the God of all how then is it credible that he should giue remedy against sinne to the Iewes onely he addeth We may hence also argue Is God the God of men onely is he not also the God of women Who then will beleeue that he gaue a remedy against sinne that should be auaileable for men onely His resolution then is that circumcision was no remedie against sin because God would not appoint a remedy against sinne as he conceiueth which should not be common to the Gentiles as well as to the Iewes to women as well as men Now therefore inasmuch as M. Bishops foundation faileth surely that which he buildeth vpon it must needs fall and looke what he will say was the deliuering of men from originall sinne the same he must confesse hath bene the deliuering of women also so that either he must resolue one meanes for both out of the written word or passe ouer to tradition vnwritten and if he haue not a tradition for both then all his matter of Iewish tradition must come to naught and there is nothing proued but that Moses committed all to the written law But his phrase of deliuering from originall sinne implieth an errour before confuted in the question of that point Our regeneration consisteth in the forgiuenesse of sinnes and the first fruites of the sanctification of the holy Ghost the same spirit working sometimes without any signe or sacrament of initiation as in the fathers vntil the time of Abraham who himselfe was iustified before the sacrament of Circumcision sometimes with that signe of circumcision proper in execution to men onely but yet sealing the fruite of Gods promise and the effect of his spirit both to men and women d Ephes 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God sometimes with a signe common both to men and women as in our baptisme we see thereby shewing that he worketh freely according to his owne will not tying himselfe to outward signes but sauing onely by his grace either with signes where they are or without where either there is no institution as in the beginning or there wanteth meanes and oportunitie of execution as oft befell in circumcision of the old Testament and doth befall in baptisme of the new Now as touching M. Bishops third reason it is as reasonlesse as the former so that we may wonder that the author of it should be so without reason Iob and many such like Gentiles saith he were saued Very true But in the Law or any other part of the old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue But that is not true for seeing there is but e Eph. 4.5 one faith f 2. Corin. 4.13 the same spirit of faith of the whole body of Christ from the beginning to the end by that faith that is written in the law of Moses we know what they had to beleeue and according to that faith how they ought to liue Yea and where it is written what they did beleeue and how they did liue there it is written what they had to beleue and how they were to liue But in the booke of Iob it is written of himself and of his friends what they did beleeue and what the ordering of their life was all according to the law of Moses and the faith therein contained It is therefore vntrue which M. Bishop saith that it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they were to liue But yet giuing the man his way let vs see what his conclusion is Therefore saith he many things needfull to saluation were then deliuered by tradition We may see his head was troubled and he had forgotten what he was to conclude for this his conclusion should haue bene Therefore Moses committed not all to writing But this would not follow for though it were not namely written of Iob what he had to beleeue yet we cannot hereof inferre that therefore he had any thing else to beleeue but that that is written What hindereth I say but that Moses may be conceiued to set downe the faith whereby Iob was to be saued though he do not expresly say that Iob was to beleeue thus But it may be that M. Bishop meant that that conclusion should be subordinate to the former and so would reason thus Iob and such like receiued many things by tradition therefore Moses committed not all to writing Yet neither can this
containe or not containe they must not marrie let them swelter and boyle and burne in filthie lust euen to the very bottome of hel yet marrie they must not in anie case And whereas the Apostle saith It is better to marrie then to burne M. Bishop telleth vs that for such that is for common Christians if they cannot liue otherwise chastly it is better to marrie then to be burned that is defiled with incontinencie leauing it to be vnderstood that for Votaries for such speciall Christians as he is it is better to be burned that is defiled with incontinencie then to marrie And that it may appeare that I do not vniustly force this consequence vpon him Cardinall Campegius doubted not most impudently to say that m Sleidan Comment li. 4. Quòd sacerdotes mariti fiaÌt multò esse gratitus peccatuÌ quaÌ si plurimas domi meretrices alant it is a greater sinne for Priests to be maried then to keepe many harlots at home and in like sort Costerus the Iesuite that n Coster Enchir. cap. 15 Saâerdos si fornicetur aut domi concubinaÌ foueat tameisi graut sacrilegâos se obstringat multò tameÌ grauiùs peccat si matrimonium contrahat a Priest albeit he be guiltie of great sacriledge if he commit fornication or keepe a concubine yet sinneth more grieuously if he marrie Yea that we may not thinke that some pettie fellowes onely haue so conceiued Bellarmine that filthie Friar saith the same o Bellar. de Monach cap. 30. Vtrunque est malâ nubero vri immò peius est nubere c. Quae nubit post votum simplex tamen aliquo modo magis peccat quà m quae forniâatur Both are euill to marrie and to burne but yet the worse of the two is to marrie yea p Philo de Leg. special Quasi noÌ melius deoque gratius sit tale periurium modò seruentur leges c. Addit enim culpae culpam dum sacramento abutitur cùm debuâsset potiùs abstinere à maleficijs Abstineat igitur supplex Deum exoret vt pro sua clemeÌtia temeritati incoÌsultae ignoscat qua ad iuraÌdum praeceps actus est nam duplicare noxam cum te possis exonerare dimidio maxima est insania vix vnquam curabilis she that marieth after a simple vow that is when she hath but vndertaken to vow and hath not yet solemnely done it yet in some sort sinneth more then she that committeth fornication See these wretched caitifes whom neither feare of God nor shame of men can hold backe from so diuellish and damnable assertions whereby they do but set a snare to halter and strangle the consciences of men as they haue done many thousands and by whoredome and filthinesse without remorse sent them headlong to hell fire As though saith Philo to forsweare in such a case for the keeping of Gods lawes were not much better and more acceptable to God For a man addeth sinne to sinne whilest he abuseth his oath whereas he should rather forbeare from euill doing Let him therefore forbeare and humbly intreate God that of his mercie he will pardon the vnaduised rashnesse whereby he was led headlong to sweare for to double the fault when thou mayest disburden thy selfe of the one halfe is verie great madnesse and scarcely possible to be cured Thus spake Philo of those vowes and othes whereby men binde themselues contrarie to that which God hath commaunded and his wordes shall be the iust condemnation of them who by pretence of a vowe of humane institution and deuice debarre men from doing that which God hath taught them to do and tye them to that vncleannesse whereby they are lothsome and hatefull vnto him Marke it I pray thee gentle Reader that by their vow of continencie they professe more to renounce mariage which is the ordinance of God then fornication and whoredome which is the worke of the diuell A man hath vowed continencie but yet cannot containe What must be the meanes to salue this euill Not mariage by anie meanes which is the medecine that God hath appointed but adulterie and fornication and vnnaturall Sodomiticall filthinesse and vncleannesse to which the diuell tempteth It is a doctrine neuer heard of in the world vntill by the tyrannie of Antichrist the Church became a stye for these filthie swine that a man should be taken to vow more against mariage then against vncleane and filthie lust But yet this notable hypocrite here beareth vs in hand that S. Paule was the author of this accursed and desperate paradoxe To them saith he that had vowed chastitie before Saint Paule writeth in another style that if they but desire to marrie they incurre damnation because they haue made frustrate and broken their former faith and promise made vnto God of their chastity Where we must vnderstand that they of whom the Apostle there speaketh were poore widowes who were to liue of the almes of the Church and were vsed by the Church to looke to poore sicke and impotent people and to giue some attendance to trauellers and strangers who were faithfull Christians comming by occasion to the place where they were to wash their feet which was a thing much done in those hote countreyes and to do such other necessarie vses as might concerne them Now because they that were maried could not fitly be employed to such seruice neither was it fitte that the Church should be euery while to seeke by their bestowing themselues in mariage that did vndertake it therefore they made choise onely of such who would resolue and promise not to marrie againe And that they might be the more fitte and likely both to make and keepe this promise the Apostle giueth this caution q 1. Tim. 5.9 Let not a widow be chosen vnder threescore yeares of age after which there neede be small doubt that she should haue minde or desire of marriage This is the great vowe of chastitie that M. Bishop telleth vs of that a woman of threescore yeares old being to do some seruice to the Church and to be relieued therein by the Churches almes should first promise not to marrie againe But the Apostle hauing set downe this caution goeth on further saying But refuse the younger widowes for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ they will marrie hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith He will haue no widowes of the younger sort admitted to that companie for the euident perill and danger thereof ensuing which by experience then had in some sort appeared For some young widowes comming by this meanes to liue idle vpon common charge gaue themselues to wantonnesse and quite cast off the remembrance and regard of their dutie towards Christ yea and as Hierome vnderstandeth the word vsed by the Apostle r Hieron ad Geront Fornicatae sunt in iniuriam viri sui Christi hoc enim Graecus sermo significat They committed fornication to
flesh had bene onely amongst vs. But your teeth would haue bit your tongue if ye had not somewhat told vs truth Take it to ye M. Bishop for it belongeth to none more rightly then it doth to you and the example that ye lay before ye fitteth accordingly But to shut vp all this matter he telleth vs that none performe all duties of the second table better then they As how They are most obedient to their superiours God hath commaunded them to obey and honour their parents their princes and gouerners and they leaue these at sixe and seuen as they say to performe obedience to other superiours superstitiously deuised of their owne They many times impiously with the Iews cast off the respect of their parents by pretence of their vows they withdraw themselues into lurking dens from seruice to their princes and publike state yea many times they nourish rebellion and treason against them and yet they are most obedient of all other being not at all obedient to them whom God hath coÌmanded them to obey Againe he saith they hurt not their neighbour in life person or any manner of goods Yea but the life of a Christian man consisteth not in doing no hurt onely vnlesse he also do good and what good do they It is doing good that Christ shall commend at the last day b Mat. 25.35 I was hungry and ye gaue me meate and thirstie and ye gaue me drinke On the other side he shall obiect the want of doing good c Ver. 42. I was hungry and ye gaue me no meate and thirstie and ye gaue me no drinke And what shall the Monkes then say O Lord though we did thee no good yet we did thee no hurt We had wherewith to feed thee and to clothe thee and to harbour thee but we gaue all away at once and made a vow that we would neuer haue any thing againe to do thee good thou shouldest therefore starue and perish for hunger and cold but looke for nothing further at our hands We were content to fast and pray according to our rule and to spend our time in such witlesse obseruations as our founders directed vs for matters of great perfection but as for those things which thou hast required we left them to men of more base and vnperfect state as nothing at all concerning vs. This is their begging Friers condition of life and this is that performing of the duties of the second table which M. Bishop speaketh of They fast and pray but do no good at all neither to Church nor commonwealth neither hath any kind of men beâe generally more offensiue and pernicious then they haue bene 21. W. BISHOP After all this waste wind M. Perkins confesseth that a man may vpon a speciall calling sell all his goods as the Apostles did What then good Sir shall become of your former arguments May one then vow a curse of the Law and leaue off prayer for neither pouertie nor riches and say that it is not a blesseder thing to giue then to receiue All these arguments which were whilome of great force must now be nothing worth because it pleaseth M. Perkins the wind now sits in an other corner such weathercocks surely are to be much respected He saith further in time of persecution a man may also leaue all he should rather haue said he must leaue all or else lose al for the persecutor will not spare him Lastly he doth not condemne old auncient Monks who liued by the sweate of their browes and were married many of them as he saith but his authors cited say not so neither shall he be able to cite one auncient allowed and approoued writer who sayth that the auncient Monkes liued with their wiues if perhaps they had bene married before But no maruell if fleshly Ministers thinke it no life without their fleshly mates As for labouring at vacant times it was alwayes and is to this day in practise among many religions If other do in good studies writing or teaching imploy that time of labour no doubt but they do farre better R. ABBOT There is no man but easily conceiueth that those things many times which of themselues are vnlawfull and wicked in vs yet arelawfull and necessary when God commaundeth them It had bin a wicked thing in Abraham of his owne head to attempt the killing of his son but it was an act of religious and godly obedience when God required it It is desperate wickednesse for a man wilfully to cast away his owne life but at Gods commaundement to offer and yeeld his life it is right and iust It was vncleannes in Moses law to touch any excrement or dung yet when God appointed a Ezech. 4.12 Ezechiel so to do it was no vncleannesse The Iewes did sin grieuously in binding themselues by vow not to honour their parents and yet when Christ calleth no man may say b Mat. 8.21 Let me first go and burie my father yea c Luke 14 26. he that hateth not father and mother saith Christ he cannot be my disciple Euen so albeit it be superstitious and sinfull of our owne heads to relinquish the state of life whereunto God hath called vs vnder pretence and colour of giuing our selues idlely to prayer and fasting yet it is sacred and holy obedience to leaue all when God calleth from all who yet neuer calleth vs in the leauing of all things to vow the neuer hauing of any thing againe These cases are sensible and manifest neither was there cause for M. Bishop to talke of wind and wethercocke in M. Perkins but rather to wish better discretion and vnderstanding to himselfe As for the auncient Monkes albeit many of them were very absurd and senslesse hypocrites yet we denie not but many that went vnder that name were iust and holy men trained vp as in our vniuersities to vertue and learning that they might afterwards serue for the ministery of the Church M. Bishop would gladly attribute to their Monks some imitation of them but it sticketh betwixt his teeth and he knoweth not well how to bring it out They are so vnlike them that they are scant worthy to be accounted as apes in comparison of men That which M. Perkins saith of maried Monks is taken out of S. Austin though he cite not the place who setting down the heresie of them that were called d August haer 40. Apostolici qui se isto nomina arrogantissimè vocauerunt quòd in communionem suaÌ noÌ reciperent vtentes coÌiugibus res proprias possidentes quales habet Catholicae Ecclesia Monachos Clerecos plurimos Apostolici saith that arrogantly they so called themselues for that they receiued not into their communion VTENTES CONIVGIBVS such as had company with their wiues and possessed any thing of their owne such saith he as the Catholicke Church hath many both Monks and Clergie men Let M. Bishop tell vs the English of vtentes coniugibus and
and how much would it haue renowned the bountie of Christ Well M. Bishop we wish you to consider throughly of the matter we cannot see in the Gospell but that you may as well take vpon you to be a Pope as he that is Pope and you may as stoutly alledge for your selfe that your Popedome doth highly recommend the bountie of Christ But it seemeth to vs that you do too much abridge the Popes vsing of his faculties when you mention the employing of them onely in Christs seruice and to his honor and glorie Let him M. Bishop first serue himselfe let him enlarge S. Peters patrimonie and aduance the glorie of his owne seate let him proclaime Iubiliees and Pardons that he may gather gold and treasure let him claw them that claw him and wreake his anger vpon them that resist him as for Christ he is but a poore man let him attend for the reuersion a little will serue him This deuice of theirs is wholy to be derided their words are the words of shamelesse hypocrites not blushing to auouch the bounty of Christ in an authority which though there were from time to time after fiue or sixe hundred yeares diuers degrees and steppes vnto it yet in that sort as they now defend it was not knowne in the world for the space of eight or nine hundred yeares after the time of Christ which hath no warrant of the Gospell of Christ nor fauoreth at all of the kingdome of Christ which the auncient Fathers neuer dreamed of and could not haue gone without most illustrious and cleare testimony witnesse amongst theÌ if euer it had bene practised in their times Let them in all antiquitie parallell the Pope and we will neuer open mouth further to speake against them but because they cannot so do let them confesse themselues to be false wretches and him to be a Pseudochrist a false and counterfeit Christ in truth very Antichrist himselfe who by hypocrisie hath intruded himselfe to sit in the place of Iesus Christ But M. Bishop telleth vs that their Vicar cannot change any one of Gods Commandements nor adde any contrary vnto them Where we see that the Pope apparantly doth that which they are ashamed to defend They well know that he setteth nothing at all by the lawes of God and that whilest he taketh vpon him to be the expounder thereof he maketh what meaning he list thereof and there by giueth himselfe libertie to do what he list and yet to say he doth nothing against the law of God It hath bene holden for a rule amongst them as Bodin mentioneth k Bodin de republ lib 1. cap 8. Qui a pontâsi e maxime diuinis legibus salutus sic huis apud deuÌ immortalem satis cautum esse Canonic regula That he is safe enough with God who by the Pope is freed from the lawes of God Thus they haue told vs and according to that they haue told vs they haue practised that l Decret Greg. de concess prebend ca 4 Proposuit secundum plenitudinem pocestatis de iure possumus supra in dispensare the Pope aboue law can dispense of law by the fulnesse of his power that m Ibid. in glossa Papaâdispe sas contra ApostoluÌ contra Canones Ap stoli contra vetus Testamentum he can dispense against the Apostle against the Canons of the Apostle and against the old Testament that n 25. Sunt quidam in glossa satis potest sustineri quod Papa contra Apostolum dispensat it may well be maintained that he doth dispense against the Apostle Shall we not thinke that he changeth and thwarteth the commandement of Christ who with a Non obstante taketh that away which Christ hath sayd Drinke ye all of this o Concil Constamiens sess 13. Hoc non obstante This notwithstanding the Church doth thus and thus Doth not he contrary Gods commandement who requireth vs to worship Idols and Images when God hath forbidden so to do When God hath charged subiects to be obedient to their Princes and Gouernours doth he not crosse the commandement of God who taketh vpon him to dispense with them p 15.7.6 Authoritatem ibid. Alius for their oaths of allegiance and giueth them licence to rebell Doth not he make the law of God of no effect who giueth licence of mariage in those degrees of affinitie and bloud in which God hath forbidden any mariage to be accounted lawfull as was here done in England to king Henry the eight for the mariage of his brothers wife and to Philip the late king of Spaine for the mariage of his owne sisters-daughter Many such other matters are there wherein this Vicar of Rome grosly and palpably bendeth himselfe against God and yet these hypocrites are so impudent as that either by expositions they will seeme to defend them or else if they can find no meanes for defence they vtterly deny them Thus M. Bishop will here make vs beleeue that the Pope maketh lawes onely conformable to Gods lawes when as by that which he himselfe addeth he proueth him therein presumptuously and arrogantly to put himselfe into the place of God For to make lawes and publish doctrines to bind the conscience belongeth onely to Christ who in that respect is called the q Iam. 4.12 one Lawgiuer r Ephes 4.5 one Lord Å¿ Mat 23 8.10 one Doctor and maister Yet M. Bishop maketh this a thing common to euery Soueraigne gouernour and taketh vpon him to proue it by S. Paul saying t Rom. 13.1.5 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and that for conscience sake But he abuseth the words of the Apostle which haue no intendment concerning their Vicar but are spoken of the higher powers that is of the temporall and ciuill gouernours either u 1. Pet. 2.13 the king as the superior or other rulers that are sent by him as S. Peter giueth vs to vnderstand the meaning thereof Therefore Chrysostome expoundeth the words thus Let euery soule be subiect x Chrysost 14 Rom. hom 23. though thou be an Apostle though thou be an Euangelist though thou be a Prophet thereby informing vs that Apostles Euangelists Prophets are of the soules that are to bee subiect and not the higher powers to which the subiection there spoken off is required The Apostle did not write it to chalenge thereby a subiection to S. Peter or to himselfe but to acknowledge a subiection due to be performed by them and others to the ciuill power Againe the Apostle teacheth vs for conscience sake to be subiect to the higher powers he teacheth vs not that the conscience is bound as touching the things themselues wherein we are to shew our subiection to the higher powers Lawes are sayd to bind the conscience when they tie the conscience to the things themselues which they command as to be perswaded of a religious and necessary duty and seruice therein immediatly
iustice or Righteousnesse for vs hath not made his Righteousnesse ours which is the thing that S. Austin affimeth but hath giuen vs a Righteousnesse of our owne The exposition of the iustice of God which he citeth out of Austin is wholy impertinent because the Righteousnesse of Christ of which he saith that Christ made his Righteousnesse our Righteousnesse is the Righteousnesse which Christ wrought for vs in his owne person not that which God worketh in vs for his sake The sinne was wrought by vs the Righteousnesse by him he tooke to him our sinne and imparted his Righteousnesse vnto vs. And this Righteousnesse imputed vnto vs is truly sayd to be that which God giueth to man that man may be iust through God so that therein S. Austin howsoeuer sayth nothing that is contrarie to our defence 9. W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the reasons of Catholikes which M. Perkins calling the obiections proposeth for them to proue that the iustice which God bestoweth vpon vs is Inherent and not imputed OF INHERENT IVSTICE FIrst obiect As one man cannot be made wise valiant or continent by the wisedome valour or continencie of another so one man cannot be made iust by the iustice of another M. Perkins answereth That one mans iustice cannot be made anothers no more then life or health but Christs iustice may who by couenant of grace is made euerie mans owne with all his gifts Reply This answer solueth not the difficultie any whit at all for Christs wisedome power and other gifts are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why then is his iustice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sence all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption and we do daily offer them to God that he will for his Sonnes sake more and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall bodie but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another rather then wise by the wisedome of another R. ABBOT We haue a Sect. 6. before heard it confessed by Bellarmine that the sinne of Adam is imputed to all his posteritie as if euerie man had committed the same himselfe neither can they truly describe the state of Originall sinne out of the doctrine of their owne schooles but they must confesse so much Now let them resolue vs how one man may be reputed to haue sinned in the sinne of another and we will resolue them how we may be reputed to haue wrought all Righteousnesse in the Righteousnesse of Christ Surely as Adam did beate the person of all mankind and b August de peccat mer remiss lib. 3. cap. 7 Adhuc omnes ille vnus fueruÌt we all were that one man as S. Austin saith and therefore what he did was as done by all and euerie one so did Christ beare the person of all the elect and faithfull and was accounted as them all in one c Bernard epist 190 Non alter qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit quia caput corpus vnus est Christus not one that made the forfeiture and another that made the satisfaction because one Christ is both the head and the bodie and therefore what he did likewise was as done by all and euerie one M. Perkins therfore rightly said that Christ being made ours by the couenant of grace we one with him and he with vs albeit the Righteousnesse Inherent in him cannot be inherent in vs that we thereby should be inherently iust yet by imputation the same is deriued vnto vs and we thereby and for his sake are accepted as if we were inherently iust in most perfect and high degree But saith M. Bishop the wisedome and power of Christ and his other gifts are not imputed vnto vs why then his iustice more then the rest I answer him that that onely is imputed vnto vs which by the couenant of grace is to be imputed which onely hath reason of imputation Although Christ be wholy ours that is for vs and for our vse vnto Saluation yet by imputation he is ours onely in that which by way of humiliation and obedience he hath vndertaken and performed for vs. That I say is imputed vnto vs of Christ which Christ is meerly and onely for vs what he is absolutely of himselfe it is not imputed vnto vs albeit his infinite wisedome and power and prudence and whatsoeuer he is of himselfe haue concurred to the doing of that that should be imputed vnto vs and do concurre to the effecting and maintaining of those benefits which of that imputation are to arise vnto vs. But the wisedome and power of Christ as they are in his humane nature a part of the image of God and of that Righteousnesse whereby man should be wise to know and able to do what concerneth him towards God are imputed vnto vs as a part of his Righteousnesse thereby he acquitteth our ignorances and errors our weaknesses frailties that the same stand not against vs in the sight of God And thus one may be reputed wise by the wisedom of another iust by the iustice of another because where any thing is in nature of dutie and debt it is at the discretion of him to whom it is due to accept one mans performance thereof for discharge of the other Yea but saith M. Bishop this is nothing to the argument how one man may be formally iust by the iustice of another And I answer him that their obiection is a formall foolerie grounded vpon a witlesse supposall of that which no man is so witlesse as to imagine We say that a man may be formally iust two manner of wayes A man is one way formally iust in qualitie another way formally iust in law Formally iust in qualitie is he in whom is found the perfect inward forme and qualitie of iustce and Righteousnesse without spot or staine and thus it were absurd indeed to say that a man may be formall iust by the iustice of another because the inherent qualitie of one subiect cannot become the inherent qualitie of another But in course of law and iudgement the forme of iustice is not to be subiect to crime or accusation and he is formally iust against whom no action or accusation is liable by law Now it is true indeed that euerie one that is formally iust in qualitie is also formally iust in law but yet a man may be formally iust in law who by inherent forme and qualitie is not iust For in this sort a man becommeth iust by pardon and forgiuenesse because pardon being obtained the law proceedeth no further and all imputation of the offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer bene committed And this is the state of our iustice and