flesh Fecknam 2 That the holy Angels and Saincts of heauen may heare our prayers Salomon Ecclesiastes .ix. vers v. and .vj. For the lyuing know that they shal die but the dead know nothing at al neither haue they any more a rewarde for their remembrance is forgotten Also their loue and their hatred and their enuie is nowe perished and they haue no more portion for euer in all that is done vnder the sunne Fecknam 3 That onely fayth doth not iustifie S. Paule Rom. iij. vers xxviij and .xxx. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faythe without the workes of the law For it is one God who shall iustifie circumcision of faith and vncircumcision through faith Fecknam 4 That euery sin is not mortall S. Iohn j. Ep. iij. vers iiij Whosoeuer committeth sinne transgresseth also the law for sin is the trāsgression of the law S. Paule Rom. vj. vers xxiij For the wages of sinne is death ▪ but the gift of God is eternall lyfe through Iesus Christ our Lord. To the right worshipfull Sir Frauncis Iobson Knight Liuetenaunt of the Tour Sir Henry Neuel knight and M. Pellam Lieuetenaunt of the Ordinaunce THere was deliuered vnto me vpon the .4 of March .1570 by a frend of mine a little pamflet written by M. Fecknam somtime Abbot of Westminster which he exhibited vnto your worshippes vppon demaund by you made of his liking of a godly Sermon preached by M. Goughe in the Toure the .15 of Ianuarie .1570 Which when I had red ouer I maruayled not a little bothe at the weakenesse of hys cauilling Obiections he vseth against suche godly poincts of Doctrine as he laboreth by forsing of Scriptures and Doctors to his purpose to ouerthrow and also at his boldnesse in offering the same vnto you For I thought vntill I had perused it that in so little a treatise so great ignorance of Scriptures of Doctors of the common Arte of Logicke which boyes after one or two yeares being in the vniuersities are not ignoraunt in could not haue ben foūd in him who carieth so great a name and countenaunce of learning Or at the least if his ignorance had bene such as by this I vnderstand it in dede to be that he coulde by politique silence haue concealed it and not by wryting to your worshippes men I doubte not but of perfecte knowledge and sound iudgement in al poynts of true religion reuealed both it and the weakenesse of their common cause which so fain he would support How be it for this latter in his Preamble he pretendeth some cause as the auoyding with your worships the opinion of obstinacie self wilfulnesse want of iust matter to mislike in the foresayd Sermon c and this in deede is but a bare pretence For the bitternesse of his stile and smothe scoffes which he vseth too oftē in so short a discourse vpon .iiij. point◠sheweth he rather by these cauils sought to rid his stomake of a litle choler than any thing else or to abuse and seduce your worships as men altogether ignorant in these questions But yet I will thinke the best as the rule of charitie teacheth me and conceiue hope of his conuersion for which also I pray with my whole harte And in case he blame me as not iudging rightly of this his writing being therunto requested by you let him waigh wel his owne last words in his preface vnto you say plainly whether a simple plain meaning may be gathered of them they be these More seking to satisfie your request and demaūd than to minister any occasiō of further argument What meaneth he hereby Is he rather moued with satisfying your request thā the cause it self he standeth in which he wold make appeare to the world to be the truth Or if the truth of his .iiij. assertions did more moue him than your requestes why feareth he least by his wryting occasion of further argument touching these questions be ministred If he know that he hath héere by good argument mainteyned a good cause then is there no cause why he should feare further debating but he ought like a good minister and teacher stand and offer him self ready prepared to the defence thereof yea though it were with daunger and losse of his lyfe But yf he bée guiltie in his owne conscience of the naughtinesse of the cause and his owne weake proues why doth he so much abuse your worships with a shew of confutation of the truth What iust causes and true occasions haue lead him to reprehend so godly points of doctrine taught by M. Gough I referre to the iudgement of any indifferent and learned Reader I haue vsed as much breuitie as I could in aunswering his arguments that the reading therof might not bée tediouse to you And last of all I thought good in mine own behalfe lest some might thinke amisse of me for mainteyning the quarrell made agaynst an other man as one desirous of contention vayne glorie c. to proteste vnto your worshippes that the earnest request of my very friend who knew me to haue a little spare time and M. Gough too be otherwise more profitably occupied forced me to say somwhat in way of an aunswere to M. Fecknam that I speake nothing of the truth of the common cause of religiō which of it self ought to moue any man zelous in Gods religion to take pen in hand agaynst any that shall séeke to impugn the same Thus much I thought good to let you vnderstand of the occasion of my dealing herein and partly also for a péece of an aunswere to such talke as M. Fecknam in his preface directeth specially too your worships The Lord Iesus confirme you in all truth daily encreasing his knowledge and all other good giftes in you Amen 1 That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements BEfore I come to your proues allegations I must say a word or two of your coloured art and goodly shew you make in your first proposition It is the fashion of Rhetoricians as you know especially when their cause is not all of the best therfore misdoute the euent of their action so to behaue them selues in their Exordium that they may at the least purchase thus much that they may be heard some by one meanes some by an other the worst is not by procuring an euill suspicion too his aduerse partie So is your dealing in this present case to be better heard peraduenture or to make your cause séeme to bée better you geue forth that in M. Goughes doctrine of the impossibilitie of kéeping Gods commaundementes he followeth the race of the Maniches and the Valentinians A gréeuous accusation yf it were true and worthy to cause his doctrine to bee reiected yf all that you speake were a Gospell But peraduenture you thought you hadde the sexton of Paules in hand when you presented this your writing to the worships of these in déede worshipfull godly gentlemen The matter is thus not
bonum sit peccatuÌ„ veniale that euery good worke is a veniall sinne The seueritie therefore of M. Goughes doctâ—in is in this point very auster rather Stoicall than christian like much preiudiciall to the libertie of the Gospel which otherwise he professeth magnifieth with great solemnitie For now he maketh euery light fact euery idle woord euery vaine thought a heinous capital crime a mortall and damnable sinne a trespasse deseruing euerlasting pain perpetual tormeÌ„t He maketh euery maÌ„ at least .vij. times euery day to offend God damnably For Salomon writeth of the iust man septies in die cadit iustus the iust man doth fal .vij times a day to deskant no further of the numbre That is by M. Goughes iudgement a iust man euery day .vij. times doth sinne mortally damnably he is .vij. times a day the soÌ„ne of perdition vij times a day the bondslaue of Sathan notwithstanding he is iust righteous which is an absurde contradiction a Doctrine fondly grounded vppon mere possibilities If this be the state of iust men and righteous men mercifull God helpe vs that be suche pore and miserable sinners Uppon this opinion must nedes folow that wicked Caine and iust Abel the elect Isaac and the reprobate Ismael the welbeloued Iacob the hated Esau Iohn the rebuker of sinne and the viperous generation of the Pharisâ—es Simon Peter the true coÌ„fessor of Christ and Simon Magus the malitious denyer Iohn the blissed Euangelist and Iudas the curssed traytor were for the tyme of this present life being all here vppon earth sinners and therfore by M. Goughes position all daily in mortal and damnable sinne al in like miserable case all in like state of perdition hauing their soules by mortal sinne euery day .vij. times at the lest in most wretched wise deuided from God seperated from him the only life therof As if they had bin al very infidels no more appertaining to the sinceritie of faith and the frutes thereof than the Paynimes the Heathen people Of whome we can say no more than that euery sinne they do is a mortall and a damnable sinne But this is the new found way of persuasion to exhort a sinner to repentance to preache that he can not chuse but euery day sin damnably to exhort a man to good works to preach that they be all filthy abhominable in the sight of god to exhort a man to charitie to preach the only faith or sole faith doth iustifie to exhort one maÌ„ to pray for an other here in earth to forbid the one man shall desire an other to pray for him in heauen to exhort euery maÌ„ to kéep Gods commandements to say that it is impossible for any man to kéep them Would God M. Gough I wish it with my whole hart had both the grace to preache the gift to vnderstaÌ„d more souÌ„der doctrine more to the glory of god more to the edefying of meÌ„ and then more not to my liking only but other mennes too in the mean time I can not only nothing like it but also must find fault with it in so much as your worships do require and demaund my lyking I coÌ„clude therfore hauing not in ample wise but coÌ„pendiously touching these .iiij. points of controuerâ—ie truely and sincerely declared vnto your worships y iust causes which I haue to mislike with M. Goughes sermon which I could not do at the same time when you first demauÌ„ded of me neither now wold take vpon me but if ye had assured me of frée leaâ—e of licence I refer the rest of my minde in confuting the rest of his Sermon to the discrete wisdome of your worships al charitably to be coÌ„sidered Desiring this and requesting that before the contradiction absurditie of these propositions may better agrée together M. Gough to say that the coÌ„mandements of God be ouer heauy and impossible to be obserued S. Iohn to say that they be not heauie And Chryste to say that they be swéete and light And S. Luke to say that Zacharie and Elizabeth kept all the commaundementes Maister Goughe to say the fayth alone or onely fayth doth iustifie S. Paul to say that faith woorking by charitie doth iustifie and S. Iames to say that workes also do iustifie and not faith only â–ª M. Gough to say that no sainct nor Angell in heauen can heare our prayers the Angel Raphaell to say that he offered vp the prayers of Tobie and our sauior Chryst to say that the Angels do reioyce vpon euery sinners repentance which can not reioyce vnles they know wherfore Master Gough to say that euery sinne is mortall and that we be euery day deadly sinners in the sight of God. S. Iames to say that there is a sinne before it be mortall and damnable sinne And S. Luke to say that Zacharie Elizabeth were iust euen in the sight of God Beside the testimonies of auncient fathers which do constantly and vniformly stand on my side He hauing for his opinions the reliques of old condemned and now reuiued heresies of the Maniches Eunomius Vgilantius Iouinian ageinst whom the said Fathers did many hundred yeares a goe wryte as their Monuments can amplie testifie I desire I say to make my humble sute vnto your worshippes for my selfe and my prison followes both that hereafter we may not be haled by the armes to the church in such violent manner ageinst our willes ageinst al former example ageinst the doctrine of your own syde Luther Bucer Bullinger Zwinglius Oecolampadius Melancthon and the reste euery one writing and earnestly persuading that al violence be taken away in matters of religion there to heare such Preachers as care not what they say so they somewhat say ageynst the professed fayth of Chrystes catholike Church there to heare a sermon not of persuading vs but of rayling vppon vs This if your worshippes will encline vnto for charitie sake wée shall haue too render you most humble thankes and whatsoeuer els wée may doo in this our heauie tyme of imprisonment Here ensueth the answere to these Assertions and Obiections of M. Fecknam Made by L.T. ¶ An Answer to certeine Assertions and Obiections of M. Fecknam sometime Abbot of Westminster which he made of late against a godly Sermon of M. Iohn Goughs preched in the Toure the .xv. of Ianuarie 1570. Fecknam 1 That it is not impossible to kepe Gods commandements S. Peter Act. xv vers x. and .xj. Now therefore why tempt ye God to lay a yoke on the disciples neckes which neither our fathers nor we were able to beare But we beleue through thâ—â—â—ace of the Lord Iesus Chryst to be saued â—â—en as they do S. Paule Rom. viij vers iij. For that that was impossible to the law in as much 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
many yeres since a good companion minding to recreate him selfe with the sexton charged him selfe with a baskette heauy laden as he made the matter appeare directing his way through Paules Churche because it was the shorter where he was mette of his mate and demaunded why in that solemne time he passed thorough that place so charged a thing not to bée endured the circumstaunces beyng considered This companion desired him to lette him passe for that hée was heauye laden with certayne plate and therefore the gladder too take the shorter way The sexton woulde not bée persuaded but alleadging the Quéenes profite caused him to sette downe his baskette and sente immediatlye for suche as too whome it appertayned to haue the view of such matters who thinking to haue found some â–ª greate matter as they had bin enformed by the sexton willed the basket to be opened and what found they for a cupbourde of plate a basket of hornes Thus had he his iest at the sexton but you M. Fecknam thankes be vnto God haue not to do with a sexton they doo well see your horny plate but bycause you your selfe deceyued your selfe thinking it to be plate they haue vsed this charitable way that it may be shewed vnto you that they are in deede but hornes And therefore this horne will nothing moue them as I trust vntill you bée able to shewe that the denying of frée will to the establishing of the grace of God wherby wée are iustified from sinne and saued from infirmitie is the doctrine of Maniche or Valentinian This I remember Valentinian and his say that to vs qui ab Ecclesia sumus opera necessaria esse aliter enim impossibile est seruari which are of the Churche woorkes bée necessarie for otherwise it is impossible to bée saued and that teach you sâ—ipsos verò non per opera sed propterea quòd ex natura spirituales sunt penitus omnino saluari doceÌ„t but they teach that they them selues are wholy altogither saued not by workes but bycause of nature they bee spirituall and this teacheth not M. Gough Therfore that glose might well haue bin lefte out yf you hadde more thought vpon the truth of the matter how well you might haue alleaged it than onely for a cloke of your self barely to alleage it For to proue M. Gough a Manichean or any of his fellowes in his heresies it will bée hard for you and as impossible as to fulfill the law but to prooue you a Pelagian it is easie enough and as easie as in Christ Iesus for M. Gough and vs to kepe the lawe But to prooue you suche a one is not my chéef purpose my mind is rather to conuince your heresie and bring you to the flocke of Christ yf it so please God too giue you the eyes of vnderstanding and a hart to repent Therfore to doo the dutie of good ChristiaÌ„s let vs yeld our selues vnto God to be gouerned by his spirit submit our selues in huÌ„blenes to his word without al vayne opinion of wel or euil defending a question arrest our selues vpon his Prophetes Apostles which haue and doo shew vs the way to walke in and minister vnto vs the true light whereby wée may chase a way al these darknesses This waye if wee take no doubt he will shew vs the truthe if we reiecte it why should he not farther punish vs with blindnesse So then to come to your first position That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements I wil aunswere youre places of the scripture alleadged and your Doctors and there withall shewe oute of them both the contrarie that it is impossible and so shall I shew I trust that in that article M. Goughe hath taught no vngodly point of doctrine and so will I do consequently with the residue And that it may be more plainly and euidently done that there may be no occasion of doubte in any braunche of my doctrine I wil first shewe howe they are impossible and by what meanes and after howe they are possible and howe they may be fulfilled This done I shall sufficiently aunswere youre places alleadged and if GOD so will take awaye this vayle from before youre eyes which is a let vnto you that you can not sée Touching the firste S. Paule dilating and amplifying his probation of the free iustification which we haue thorough the tender mercie of GOD in Christe Iesus sayeth in this wyse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For that that was impossible to the Lawe in as much as it was weake bicause of the fleshe God sending his sonne in the similitude of sinfull fleshe and for sinne condemned sinne in the fleshe The wordes are but fewe and therefore easie to be remembred nay therefore better to be considered God sent his owne sonne Why To condemne sinne in the fleshe Why so Bicause it was impossible to the lawe wherefore in as much as it was weake bicause of the flesh Why then we may conclude that the Lawe is a burden and so gréeuous a burden that neither wée nor oure Fathers were able to beare and that bycause of oure weakenesse Hereof it is that he sayth in an other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For if there had bin a law giueÌ„ which could haue giuen lyfe surely rightuousnesse should haue bin by the Lawe It is the woorke of grace to saue and quicken the receyuers whereof althoughe they were extréeme enemies to the wholesome doctrine of the holy scriptures they become fréends It is not the worke of the doctrine which whosoeuer heare and reade without the grace of GOD they are made worse enemies Therefore the grace of God is not in the nature of free will and in the lawe and doctrine as the peruerse Pelagian dothe deceyptfully beleeue and teache but at euery moment it is giuen by his good wil and pleasure of whom it is sayd Thou o God sendest a gracious rayne vpon thyne inheritaunce For we lost both frée wil to loue god by the greatnesse of our first sinne and the lawe also and the doctrine thereof although it be holy and good and iust yet it killeth if the Spirite do not quicken by which spirite it commeth to passe that not by hearing but by obeying neither by reading but by louing it is obserued For the Lawe without grace is but a letter it remaineth to conuince sin but not to gyue saluation So sayth the Apostle For yf there had bin a lawe gyuen whiche could haue giuen lyfe surely rightuousnes shuld haue bin by the lawe But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ should be giuen to them that beléeue Of this letter he sayeth in an other place The letter killeth but the spirite quickeneth Thou hast the letter but thou dost not fulfill the letter And why dost thou not fulfil the letter Bycause thou presumest of thy selfe thou extollest thy
not giue I can not tell to whom that which you caÌ„ not proue to haue bin in the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles Do not you perceyue that your assertions are contrarie within themselues Either they are easie a great nuÌ„ber of men haue fulfilled them or they are harde and you haue rashly sayd that to be easie which is harde You are wont to say this also eyther the coÌ„maundements are possible and wel giuen of God aut impossibilia in his non esse culpam or vnpossible and no fault in theÌ„ which haue receiued the coÌ„maundemeÌ„ts but in him that gaue those which were impossible Nunquid Deus c. Hath god commaunded me to be that which God is that there should be no difference betwixt men and the Lorde the Creatoure that I should be higher than the Angels That I should haue that which the Angelles haue not Of him it is written as a propertie whiche did not sinne and there was no guyle found in his mouth If this bée coÌ„moÌ„ to mée with Christe what had he proper Otherwise your seÌ„teÌ„ce is destroyd of itself If you think not this whole tretise which I haue alleaged rightly cited against you shew me wherin you differ You say that the commaundementes are possible to be kept you can shew none that hathe kept them either of the Patriarkes or of the Prophets or Apostles You say moreouer that if God hath commaunded things vnpossible the fault is in him and not in vs Seing then that you accord in al these points with them you must either shew some farther reason why S. Hierome may not be deriued against you or else giue glory to God and coÌ„fesse your error For to alledge for your selfe that you there in differ from them because they only graunted gratiam praeuenuntem and you both that adiâ—â—aÌ„tem it auaileth you not For the patriarks had that the Prophets had that the Apostles had that and in such sort that god was vnto them semper larguor semperque donator alwayes a liberall giuer and alwayes a frée giuer and yet they could not as you there read I could here bring in more allegatioÌ„s both out of this father and other but for feare of being to loÌ„g I leaue them I trust these few may serue with the help of gods spirit to open your eyes beleue And thus haue I shewed how they are impossible Now to come to my second meÌ„ber and to shewe you how they are possible may be fulfilled I will not stray far away neither séeke very wide for that I néede not I will come home to my first Allegation which suffiseth for dissoluing of this dout and therefore I chose it moued thereunto because I sée S. Ierome vse the same order and in eschuing of prolixitie our rule is good frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora that is vainely done by a longer way which may be done by easie and short meanes Let vs then sée how the Apostle dissolueth this dout For that that was impossible to the law in as muche as it was weake because of the fleshe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 GOD sending his owne sonne in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condeÌ„ned sin in the flesh And in an ther place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ye which were dead in sinnes in the vncircuÌ„cision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him forgeuing you al your trespasses and putting out the hand wryting of ordinances that was against vs which was coÌ„trary to vs he euen toke it out of the way fastned it vpon the crosse c. Now to coÌ„demn sin in the flesh to fasten the haÌ„d writing vpon the crosse to spoile principalities powers to triuÌ„ph ouer theÌ„ in the cros what other thing doth it import than perfect rightuousnesse gotten than a performing of the law if it be alredy performed then was it a good coÌ„sequeÌ„t to say it might be performed herein we agrée By whoÌ„ the Apostle teacheth you by Christ Iesus by him onely for so is Paules coÌ„sequeÌ„t in these words For that that was impossible to the law in as much as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his son c. For the cause why God sent his own son was the weaknes of our flesh by reason wherof the law could not be fulfilled his anger appeased So then this causeth vs with confidence to say O death where is thy sting O hell where is thy victorie there is no coÌ„deÌ„nation to theÌ„ which are in Christ Iesus And in that the Christe is our iustification our sanctification our peace wée may say that we fulfil the law that no one iote passeth vs nor one pricke in that he forgiueth what wée can not do And so you haue an other way how the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts are possible Therfore to come vnto you I say as you say that the commandements are possible how these words are to bee vnderstaÌ„d that elect vessel doth most playnly teach vs as I alleaged For that that was impossible c. again â—x operibê° legis by the works of the law no flesh shal be iustified And that wée may not thincke it onely spoken of the law of Moyses not of al the coÌ„mandements which are coÌ„prehended in the name of the law the same apostle witnesseth saying Consentio legi Dei. I delight in the law of God coÌ„cerning the inner maÌ„ but I see an other lawe in my members rebelling c. O wretched maÌ„ that I am who shall deliuer me froÌ„ the body of death Gratia dei ê‘ IesuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ dnÌ„m nostruÌ„ it is the grace of god through Christ Iesus M. Feck For as we are cast doun by one so must the gift of rightuousnes be by one that is by Iesus christ and why it caÌ„ be but by Christ that this fulfilling of the law this righteousnes must be the Apostle sheweth in an other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnal sold vnder sin For I alow not that which I do for what I wold that do I not but what I hate that doo I and so forth as it foloweth in the whole text The nature of the most godly of all is such that he can not do as he would By the spirite he may doo muche but as long as he is compassed with this body of death he can not doo all So sayeth the Apostle in this place Non enim facio bonum quod volo I do not the good thing which I would Do not burden vs as you haue done in the beginning Master Gough with the errour of the Manicheans and such like whiche trouble the Churche with their wicked phantasies saying that that nature is naught whiche can not bée changed by any meanes and impute this not to me but to the Apostle who knoweth that God is one man another the
frailnesse of the flesh is one and the strength of the spirite an other For the fleshe desireth against the spirite and the spirite ageynst the flesh and these do so striue and contend eche with other that wée can not doo such things as wée would doe You shall neuer heare of me that nature is naught but how the fragilitie of the flesh is to bée reasoned of let vs learne of him whiche teacheth Aske him why he sayde for that whiche I would do that I do not but the euil which I hate that do I. What necessitie hindreth his will what force commaundeth him to do things so hatefull so that not that which he would but that which he hated and would not he is constrayned to doo He wil aunswerâ— you O man what art thou that so aunswerest God shall the clay say vnto the potter why hast thou made me so hath not the potter power ouer his claye to make of one lumpe a vessell to honour and an other to dishonour Concerning iustice and grace it may bée well sayd of the giltie whiche is absolued and of the giltie whiche is condemned Take that whiche is thine and go thy wayes I will giue this man that which is not due vnto him Is it not lawfull for me to do what I liste Is thy eye naught bycause I am good Héere yf he should say and why not to me he shall worthely heare O man what art thou that so aunswearest God whome thou séest towardes one of you to bee a moste bountifull bestower and towardes thée a most iust exactor and yet in nether of you vniust Seing that he should be iust yf he punished eyther he whiche is deliuered hath to giue thankes he which is condemned hath not to reprehend Sure it is that our flesh is frayle that our nature is corrupt and so corrupte that it letteth vs that we can not do our dutie let vs not séeke howe it is so but as S. Paul him self did how ye may be deliuered from it and still cry with our selues Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius who shall deliuer me out of the body of this death you stand vppon the possibilitie of the law there are diuersitie of gifts as you knowe can you attaine to all of them there are many sciences as Grammer Rhetoricke Logike c. Who is he of all vs bée he neuer of so excellent a wit that can bee a perfect Gramarian a perfect Logician a perfect Rhetorician a perfecte Philosopher a perfect lawyer a perfecte Phisician the excellent orator lawyer he sayeth There are few which attayne one but both no man can You sée then that God hath commaunded a possible thing and yet that whiche is possible no man can performe by reason of our nature He hath giuen therfore diuers precepts and diuerse vertues which wée can not haue all togither To bée shorte and to make an ende of this parte the olde saying is true non omnia possumus omnes there is none of vs all can doo all things and there is none or very rare is that riche man whiche in all his substaunce possesseth all thinges equallye God hath commaunâ—ed possible things I graunt it But all these possible things wée can not euery one haue not for the weaknesse of nature that is as it was firste made of God least you slaunder God but for the wearinesse of minde which can not haue all vertues togither and alwayes And thus much touching these twoo partes wherby you may vnderstande how wee say that the kéeping of the law is possible And how it is vnpossible This considered I come to your argumentes Your first is taken out of the eleuenth of Mathew and your woordes are these Contrarie to this doctrine is our Sauiour Christ where he willeth vs to take his yoke vppon vs because it is light Tollite iugum meum super vos iugum enim meum suaue est â–ª onus meum leue Take my yoke vppon you for my yoke is sweete and my burden is lighte If it bee a light burden M. Goughs heauy example hath not a peny worth of good skill This is neyther contrarie to his doctrine M. Fecknam neyther is his heauy example voyd of skill But that which causeth you to thincke it to bée contrarie is that you deceyue your selfe and make a Paralogisme as the Logicians call it à fallacia accidentis which I shall bée able to shew you by your doctours For you doe not reason with M. Gough in sensu vniuoco and in his proposed matter He taught you in his sermon that to fulfill the law was impossible you oppose and lay for an aunswere that the yoke of Christe is easie S. Ierome vppon the same place teacheth you that here bée subiecta diuersa therfore in your disputation there is no vniuocatio Your subiectes are Lex and Euangelium the lawe and the Gospell of which two he sayeth thus Quo modo leuius lege Euangelium quum in lege homicidium in Euangelio ira damnetur Qua ratione Euangelij gratia facilior quuÌ„ in lege adulterium in Euangelio concupiscentia puniatur In lege multa precepta sunt quae Apostolus non posse compleri plenissime docet How is the gospell lighter than the law séeing the murder is condemned in the law and anger is condeÌ„ned in the gospel How is the grace of the gospell easier seeing that in the law adulterie and in the gospell concupiscence is punished Many things are commauÌ„ded in the law which the Apostle sheweth most plainly that they can not be accomplished In the law works are required which who soeuer doth shal liue in theÌ„ In the Gospel the will is required which although it haue not the effect yet it léeseth not the reward So that by this Doctor here is a comparison betwixt the law and the gospel and as farre difference there is betwixt your two arguments as is betwixt velle and facere And marke then is this a good argument Non possum facere ergo noÌ„ possum velle I am not able to do therefore I am not able to will or this Possum velle ergo possum facere I am able to wil therfore I am able to do Take which you wil these are your arguments I am sure you sée how little holde there is in them therfore coÌ„fesse the truth giue glorie to God and be not ashamed to haue erred but be ashamed to remayne in your error The gospel sure is easier than the law the grace of Iesus Christ forpasseth surmounteth the letter If you will coÌ„sider your heauy burden and come vnto Christ craue pardoÌ„ for your sins haue a mind to walke in his pathes and where you fall downe desire him to lift you vp to cloth your nakednesse with his garmente you shall find reste and refreshing and this is an easie yoke But yf you will néedes doo when he requireth the will you will
burden your self with an heauie yoke I could alleage vppon this same place of Mathew Theophilact and Glossa ordinaria whiche neyther of them take the place as you do but I passe them ouer because I would be short You your self may read them Your second argument is of like force Where you say thus S. Iohn to this effect sayth Quod mandata eius grauia non sunt That his coÌ„mandements be not heauy yf they be not heauy they be far vnlike M. Goughs lump of lead impossible to be taken vp and remoued It is I say of like sorte as Nicholas de Lyra interpreting the place of Mathew doth alleadge out of Augustine where he sayth thus Mandata graâ—ia non sunt quod exponens Aug. dicit s. amanti The commaundementes are not heauy which S. Augustine expounding sayth that is to the louing S. Iohn sayth so him self in effecte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For all that is borne of God ouercometh the world For in déede the commaundements beyng tempered with the mercie and goodnesse of our heaueÌ„ly father accepting then all donne when that is pardoned which is not done and as Dauid sayth c. Chy immecha haselichach For with thée is pardon that thou mayst bée feared Then to the child of God to him that hath the victorie of the world that hath Emunah a sure and a stable faith that beléeueth in Christ Iesus the son of God to him the commaÌ„demeÌ„ts are not gréeuous nay they are hamnechmadim mizahab more desirous than gold vinethukim middebasch â–ª and swéeter thaÌ„ honie this is the true sense of the place Your third is this S. Paule in rebuking these idle hearers of the law which say that they can heare it but not doo it and fulfill it writeth Non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum sed factores legis iustificabuntâ—r For not the hearers of the lawe be iust with God but the doers shall be iustified If they doe the law then it may be done then it is possible Ab esse ad posse is a good argument They do works of the law therfore they may be done First touching the scope of the Apostle you are deceiued Pardon me I speake it not of malice or to taunt I protest but for the truth of the matter The Apostles purpose is not there to rebuke idle hearers of the law say that they can heare it but not fulfil it But he goeth about to conclude al vnder sinne and shew that euery one hath néede of the glory of God and therfore maketh this occupation The Iewes can not exempt them selues from this senteÌ„ce bicause they had the law amongst them NoÌ„ enim qui audiunt legem c. For not they which heare the law are iust with god c. And they did not the lawe as it appeareth in the same place Therefore I maruaile how you conclude out of these words your so strong argument Ab esse ad posse If you wil néedes folow your owne sense muse vpon these wordes Factores legis iustificabuntur the doers of the law shall be iustified Heare what you haue in Glossa ordinaria Iustificabuntur .i. iusti deputabuntur vel iustifient a Deo vt sint factores Non qui ante erant factores post iustificabuntur vt si diceretur homines creabuntur quia ipsa creatione sit vt sint homines Sic ipsi non qui ante erant factores iustificabuntur quia etiam gentes They shal be iustified that is they shal be accompted iust or they shal be made iust of God that they may be doers not which were doers shal be iustified As if it should be sayd men shal be created bicause by the creation they are made men So likewise not they which were doers before shall be iustified bicause the gentiles also This would I repeat vnto you as a thing which you know well inoughe bicause I thinke you haue often read it for that he sayeth wel and truely and according to the scriptures although not verye fit to this place to the end that you may see how litle it serueth for you if you be not mynded to folow my first answer which I thinke and hope you will if you will looke vppon the place And here I beseech you in the mercies of Christ Iesus to consider with your selfe your owne state I thinke the best of you I think you haue not the Bible and other books about you If you had you would neuer alleadge places in such sorte so farre from the purpose of the holy ghost so little to purpose I speake it with griefe of hart the Lord knoweth I am sorie to sée you in such blindnesse right glad would I be to sée the glorie of god appéere in you to your health and saluation â— not to your destruâ—ction Wel the Glosa interlinealis goeth farther Non enim auditores legis .i. pro auditu legis sed factores .i. gratia iustificat eos vt adimpleant legem quia non faciunt vt iustificeÌ„tur sed iustificantur vt faciant For not the hearers of the law that is for the hearing of the law But the dooers that is Grace iustifieth theÌ„ that they may fulfill the lawe bicause they do not the law that they may be iustified but are iustified that they may do it I shall not néede to stand vpon these wordes vt adimpleant legeÌ„ that they may fulfill the Lawe for by that whiche I haue sayde before I trust you vnderstand howe they are to be taken Well let vs go to your fourth Argument The Euangelist Saint Luke of these doers of the Lawe bringeth a full example writing thus of Zacharie and Elizabeth Erant ambo iusti ante Deum c. They were both iuste before God walking in all the commaundementes and iustifications of the Lorde without blame If S. Luke had the Spirit of truthe when he sayd that those twoo walked in al the commaundements then M. Goughe by his deniall and impossibilitie put thereof must needs haue the Spirite of erroure and lying Saint Iohn sayeth Qui dicit se nosse Deum mandata eius non custodit mendax est Hee that sayeth he knoweth God and keepeth not his commaundements is a lyer No doubt M. Fecknam but Sainct Luke had the Spirite of truthe and yet hath not M. Goughe the Spirit of errour and lying He teacheth no contrarie doctrine why you should so conclude Well let vs examine the woordes and so shall wée sée They were both iust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before God. Not the god had nothing to lay to their charges putting Christs deliueraÌ„ce a syde not that he had nothing in their liues to find fault withal his mercie being put a parte NoÌ„ est qui faciat bonum non est vsque ad vnum there is not one that doth good in such sorte not one I truste you will not so say Well how then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
difference is betwixt iustification and sanctification you should doubt whether sanctification were a piece of iustification or an effect of iustification Let vs then sée whether workes that follow doo conâ—erre any thing to the Iustification Marke I pray you the controuersie betwixt you and master Goughe The question is not whether good woorkes are necessarie to walke in Whether we are bound to walke in the feare of GOD after that he hath manifested vnto vs his election and called vs to embrace his frée mercy and Iustification I say the question is not whether we ought to do well that GOD may be glorifyed by vs But whether a man being already iustified his woorkes afterward may giue encrease of Iustice I pray you Sir after that Quéene Marie had made you Abbot of Westminster dyd you the office of an Abbot that you would be a more Abbot or to do your duetie to the which the Quéene of hir grace hadde called you For therefore shée bestowed it vpon you that you should doe the duetie and not dy doing the duetie to become a more Abbot So fareth it with the children of God Of this whole lumpe of earth which he made of this masse which we call Adam he of his free mercie and goodnesse hathe chosen some whereby he will bée glorified in this world by the good woorkes which they shall do before the face of men When this election of his beginneth to be manifest to euerye chosen when he moueth the hearts of his after they haue long slept in sinne to remember that they are hys that he hathe slayne hys Sonne for them that they are deliuered from the whole cursse of the lawe Is it not requisite thinke you that they walke worthie his vocation That they make sure their vocation Naye doe they in this their course in any parte delyuer them selues from the cursse of the lawe Doe they pay that raunsome which was paide before What is the iustice or Iustification of GOD Redemption and remission of sinnes in the bloud of christ Was then the bloud of Chryst answearable to all the Lawe did there remaine no parte vnpayde For whome then did he all this Not for him selfe for there was no guile found in his mouthe For whome then For the faithfull to whome God dothe giue this Faith not of merite but of grace Haue they then all the iustice of Christe haue they that which Christe dyd in his bodye put vppon them May they say as he sayde Death where is thy sting Hell where is thy victorie May they say death is swallowed vp in victorie May they say there is no condemnation to vs whiche are in Christe Iesus what remayneth then that they walke according to the Spirite not according to the fleshe that they glorifie God before men whiche hath already made them the children of god Not to do ageyn y which is done alreadie for that is impossible not to ioyne a piece to Christes as thoughe it were not perfect For he left no piece vnpayed But to receyue by faith that iustification that God doth giue them without the workes of the lawe For workes sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum they followe a man iustified and goe not before him that is to be iustified Effectus autem non praeiudicat causae as you knowe The effect neuer preiudiceth the cause Thorough al the course of our liues we worke bicause we are iustified and we do not worke that we may be iustified And this is the meaning of the Apostle in this place not as thoughe workes were to be ioyned with faith to deserue some thing For then should wée receyue reward due and not grace And thus much touching M. Goughe his argument Now to your Obiection Firste I maruayle that M. Goughe will allowe this terme Only when it is not expressed in Canonicall scripture Next I am sure that there is nothing equiualent vnto it for faith without the workes of the lawe and fayth onely or fayth simplie withoute workes be not of one like condition You néede not maruayle much if you would rightly consider it Paules whole disputation standeth vpon twoo Subiecta one Praedicatum as the people are twoo to whoÌ„ he addresseth his doctrine and must agrée in one The subiecta are these works or the Law fayth or Christ The Praedicatum is Iustification If then reasoning à diuisione the one be put away what remayneth If I reason thus Of all liuing creatures there is one that is risibile apte to laugh it is not Brutum any brute beast Therefore it is Homo man If I reason thus I say is not this consequent comprehended in Consequenti Therefore onely man is risibilis So likewise Paule reasoneth there is one thing which iustifieth It is not works therfore it is fayth Doth it not nowe folow that being but one and that one faith that we may wel conclude that faith only iustifieth And so adde we nothing to the scripturs which you séeme to lay to M. Goughes charge by a taunte but finde it in the verie letter although not literallie And in so doing we make no new inuentioÌ„ So taught before vs Theophilact whose wordes are these vt autem haberi pro comperto queat posse hunc deum qui impiè vixerit non solum à tormentis eximere sed iustum reddere illud subdit credenti autem in eum qui iustificat c. Num igitur est hic quippiam allaturus Fidem duntaxat that is But that it may be certaynely knowen that God can not onely deliuer froÌ„ torments but also iustifie him which liued wickedly he addeth that but to him that beléeueth in him which iustifieth c. Must he therfore also bring some thing Faith onely â–ª And Origenes vppon this same place whiche M. Goughe alleaged sayeth thus Nunc tam velut conclusionem suarum assertionum ponens in hoc loco dicit Vbi est ergo gloriatio tua Exclusa est â–ª per quam legem operum Non sed per legem fidei Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Nowe making as it were a conclusion of his assertions sayeth in this place where is then thy reioysing it is excluded By what law of workes No but by the lawe of faith for we suppose or conclude that maÌ„ is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and he sayeth that the iustification of only faith is sufficient so that a maÌ„ beléeuing onely may be iustified although that no work be don of him I will not alleage here Hierom on the 4. of this Epistle Conuertentem impium and agein vt omnes qui ex Gentibus c nor Amb. j. Cor. xj hoc constitutum est à Deo. c. nor Bernard ser. 22. super Can. Quamobrem