ashes no clowd of sinne can depriue the iustifyed person of his right to heauen which do not dismantle him of the robe of Iustice Answere therfore heereunto what you list escape you cannot vnles you leape into some detestable heresy 6. My fourth argument is when the Protestant perswades himselfe or vndoubtedly beleeues the remission of his sinnes either he hath his sinne by that act of fayth remitted before or after he that sayth it is after alloweth his precedent perswasion to be false and deceitfull beleeuing the forgiuenes of his sinnes which then was not he that will haue it before admitteth a remission of sinnes and consequently a true iustification before his beliefe which cannot be for without Fayth it is impossible to please God he who holdeth that his beliefe causeth the remission which it beleeueth will haue his beliefe Gab. Vas in 1. 2. disp 110. c. 3. and knowledge so omnipotent as to make the obiect which it knoweth the mystery it beleueth as if a man by beleeuing himselfe to be a great Lawyer a great Physitian a great Deuine should endow himselfe with the Aug. l. 4. de Genes ad lit c. 32. perfect knowledge of Law Phisicke and Diuinity wherein they seeme to surpasse the nature of God whose knowledge being most efficacious and practicall yet it followeth as Gabriel Vasquez teacheth the obiect it knoweth according to the posteriority of vnderstanding It followeth I say in affirming or knowing it to be true In which sense S. Augustine teacheth that no knowledge can be vnles things knowne precede and we may auow that no fayth can be vnles it first presuppose the article beleeued for as our knowledge is true or false because the obiect we know is such so our beliefe is certaine and vndoubted because the thing is infallible which we beleeue 7. M. Field beholding the ruines this Cannon-shot makes in the walls of their perfidious and faythles perswasion rayseth the engines of his wit to diuert the battery and annoyance thereof and first proposeth the argument thus When men begin to beleeue either they are iust and then their fayth iustifyeth them not being in nature after their iustification Field in his 3. booke of the Church c. 44. or els they are not iust then speciall fayth making a man beleeue he is iust is false and so man is iustifyed by alye To this horned argument we answere sayth he that speciall fayth hath sundry acts but to this purpose specially two the one by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour the other in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted which was desired Fayth by her first act obtayneth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust when we begin to beleeue by her second act she doth not actiuely iustify S. Thom. 1. 2. q. 83. â—â—t 3. but finding the thing done certifyeth assureth vs of it c. So then quoth he fayth in her first act is before the iustification procureth or obtayneth it Hitherto M. Feild and very profoundly without doubt distinguisheth fayth into two acts whereof the first he mentioneth is no act of Fayth but a prayer or petition humbly intreating for acceptatioÌ„ Fulk in c. 2. Iacobi sect 9. circa finem Abbot in his defence cap. 4. fol. 487. and fauour which properly as S. Thomas proueth is an act of Religion as much different from fayth as a man from a Calfe And the second seemeth rather to be an assured confidence of the will then any supernatural assent of the vnderstanding in which Fayth consisteth But these thinges I let passe The opposition heere he maketh against his owne adherents the contradicting of Doctour Fulke the ouertwharting of M. Abbot the impugning of another principall and generall article of Protestancy is more remarkable then a priuate absurdity or ignorance of his For to affirme That fayth by way of petition humbly intreâ—â—eth for fauour obtaineth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust is to graunt a certaine kind of preparation congruency merit or disposition to go before the life of grace and iustification of our soules which how earnestly M. Fulke and Doctour Abbot gainesay I haue declared and refuted in the precedent Controuersy Then it is opposite to that common principle which Protestantes maintaine That the captiued will of man concurreth passiuely only to his iustification vntill he be truely iustifyed in Christ. Howbeit M. Field heer teacheth this petition to obtaine to procure to worke our iustification before it be effected which M. Abbot writing against our preparatiue workes of prayer and petition reproueth thus There can be no true prayer without the spirit of grace without the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Abbot c. 4. sect 20. fol. 4 â— Father the spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctifyed and because sanctification is consequent to iustification it must follow also that iustification must go before prayer Hitherto he warring against M. Feild one Sectary against another as Esay prophesyed of them saying I will make the Aegyptians to run togeather against the Aegyptians a man shall fight against his brother euery man against his friend But I will not further exaggerate these horrible breaches betweene him Isa 29. v. his fellowes I will not intreate M. Field to reconcile his assertion with their other fornamed principles I only desire him to tell me whether the petition which worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust be in his opinion an act of true iustifying fayth or no Let him answere that it is and he yieldeth that fayth alone doth not iustify he yieldeth this first act to be an act of true fayth and yet that it doth only impetrate and procure iustice and not make vs formerly iust but if the first act of true fayth doth not iustify neither can the second or third or any other ensuing act affoard that benefit for they being all and euery one of the same speciall nature they hauing all the same essentiall forme that effect which in no degree is performed by one cannot be effected by any other except they dreame that one the same vertue should consist of diuers essentiall formes and so by diuers actes yield diuers formall effects which very nature it selfe and euery Puny in Philosophy will condemne of implicancy and contradiction 8. Let him deny it to be an act of iustifying fayth and he denyeth his owne diuision of speciall fayth into sundry acts he deludeth our argument proposed not of any other vertue but of their speciall fayth and of the first act thereof which can be but one and of that one it proceeds whether iustification be before it after it or caused by it as is vrged aboue 9. Againe supposing these two actes into which he brancheth his speciall fayth how is
he was heard and reuerenced of his Father 9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended therfore it could not satisfy but must be satisfyed by the submission of another I answere with Suarez the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God or as it supporteth the nature of man In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed in the latter he is our Priest Mediatour and he that pacifyeth because the operations he worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit and apt to satisfy and not these he produceth by his Diuinity Which maketh M. Fields M. Fulkes and their followers assertion the more detestable who faygne Christ to mediate by both his natures As though he could either merit or satisfy in respect of his Deity or without merit satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation the mistery of our redemption Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them 10. For he that mediateth to another vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he cannot himselfe performe which argueth want and impotency in the mediatour and power or authority in him to whome mediation is made So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father he is as the Arians sayd more impotent then his Father according to his God-head he is a Creature and not God Againe he that maketh mediation must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended he that ought to be pacifyed he to whome mediation is made Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth that Christ could not be our Mediatour neither Bellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Mediatore according to both his natures seuerally nor ioyntly Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged not ioyntly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God and man and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God who was to be pacifyed neither in nature nor in person 11. D. Field taxeth this as a silly kind of reasoning And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously replyeth Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is man and from men and himselfe as man in that he is God And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men How idle how impertinent is this Do not we graunt Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this difference Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs yea betweene himselfe as God and vs wretched sinners But the question is according to what nature he performes it And you who affirme him to execute it according to both natures should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ which maketh mediation differeth from it selfe to whome mediation is made Assigne no difference and you confound the party satisfying with the party offended you make no satisfaction no mediation at all Assigne a difference you diuide the vnity of God-head you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity The Sonne say you assumed the nature of man which the Father did not True But what Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any distinction any mutation in the essence of God Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne notwithstanding his Hypostaticall vnion the same with the Fathers the same with the Holy Ghosts Is it not as far distant from vs in the Son Aug. li. 2. de pec orig c. 28. Fulke vbi supra Aug. in Psal 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal Iero. in Psal 109. as it is in the Father As farre distant since as before the incarnation Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine Quomodo erit medietas vbi eadem distantia est How can there be a meane where the same distance still remayneth 12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead For besides the Fathers who directly affirme the contrary besides S. Augustine who sayth As he was man he was Priest as God he was not Priest Theodoret As man he did offer Sacrifice but as God he did receaue Sacrifice S. Hierome Our Lord swore c. Thou art a Priest for euer He swore not to him who before Lucifer was begotten but to him who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin Besides these authorityes if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice as M. Fulke holdeth according to his Diuinity he is both distinct from his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne and sitteth not as the Scripture teacheth on his right hand equall with him in dignity equall in glory power maiesty as the * Atha ser 1. con Arian Bâ—sil l. de Spir. sanct cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. c. Doctours commonly interprete that place Nay he is as the †August â—om 6. propos 33. Fulk in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed the Priest and Minister of his Father and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne M. Fulke and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blasphemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes into workes of ministery workes of authority Of ministery as to pray to pay the price of our Redemption and by dying to satisfy for sinne Of authority as to enter into the helyest place to reconcile vs vnto God which two D. Fulke expresseth Or to quicken giue life impart the spirit of sanctification to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost which M. Field specifyeth And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood the works of authority in his God-head Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth 13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God To enter into the holyest place to penetrate the heauens which M. Fulke vbi supra Fulke recounteth as a work of authority was if we speak of the action not of the power by which it was done a locall motion and worke of ministery proceeding from man and not from God who is vnchangeable immoueable not entring any place but filling all places with his infinite immensity In like manner the reconciliation which Christ as Mediatour made was the action of his humanity in which sense S.
obiections to the contrary answered against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Field and Maister Abbot pag. 20. The Seauenteenth Controuersy DEmonstrateth that our Iustice is inherent in vs and not imputed only against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 38. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the former doctrine is confirmed by more reasons authorities and other obiections of our aduersaries refuted pag. 54. The Eighteenth Controuersy IN which it is proued that Fayth Hope Feare Loue Sorrow c. precede as dispositions to Iustification in such as are arriued to the vse of Reason against D. Fulke and Maister Abbot pag. 69. The Nineteenth Controuersy DEclareth how faith alone doth not iustify against D. Whitaker D. Field D. Abbot and all Sectaries pag. 83. The Twentith Controuersy IN which it is concluded that our Iustification consisteth in the habit of Charity against D. Abbot D. Whitaker and D. Fulke pag. 10â— The one Twentith Controuersy IN which it is discussed how good Workes do iustify against Doctour Abbot Doctour Whitaker and D. Fulke pag. 116. THE FIFTH BOOKE The two and Twentith Controuersy DIsproueth the Protestants Certainty of Saluation against D. Whitaker and D. Abbot pag. 140. The second Chapter of this Controuersy VVHerein the former Presumption is refuted by Reason and whatsoeuer the Aduersary obiecteth against vs is remoued pag. 151. The three and Twentith Controuersy DEclareth that true Fayth or Iustice once had may be lost against D. Whitaker D. Fulke and D. Abbot pag. 165. The foure and Twentith Controuersy A Voweth Freewill against D. Fulke and D. Whitaker pag. 177. The fiue and Twentith Controuersy SHeweth the cooperation of Free-wil to our conuersion and to workes of Piety against D. Whitaker D. Fulke and M. White pag. 191. The six and Twentith Controuersy VVHerein is taught that the Fayth uâ—l by the help of Gods grace do some workes so perfect entterly god as they truly please the diuine Maiesty against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 206. The seauen Twentith Controuersy VVHerein our good workes are acquitted from the spottes of sinne against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 216. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the same is warrâ—ntâ—d by the Fatherâ— the obiections answered and the vnâ—oluntary motions of Concupiscence discharged of sinne pag. 227. The eight and Twentith Controuersy EStablisheth the possibility of keeping Gods Law against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 336. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the possibility of keeping the Law is maintained by other reasons and objections answered p. 243. The nine and Twentith Controuersy DEfendeth God from being Authour of siane against Doctour Fulke and his Companions pag. 355. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which some other Heresies are comprehended our Sectaries cheifâ— obiections fully answered pag. 372. The Thirtith Controuersy IN which the merit of Good workes is supported against Doctour Abbot and Doctour Fulke pag. 386. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the same is strenghned by other reasons authorities and the Obiections satisfied pag. 296. THE FOVRTH BOOKE THE SIXTEENTH CONTROVERSY MAINTAINETH Originall sinne to be abolished by Baptisme and Concupiscence remaining to be no sinne against D. Whitaker D. Field D. Abbot CHAP. I. IT is the proper badge and common custome of such as wander from the truth sometymes to stray in the extremity of one errour sometyme of another one while by excesse to ouerflow the bankes of truth other while to sticke in the sandes by want or defect Thus a Ambr l. 1. de fide cap. 1. 2â— Sabellius erring by defect gaine-sayd the distinction of Persons in the mistery of the holy Trinity and b Nazi orat 5. de Theolog. Arius by excesse multiplyed or rather deuided the vnity of their Essence c Euâ—gr l. 2. cap. 2. Nestâ—rius would haue no Hypostaticall or Substantiall vnâ—â—â— betwixt the diuine and humane nature of Christ and d Theod. l 4. hâ—ret fab c. vlâ— Eutiches would admit no diuision betweene them e Aug. l. de haeres haer 81. 82. Iouinian so highly commended Matrimony as he equaled it with virginity f Iren. l. 1. c. 22 30. Saturninus Tatian and others misprized it so much as they wholy condemned it as an execrable and vnlawfull thing The g Alfon. de Cast. v. Imago Carpocratians Gnostickes and Collyridians honoured Images with sacrifices and diuine worship The h in Alcoran c. 15. 17. Bilson 4. par p 545. sequent Turkes Image-breakers and our Protestants depriue them of all religious worship i Aug. ep 109. 107. Pelagius the enemy of Gods grace attributed too much k Hier. in praef dial aduer Pelag. Manichaus with our late Ghospellers too little to the liberty of Free-will And to come to my purpose the same l Aug. l. 4. cont 2. ep Felag c. 2. 4. libris cont Iul. Castro l. 12. her verbo Peccat Melanth in loc com de baptis infant Pelagius Iulian the Armentians Anabaptists of our dayes extenuate the fault of Originall sinne deny it to be infectious to the soules of Infants or any thing necessary for the cleansing of it M. Luther Caluin Field Abbot Whitaker and all other Protestants exaggerate it so farre and make it so contagious to the whole of spring of Adam as it can neuer be purged or washed from them 2. But the Church of God and spouse of Christ by the guide of his holy spirit shunning the gulfe of both extremes and still sayling in the middst or meane of truth neither confoundeth the Persons of the Blessed Trinity with Sabellius nor deuideth their essence with Aâ—ius She defendeth the Hypostaticall vnion of God and Man in the persons of Christ against Nestorius and alloweth not the mixture of natures with Eutiches She honoureth Marriage as an holy Sacrament against Tattan yet doth notequall it to virginity with Iouinian with Whitaker and the rest of his crew She condemneth the sacrilegious honour which the Carpocratians allow to Images and yet bereaueth them not of all externall worship with Turkes m Luth. in assert art 2. Caluin l. 2. inst c. 10. parag 8. 9. Field in his booke of the Church c. â—6 Abbot in his defence cap. 2. VVhitaker in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Campian and in his 8. booke aduers Duraum VVhitaker Contro 2. q. 5 cap. 7. fol. 384. Images-breakers and Protestants She requireth the supply and assistance of grace to flye all sinne and to do good pleasing to God against Pelagius and excludeth not the cooperation of Free-will with Manichaeus She auoucheth that all mankind contracted the spot of Originall infectioÌ„ Calu. l. 2. instit c. 1. §. 8. 9. Abbot in his defence of the reformed Cathol c. 2. sol 198. Calu. ibi §. 9. Calu. ibid against the Anabaptists and houldeth also that by fayth in
k Chrys hom 7. in 2. ad Tim. feruour of Charity destroyeth all thinges The l Gregor hom 33. in Euang. fire of Charity burneth and consumeth the rust of sinne Only m Aug tract 1. ep Ioan. Abbot c. 4. sect 22. Aug. despir lit c. 17. Aug. l. de nat gra c. 63. qua vna iusti sunt quicumque iusti sunt Abbot c. 4. sect 22. fol. 477. 478. Charity extinguisheth sinnes Which places I more willingly and diligently cyte because they cannot be passed ouer with that common answere which the Aduersary vseth That Charity is the chiefe and principall vertue for outward vse as the instrument of Faith for mouing or stirring abroad Fayth the only vertue which worketh our iustification For that which is the life the health the beauty of our soules is not the outward instrument but the inward quality which iustifyeth vs before God that which vniteth weddeth vs vnto him maketh vs his friendes conuerteth and conformeth vs vnto him couereth our iniquityes extinguisheth our sinnes that which is the head life of Religion the spirit which quickneth the louer cannot be a signe or effect but the cause the soule of iustification Which intrinsecally iustifyeth sayth S. Augustine By which one Charity they are iust whosoeuer are iust 7. Besides if Charity as M. Abbot confesseth Giueth the outward and accidentall mouing and working to fayth c. is the performance of all dutyes recommended vnto vs both to God and men that is touching all externall actions of righteousnes or iustice it cannot be denyed but that Charity also is the inward guift the heauenly quality which maketh vs iust for so we see in all both naturall and morall thinges the faculty which giueth external power and ability to worke is the inherent forme vertue or accident which worketh within For example the grauity or heauynes which causeth the stone outwardly to descend and couer the center is the innate property which indueth it also with inward heauines The quality which affoardeth power to the fire to warme and send forth the ardour of heate abroad is the inward accident which maketh the fire hoate and ardent it selfe In man that which enableth his body to stir moue that which ministreâ—h ability to performe all externall offices and function of life is the inward soule the internall life which quickneth the body In morall affaires the habit which facilitateth vs outwardly to exercise the actes of temperance is the vertue it selfe which maketh vs temperate That which readily exciteth and stirreth vp the souldier to enterprises and exployts of valour is the inherent valour which incourageth his hart Therefore in thinges supernaturall that which rayseth and eleuateth vs externally to accomplish the workes of iustice is the internall vertue the internall iustice wherby we are iust And seeing Charity ministreth power euen in our Aduersaryes opinion to atchieue all outward dutyes acceptable to God Charity also must needes be the ornament it selfe and splendour of our soules which maketh vs acceptable For as Vega wittily argueth from Vega l. 7. in Conâ— Trid. c. 2â— the deriuation of the word If whitenes maketh white wisedome wise valour valiant Faciet nimirum Charitas charos Charity vndoubtedly shall make vs deere and gratefull vnto the highest Hence it is that Charity is the heauenly spring or spirituall fountaine from whence the riuers of all good workes the streames of all vertues Gal. 5. cap. 2â— August tract 87. in ep Ioan. receaue their purity and perfection whereupon the Apostle S. Paul as S. Augustine teacheth when against the workes of the flesh he wovld recommend vnto vs the fruit of the spirit he beginneth with this The fruit sayth he of the spirit is Charity and the rest be receiueth after August ibidem as flowing and depending of this head which are ioy peace long animity benignity goodnes Fayth c. For who doth solidely reâ—oyce that loueth not the good from whence he ioyeth Who can haue true Abbot in his defence cap. 4. Hier. in c. 5. epist ad Gal. Aug. loc citato August tract 5. in ep Ioan. Haec est margarita pretiosa Charitas sine qua nihil tibi prodest quod cumque habueris quaÌ„ si sola habeas sufficit tibi Aug. ser 50. de verb. Domini peace but with him whome he vnfeignedly loueth Who is long animous in good workes constantly perseuering vnles he burne with louing Who is benigne and mercifull vnles he loue him to whom he exhibiteth mercy Who is good except by louing he be made good Who is profitably faythfull but by that fayth which worketh by loue So that not Charity as Abbot dreameth from fayth but fayth it self I meane liuely Fayth and all other vertues deriue their chiefest dignity and preheminence from Charity For what other vertue sayth S. Hierome ought to hold the primacy among the fruits of the spirit but Charity without which other vertues are not accounted vertues and from which all things that are good take their beginning 8 Worthily therefore I returne againe to S. Augustine our good maister so often commendeth loue as if that alone were to be commanded without which other good things cannot profit And in another place I take this to be the margarite for which the merchant is described in the Ghospell who found one pretious stone and sold all that he had to buy it This Charity is that precious margarite without which whatsoeuer thou hast it profiteth nothing which only if thou hast it sufficeth thee Likewise add Charity all thinges profit thee take away Charity other things auaile thee naught a Aug. ser 42. de temp Charity is the light the oyle which surpasseth all other vertues b Aug. tract 17. in Euang. Ioan. By Charity only the law is fullfilled c Greg. hom 38 in Euang. Charity is the nuptiall garment which adorneth our soules d Ruper Hugo Card. in eum locum Charity is the fire-tryed gould which maketh vs rich with al celestiall treasures e Chry. de incomp Dei nat hom â— Richard de sanct Vict in psal 44 Charity is the Queene of vertues f Richard in eum locum Chrys in psal 232. hom de Char. The mother and mistresse of heauenly vertues g Augu. serm 42. de tempor By which the soule is happy and blessed that deserueth to haue it It is the height and consumation of spirituall life Origen I thinke that the beginning or ground worke of our saluation is Fayth the increase or augmentation Hope the perfection and top of the building Charity S. Clemens Clemen Alexand. l. 2. Strom. Aug serm 20. de verb. Apost Cent. 4. â— 4. Colum. â— 92. Ephrem l. de vera poenit c. 1. Cent. 5 c. 4. Colum. 505. Sedul in c. 5. ad Philip. of Alexandria Fayth precedeth Feare rayseth the building Loue doth consumate or end it S. Aug. The house of God by beliefe is
auerreth That the only Catholike fayth quickneth sanctifyeth giueth life excluding not any workes but the false beliefe of Heretikes Origen vpon the third Chapter to the Romans and S. Chrysostome in his booke of Fayth and the law of Nature attribute Iustification to fayth alone without the outward accomplishment of any externall worke or without the precedent obseruation of the law whether it be externall or internall according to Vasquez both exemplifying in the theese vpon the Crosse so that among all the Fathers whom they obiect no one giueth sentence on their side 20. Finally besides these authorityes and the former common obiections one the Aduersarie yet reserueth as his sole Achilles and properly belonging to this place that our pious and godly workes are outward tokens only and manifestations as whitaker calleth them of inward righteousnes but not the causes which augment or make vs more iust for as the tree is not made good by the VVhitak in his answer to the 8. reason of M. Campian fol. 254. fruites it beareth but only declared and knowne to be such no more can a iust man become more iust by the fruits of good workes which he produceth but only be discouered and knowne to be iust because as the fruits presuppose the goodnes of the tree from whence they spring and do not make it good so good workes prerequire iustice in the worker and cannot concurre to constitute Matth. 71 v. 17. Maldon in c. 7. Matt. him iust Whereupon Christ compareth the iust man with a good tree which bringeth forth good fruits and cannot produce euill the wicked to an euill tree which shooteth forth euill and cannot bring good I answere with Maldonate first by retorting the argument vpon my Aduersaryes If by good works we cannot be made but only knowne to be good it followeth by necessary consequence that by euill works we cannot become euill but only declared and signifyed to be such So Adam being once a good tree planted by God either could not degenerate and bring forth the euill fruits of sinne as he did or by sinning was not made euill or worse then before by iniustly transgressing the Commandment of God became A differeÌ„ce betweene naturall and morall causes necessary to be noted not indeed vniust but was only marked figured with the notes of iniustice which cannot be affirmed without plaine impiety Secondly I answere that there is a great difference between naturall and morall causes as euery Nouice in our Schooles can instruct you Naturall causes by their good or euill effects are neither made good or euill better or worse as the fire waxeth not more hoat by the heate it casteth nor the stocke of the vine in it selfe more fruitful by the outward braÌ„ches it spreadeth abroad but these only demonstrate the fruitfullnes of the vine or heate of the fire Morall causes do not only worke well or badly because they are good or euill but by vvorking vvell or euilly they grovv good or euill become better or vvorse As vvee do not only liue temperatly because vve are teÌ„perate but by many acts of temperance become Arist l. 2. de mori c. 1. Ibid. c. 2. VVhitak l. 1. 8. aduers Duraeum August l. de fide oper c. 14. in psal 31. S. Thom. in Gal. 3. lect 4. Ambr. in cap. 8. ad Rom. Beda in c. â— ep lac temperate by the like dayly go forward increase in temperance For sayth Aristotle As by building builders by singing to the harpe men arriue to be cunning harpers or musitians so by doing good things men become iust by temperate things temperate by valiant exployts valiant Likewise by accustoming our selues to contemne and endure things fearefull and to be dreaded fortes efficimur we grow stout couragious Therfore although the tree which is a naturall cause of budding fruits receaueth not from them any sparke of life or increase of goodnes yet the iust man who is a morall cause in acheiuing good workes is more quickned in spirituall life and perfected in iustice by achieuing of them 21. Then they vrge out of S. Augustine That good workes go not before the iustifyed but follow him that is iust Out of S. Thomas Workes are not the cause that any one is iust before God but rather the executions and manifestations of Iustice. The like out of S. Ambrose Venerable Bede others I answere they are manifestations and remonstrances of the first iustice of the first infusion of grace as S. Thomas expoundeth himselfe and so they follow and are not the cause S. Thom. in c. 2. ad Gal. that any one is iust in that kind yet this withstandeth not but that they perfect and increase the infused iustice as true meritorious and morall causes thereof which is all that we require all that the Oecumenicall holy Councell of Trent hath enacted touching the Iustice of our works quickned with the seed or watered with the due of Gods celestiall grace The end of the fourth Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE THE XXII CONTROVERSY DISPROVETH The Protestants certainty of Saluation against D. Whitaker and D. Abbot CHAP. I. SO deep and vnsearchable are the iudgements of God so close and inscrutable the inuolutions of mans hart his foldes so secret so many his retraytes his search so weake in matters of spirit so hidden and vnknown the operations of grace the feares the doubts the anxiety so innumerable which the best belieuing Protestants and Ministers themselues feele in their consciences as I am wonderfully astonished at this arrogant speach that they should be all infallibly assured and vndoubtedly certaine of their saluation and my astonishment is the greater when I read the sentence of God and Eâ—â—â—â—â— 9. v. 1. 2. verdict of the holy Ghost passe against them in these tearmes vncontrollable There are iust men and wise and their workes are in the hand of God and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of loue or hatred but all things are reserued vncertain Prou. c. 20 v. 9. for the tyme to come And who can say my hart is cleane I am pure from sinne Where Salomon doth not affirme as Venerable Bede noteth vpon that place That a man cannot be but that he cannot certainly say or know himselfe to be pure from Beds in eum locum Eccles 5. v. VVhitak l. 8. aduers Duraeum Abbot in his defence c. 4. f. 330. 331. c. Calu. l. 3. instit c. 2. §. 38. sinne Likewise Of sinne forgiuen be not without feare or as whitaker readeth out of the Greeke Of expiation or pardon be not secure To the first of these three testimonyes M. Abbot replyeth with Caluin his Maister That by outward things by thinges that are before our face a man knoweth not whether he be beloued or hated of God howbeit he may otherwise infallibly know it But this answere cannot be shaped to the latter clause of that sentence All thinges are
remayneth behind to satisfy God displeased Where sinne sayth M. Abbot is forgiuen there is no punishment because there is no imputation of that to which the punishment is due Strange men who can neuer pursue the game in hand but euery foot hunt counter to themselues counter to their owne companious 3. Moreouer if Protestants do not desire nor aske forgiuenes of sinnes for any feare of condemnation to which they may be subiect then they cannot pray at least to auoyd that danger of perdition they cannot pray they may not be vtterly abandoned by God swallowed vp by Sathan or cast with the miscreants into outward darkenes They cannot say with King Dauid Destroy not O Psal 25. v. 9. Psal 50. v. 13. Psal 6. v. 1. Psal 37. v. 1. God my soule with the impious and my life with bloudy men Cast me not away from thy face Lord rebuke me not in thy fury nor chastize me in thy wrath that is torment me not in thy fury with eternall nor punish me in thy wrath with Purgatory flames which they fall into who depart this life not perfectly cleansed as S. Augustine expoundeth that place whose testimony S. Gregory cyteth and following his interpretation willeth euery faythfull soule to consider Greg in 1. psal poeâ— vers 1. what she hath done and contemplate what she shall receaue saying Lord rebuke me not in thy fury nor chastize me in thy wrath as if she sayd more plainely This only with my whole intention of hart I craue this incessantly withall my desires I couet that in the dreadfull tryall thou neither strike me with the reprobate nor affict me with the purging and reuenging flames So he so Manasses so the ancient Fathers so the whole Church of God hath euer prayed to haue the guilt of condemnation remoued from them Therfore they were neuer acquainted with our Protestants presumptuous fayth who do not aske forgiuenes of sinnes in this sort M. Abbot therefore not satisfyed with this answere of Feilds windeth about three other wayes to creep out of the mudd in which he and al Abbot c. 3. fol. 289. 290. his adherents are stabiled First sayth he Our prayer obtayneth pardon at Gods hands therefore we pray and by Fayth do rest assured that vndoubtedly we haue that for which we pray Secondly we pray for forgiuenes not that we haue no assurance thereof but for that we desire greater assurance and more confortable feeling thereof The third reason of our praying continually for the forgiuenes of our sinnes is for the obteyning of the fruit thereof to wit a freedome from all miseryes and sorrowes 4. Neither of these fetches can rid him forth of the mire For the first that prayer obteyneth pardon is refuted aboue in the Controuersy of only fayth against M. Field by M. Abbots owne discourse and can no way be verifyed ProtestaÌ„ts pray like the proud Pharisee according to their principles The second third as little auayle for who did euer read so idle an interpretation Forgiue vs O Lord our trespasses pardon our sinnes that is giue me greater assurance they are forgiuen they are pardoned or graunt me full freedome from all earthly misery which is the expected fruit of their forgiuenes Is this to accuse your selues of sinne to sue for mercy with the humble Publican or rather to say with the haughty Pharisy I acknowledge O Lord thy fauour in hauing remitted my offences yet yield me more comfortable feeling of this thy remission free me I beseech thee from all miseryes as thou hast freed me from my faults O proud oraison O Pharisaicall prayer far from the humility of K. Manasses I am not worthy to behould and looke on Manasses in orat sua the height of heauen for the multitude of myne iniquityes c. Forgiue me O Lord forgiue me and destroy me not togeather with my offences neither reserue thou for euer being angry euills for me neither damne me into the lowest places of the earth Far from his humility who durst not approach to the Altar nor lift vp his eyes to heauen but standing a loof sayd Lord be mercifull to me a sinner These men I hope beleeued aright and yet they were not assured of the remission of their Luc. 28. v. 13. sinnes they knew not for certaine that the guilt of condemnation was remoued from them and you no sooner beleeue but you presently receaue a warrant that your faults are cancelled you need not craue further pardon at the hands of God but only that he would seale vp your haâ—â—s with more assurance of his graunt you incontinently not only approach to his Altar heere vpon earth but euen to his throne and presence in heauen instantly asking without more adoe the fruit and consummation of your happynes begun the fulnes of redemption which there is prepared after this life What is arrogancy what is presumption if this be not 5. Besides your second kind of petition wholy proceeds Abbot ibidem f. 289. sect 4. fol. 283. 284. Abbot sect 4. f. 283. 284. from imbecility of Fayth For Our fayth say you being weake giueth but weake assurance and therefore we begge of God that our harts may be enlarged that the testimony of the spirit may more freely sound into vs Yet you affirme That some speciall men with the like assurance belieue their owne saluation as they do the doctrine of fayth expressed in the articles of the Creed Then at least after you obtaine the enlargement of your harts after you be once in the number of those speciall men then you enioy that security as you cannot aske a surer certificate of the remission of your sinnes then at the least you can say no longer Forgiue vs our trespasses for as we cannot without blasphemy desire more assurance of the Incarnation and Passion of Christ then that they are proposed in our Creed as articles of our beliefe so if you as infallibly beleeue your owne saluation and consequently the remission of your sinnes as those reuealed mysteryes it can be no lesse then horrible impiety to craue more assurance of them or if you may still craue for more by reason of the weaknes of your wauering fayth why do you boast and glory so much in the prerogatiue of your fayth when neuer any Protestant could yet arriue to this strong and stedfast Fayth 6. Thirdly your assurance of saluation is noysome and pernicious to the progresse of vertue it expelleth So S. Gregory calleth it feare the nurse of wisedome the anker of our soules the guardian of good life It looseth the reynes of careles liberty engendreth pryde arrogancy presumption breedeth a neglect of holesome discipline and many other weeds of dissolute and wanton demeanour Whereas the vncertainty whether we be worthy of loue or hatred whether our workes be acceptable to God or no as long as we haue a morall confidence and stedfast hope that they be cherisheth the seeds of sundry
Gods sight much lesse pleasing sacrifices to him as in the precedent discourse hath beene shewed if they be defyled with sinne 4. M. Abbot answereth Therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sinne before they can please God must haue some meanes to take away the guilt imputation of the sinne c. which Christ doth perfuming them with the sweet Abbot c. 4 sect 44. fol. 578. 579 incense of his Obedience But how doth Christ take it away By abolishing or not imputing the contagion By not imputing sayth Abbot but thus he taketh away according to them the filth of adultery of murder of sacriledge and all heynous crymes from the beleeuing Protestant And are those sinnefull workes thereby made gratefull hostes and acceptable sacrifices pleasing vnto God No sayth he agayne Our good deedes are not sinnefull workes Are they not What is that guilt then of contagious sinne which must be taken away before they can please God If they be not sinnefull no contagion of sinne is to be pardoned by not imputing if they be sinfull then your sinneful acts inherently in themselues sinnefull by not imputing the guilt of contagion become gratefull pleasing and acceptable vnto God Neyther can M. Abbot any way cuade by his frequent and worm-eaten answere that the action we do is not sinnefull because it is in substance a good Ibid. â—7â— worke and the fruit of the good spirit of God and the default and imperfection is only an accident to the worke Nor Whitaker who to the same purpose replyeth in his answere to Duraeus VVhitk â— in his answere to Duraeus l. 8. pag. 698. We meane not that good workes are sinnes but that they haue some sinne mixed with them For it followeth not that siluer is drosse because it hath some drosse mingled with it Seeing our dispute is not heere of the physicall substance which in euery action euen of murder theft and the like is transcendentally good or in genere Entis to vse the Philosophers tearmes but of the morall bounty or deformity of a worke which if it be tainted with the mixture of any euill how accidenttally soeuer it cannot be good sith it is true which Dionysius teacheth Good ariseth from an entiere cause euill from euery defect So that Whitakers example which Abbot also alleadgeth Dionys de diuin nomin c. 4. par 4. Bonum ex vna tota causa malum ex multis particularibuâ— que proficiscitur defectibus of gold or siluer mingled with drosse is nothing to the purpose because there be two materiall substances really distinct heere we question of one morall act which admitteth no distinction there although one metall be mingled with the other yet by seuerall veynes in seuerall places they are so incorporated as the siluer is not drosse or drosse siluer heere the same act flowing from the same will aymed at the same end must be both good and bad pure and defiled siluer and drosse which is impossible For as it inuolueth contradiction that one and the same assent of vnderstanding should be at the same tyme both true and false in the agreement of all Philosophers and Deuines so likewise it implyeth that one and the same acte of the will should be ioyntly at the same moment good and euill laudable and vituperiall pleasing displeasing vnto God Wherefore if euery action of it owne nature be euil no worke of ours can be in substance good as M. Abbot would haue it none excellent as Whitaker pretendeth but the most excellent must needes in it selfe be wholy marred wholy odious vnto God wholy and substantially naught howsoeuer by outward acceptation it may seeme beautifull and fayre Not so say they for our good workes are not wholy euill not hatefull not sinnes but infected quoth M. Abbot with the contagion of sinne We say not quoth Whitaker to marry a wife is sinne Abbot VVhitak in the places cyted aboue but that they who marry wiues intermixe some sinne in that good action But you say that that intermixed sinne may wholy marre the action make it odious to God if that which is done be weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice Therefore you say that the action of it selfe is wholy euill wholy marred altogeather odious vnto God and hatefull of his owne nature vnles you beleeue that an action weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice becometh thereby worse more odious and abhominable then of it selfe it is and that our supreme highest Iudge who iustly condemneth the wickednes of man maketh it more wicked by the seuerity of his iudgement 5. Moreouer from whence creepeth this spot of sinne into that good and lawfull action of marriage Not from the will of taking a wife for that is laudable no sinne according to the Apostle not from the substance of the act for that M. Abbot also alloweth to be good not from any other accidentall circumstance of end tyme place or person for I suppose they be all guided by the rule of reason How then is sinne intermixed in the good action of marriage By the same act which inseparably draweth the stayne of corruption with it or by some other adioyned The desire of taking a wife for a good end in such as may lawfully marry is free from all sinne as by a wicked intention to which it is ordeyned if by the same one and the same action is both good and euill a sinne and no sinne agreable to reason and disagreable consonant and dissonant to the will of God the often refuted vnauoyded implicancy which you incurre If by some other act or vicious intent either this intention is principall and the cause of marriage as to marry the easier to contriue the murder of his wife or some other then the action of marriage is not good but impious wicked and detestable or it is a secondary intent and followeth the desire of marriage so it cannot vitiate the former good desire nor be termed a sinne intermixed therewith which albeit obstinate and ignorant aduersaryes can hardly be drawn to confesse yet will I make it so cleare as they shall not be able to deny Let vs take for example the act of louing God or dying for his sake what mixture hath it or slyme of euill any stayn that ariseth from the obiect beloued or will which loueth it Not from the obiect for that is infinite goodnes without all spot or blemish therefore no blemish can be intermixed with that act as it tendeth to so pure an obiect nor from the will of louing it for no feare of excesse no danger of impurity can possibly flow from desiring to loue the fountaine it selfe and mayne sea of purity not from the mudd of distraction not from the scumme of vaine glory not from the froath of pride which sometyme may accompany that heauenly loue for as it is impossible the act of loue should be an act of distraction vanity
in their power by Gods helpe to Basil Orat in illud Attende tibi Chrys ho. 8 de poenio Aug. tom 7. denat grat c. 6â— Hier. ep ad Damas de expos Symboli keep them Therefore to quit the soueraigne goodnes from this merciles cruelty the Fathers vniformely define That it is a wicked thing to teach the Precepts of the spirit cannot be obserued S. Basil Accuse not God he hath not commanded things impossible S. Chrysostome We stedfastly beleeue God to be iust good not able to command things impossible hence we are admonished what we ought to do in things easy what to aske in things hard and difficile S. Augustine S. Hierome accurseth their blasphemy who teach any impossible things to be imposed by God vnto man Which argument hath beene handled heertofore in the CoÌ„trouersy of Free will where the Aduersaryes cauils theretunto are reiected The like impiety it were in God to cooperate with vs in such speciall manner to affoard his heauenly grace his supernaturall ayde to the keeping of his Commandments if we transgresse and sinne in keeping of them For as our August de pec mer. remis l. 2. c. 5. great Doctour S. Augustine teacheth To commit sin we are not ayded of God but to do good things or wholly fullfill the precept of iustice we cannot vnles we be ayded by God Marke heere that by the ayde of God we may not in part but wholy fullfill the precept and that in fullfilling it we do not sinne because thereunto we could not be holpen by God To which my aduersaries cannot shape their worne-out and thrid-bare reply That our obseruation our loue of God Abb cap. 4. sect 44. for example is no sinne but a good deed by acceptation For as I haue often answered God cannot accept that for good which is in it selfe naught and sinnefull but it is good in the Abbot ibid. sol 579. originall of grace from whence it proceedeth Explane your selfe a little better whether you meane it is perfectly or imperfectly good Graunt perfectly and you go on our side yield only imperfectly and you stand at the stay you were before perhaps you imagine that it springeth perfect from the fountaine of grace and after receaueth a blemish from the weaknes of flesh You imagine amisse for the same indiuiduall morall act which once is enriched with the dowry of perfection caÌ„not be after impouerished with any basenes of vice Or is it partly good as it is wrought by grace and partly euill as it runneth through the conduct of depraued nature No such matter the thing contradicteth it selfe as hath beene often signifyed neither is nature the conduct or pipe but true cause of the act in which there is not any part good assignable to grace distinct from that which is ascribed to man but the entiere action perfect or lesse perfect is wholy assigned to mans freewill wholy thereunto ayded by grace as the characters which the scholler frameth by the Maisters guiding of his hand are not seuerally drawne fayrely by one and rudely by the other but the same fayre or deformed rude or well fashioned are wholy from both Which forceth M. Abbot from that incongruous shift We Abbot cap. 4. sect 44. fol. 579. by our corruption do disgrace that which proceedeth holy and pure from God In like manner he is ferretted out of his other berry-hole That the action is good in the will and endeauour of Abbot ibid. the person by whom it is done For the will is weake the endeauour mean the person cloathed with human corruption who if he may will and endeauour that which is good then some good may proceed from a fleshly man perfect and entiere free from all spot and blemish or els the will and intendment is no better then the worke and VVhitak in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Camp VVhitah l. 8. aduers Duraum Abbot cap. 4. sect 44. fol. 578 this assignement of goodnes which you make to the will is a meere shew or treachery to cloake the badnes of your cause 2. Lastly you say although you place it not in order last that the duty we obserue is in substance good Well I am contented with this but see you recant not for heere I haue that the substance at least of louing God the substance of euery obseruation of the law which we achieue is perfect and entiere able to satisfy the will of God able to make vs acceptable vnto him Yes say they If he fauourably looke vpon it and impute not the fault but if he Abbot c. 4. sect 47. fol. 596. should strictly narrowly deale with vs he should haue iust cause of reiecting vs in the doing thereof Forbeare these ifs ands and come to the point Is the substance of the action done entierely good in it selfe or no abstracting from the fauour or dislike of God whose indulgence or seuerity VVhitak in his answere to the 8. reason of M. CampiaÌ„ being extrinsecall doth not make the substance of the worke better or worse It is not so good as it may endure the try all of the precise and perfect rule of righteousnes truth This is not the question but whether it may stand with satisfaction of his law It cannot stand with it in such full complete and absolute manner as that nothing at all may be added thereunto Neither is that the thing demanded who euer dealt with such slippery companions Must I still put you to the torture to draw out the truth My question is whether the substance of the act satisfyeth the obligation of the law Let vs heere what you say to this They answere as heertofore It is short of that which the law requireth it cannot be such VVhitak in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Câ—mplan and lib. 8. aduer DuraeuÌ„ Abbot cap. 4. fol. 60â— as it ought to be as long as the flesh lusteth against the spirit there can be no such entiere good in vs. Alwayes a man doth lesse then he ought to do I thought you would flinch from your word but I pursue you also flying The act then of louing God is substantially short of that the law requireth substantially lesse then it ought to be and not only lesse of that which ought to be by perswasion or counsaile but by precept binding to more vnder payne of morall sinne therefore the substance of this lesser act is not morally good but mortally defectuous substantially faulty a deadly sinne and true transgression of the law to which God cooperating must needs cooperate in particuler manner to the accomplishment of sinne Protestants are bound to surcease from louing praying or endeauouring to performe those mortall crimes and bound to performe them because God commandeth them as I further demonstrate by this dilemma Either God commandeth the complete perfect fullfilling of his law which Protestants teach no man in this
con 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 4. obseruation of the decalogue and in liew of them imposeth a light carriage Aug. ser 9. de verb. Domini not pressing vs downe with weighty loade but lifting vs vp as it were with winges A preceps of loue which is not heauy 10. Furthermore a slaunderous reporte is spread against vs touching the diuision of the Decalogue which I thinke not amisse heere to insinuate as it were by the way that we leaue out one of the commaundments the second as Protestants count it of not worshiping grauen Idolls but this is a meere cauill for we deuide the decalogue with S. Augustine branching the first Table into three precepts which instruct vs in our duty to God the second Table into seaueÌ„ appertayning to our neighbour Aug. de perfect iustit c 15. Sarcinam subleuanteÌ„ vice pennaruÌ„ Aug. de nat gra c. 43. 69. Aug. q. 71. in Exod. and we proue this diuision to be most consonant vnto reason because the internall desire of theft as mainly differeth from the desire of adultery as the externall actes vary amongest themselues in their specificall natures Wherfore as it pleased God seuerally to forbid the outward actes so we distinguish the inward consentes into seuerall commandements making two of the last which Protestants combine in one and vniting the first vpon far better grounds then they distinguish it For seeing he that draweth the pourtraiture or maketh the similitude of any creature to the end to adore it maketh to himselfe a straung God another God besides the liuing God of heauen which is forbidden in the first wordes of the first commandement all the prohibitions appertayning thereunto as thou shalt not make to thee a grauen thing Thou shalt not adore c. are but members and explications of the same precept and so ought not to be deuided from the first This is the cause why in our Catechismes where a briefe summary or abridgement of the comandements is contracted we omit these declarations of the first as likewise of other preceptes for breuities sake and not because they prohibite our adoration of images For we allow euery member word and syllabe of the whole to consist there with as hath bin heretofore expounded 11. Finally they obiect S. Augustine S. Bernard and S. Thomas affirming the precept of louing God to apperteyne Augu. de spir lit c. vltim in l. de pers iustit Bern. serm so in Cant. S. Thom. 3. 2. 444. art 6. to the life to come and that it cannot be perfectly accomplished in this life which S. Augustine also teacheth of that other commandment Thou shalt not couet I answere hey auouch both impossible to be kept in the anagogicall meaning of those preceptes for which they were enacted that is according to the end or supereminent perfection as S. Augustine writeth or deyned by God which is that extirpating by little and little all euill inclinations we may perpetually without intermission be inflamed with the loue of vnspeakeable goodnes this is the marke at which those precepts ayme this is the goale vnto which we must runne and cannot heere arriue vnto it yet they confesse that these and al other commandements taken in their literall Bern. serm 50. in Cant Abbot cap. 4. sect 43. ful 572. Bernar. in l. de praec dispens c. 15. August de spir lit c. 35. Aug. com 3. de spirit lit c. 5. item l. 6. cont luliaÌ„ c. 5. sense may be perfectly accomplished according to the substantiall fullfilling of them and satisfaction of the whole bond they oblige vs vnto Therfore S. Bernard By coÌ„manding thinges vnpossible vnto vs he hath not made vs preuaricators or trespassers as M. Abbot englisheth it but humbled vs impossible he calleth theÌ„ in respect of the vnmatchable inteÌ„ded purity which admitteth not the least mixture of vncleanes possible notwithstanding and easy he accounteth theÌ„ to such as haue tried the sweet yoke of Christ Impossible in respect of the end proposed possible and easy by Gods grace in regard of the obligation exacted ayming at that we increase in humility crying for help to be discharged of the infirmities with which we are clogged performing this we become not trespassers or preuaricators but doers keepers of the law In respect of that there is no example of perfect righteousnes among men S. Augustine In regard of this we cannot deny quoth he the perfection of Iustice to be possible euen in this life And Grace doth now also perfectly renew man altogether froÌ„ al sinnes in respect of that al the commandments are esteemed as kept wheÌ„ whatsoeuer is not done is pardoned vz. * Gabr. Vasquez in 1. 2. disp 212. c. 2. Stapleton l. 6. de perfe iustit c. 23. August de spir lit cap. 36. August de pec mer. remis l. 2. c. â— what soeuer is not done according to some litle precept or smal circuÌ„stance binding only vnder venial sinne In regard of this the whole law is fulfilled nothing is to be pardoned in respect of transgressing the coÌ„mandement because that which is wanting is not to be accounted a breach therof And so I end with this my S. Augustine who neuer maketh end of impugning our aduersaries Neyther doth God command any impossible thing to maÌ„ neyther is there any thing impossible to God for to help assist him to the performance of that which he coÌ„mandeth by this man may if he wil be without sinne ayded by God THE XXIX CONTROVERSY DEFENDETH God from being Authour of sinne against Doctour Fulke and his Companions CHAP. I. BECAVSE some moderne Protestants deeme both themselues and their gospellers maliciously wronged with the false imputation of this detestable Heresie I will set downe the words of a chiefe Ringleader amongst English Reformers that you may apparently Aug. in enchir cap. 100. l. de corr gra cap. 10. Ful. in cap. 6. Matth. sect 6. 4. 3. ad RoÌ„ in sect see I challenge them no further then their owne writings giues me iust cause of combat in defence of his Goodnes who neuer would haue permitted these or any other euils as S. Augustine teacheth vnles he could from them draw forth some good M. Fulke commenting vpon those words Lead vs not into temptation sayth The text is playne lead vs not whereby is proued not only a permission but an action of God in theÌ„ that are lead into temptation Likewise all sinne is manifestly against the will of God reuealed in his word although nothing come to passe contrary to the determination and secret will of God c. it is not against his secret will that there is sinne God worketh not as an euill authour of sinne but as a iust iudge c. Caluin often Caluin l. 1. instit cap. â—8 §. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. l. â— cap. 4. l. 3. cap. 23. §. 4. 7. Fulke in c. 9. ad Rom. sect 1 ibid