perseuerantèr proficiat siue vt ad bonuÌ„ sempiternum peruentat The sound Catholike faith saith he neither denieth Free will vvhether to euill life or to good neither attributeth so much to it as that it auaileth any thing vvithout grace either to be conuerted from euill to good or by perseuerance to go forward in that that is good or to attaine to the euerlasting good Now we whom M. Bishop termeth new gospellers but yet out of the old Gospell do affirme according to the true meaning of S. Austin that there must be a Free will either in euill or good life For a man cannot be either good or euill against his will and if he be willingly that that he is it is by Free vvill because the vvill is alwayes Free and cannot but be Free in that that it willeth But the will of man is of it selfe Free in that that is euill to that that is good q Retract lib. 1. cap 15. IntantuÌ„ lâ—bera est 1 quatum liberata est it is so farre onely Free as it is made Free r Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib 1. ca. 3. Et De corrept grat cap 1. Liberum in bono non erit quod liberator non liberauerit In bono liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus neither can any man in this respect be free vvhom the purchaser of freedome hath not made free We say therefore that the Free vvill of man auaileth nothing vvithout grace that is in S. Austins construction auaileth nothing but by that that grace vvorketh in it either for conuerting vnto God or perseuering in that whereunto it is conuerted And therefore as S. Austin in the epistle cited speaketh Å¿ Epist 47. Boni ipsam bonam voluntateÌ„ per Dei gratiam consecuti sunt Et post Gratia intelligitur voluntates hominum ipsus ex mala bonas facere ipsas etiam quas fecerit custodire ante Omnia quae ad mores nostros pertinent quibus rectè viuimus à patre nostro qui in coeâ—iâ— est doâ—uit esse poscenda ne de libero praesumentes arbitrio à diuina gratia decidamus It is by grace that good men haue obtained a good vvill and grace must be vnderstood to make the wils of men of euill good and to preserue the same when it hath so made them and of our Father vvhich is in heauen vve are to begge all things whereby vve liue vvell least presuming of Free vvill vve fall away from the grace of God If all things then are we to begge of him to open to yeeld to assent to receiue his grace and therefore these things cannot be attributed to the power of our owne Free will Now M. Bishop meerely abuseth Austin as if he had meant that Free will hath a power and abilitie of it owne to righteousnesse but that this power is not sufficient is not strong enough vvithout grace adioyned to it whereas S. Austins meaning is to chalenge wholy to grace whatsoeuer the will of man doth so that it doth nothing but what grace worketh in it to do t De verb Apos ser 11 Nihil ex eo quod aliquâ—d sumus si tameÌ„ in eius side aliquid sumus quantum cunque sumus â—ihâ—l nobis arrogemus ne quod accepimus perdamus sed in eo quod accepimus illi gloriam demus Of that as touching which we are somewhat in the faith of Christ how much soeuer it be we may take nothing to our selues but we must giue the glorie of all vnto God The new gospellers therfore according to the doctrine of the auncient Gospell detest the Manichees for denying Free will in sinne and euill and detest also Pelagians and Papists for attributing to Free will an abilitie and power of it owne wherby to apply it selfe to righteousnesse which whereas M. Bishop saith the Pelagians affirmed vvithout grace I haue before shewed that he saith vntruly and that the Papists do now teach in that behalfe the very same that the Pelagians did To the last place the answer is readie by that that hath bene sayd Free vvill and grace are not the one excluded by the other neither is the one denied in the affirming of the other if we make the one the cause of the other as Austin doth and teach it to be the worke of grace to make the will Free But grace is denied in the preaching of Free will if as touching saluation it be affirmed to haue any freedome which it hath not of grace or any thing at all be attributed vnto it which is not the effect of grace For u De corrept grat ca. 8. Voluntas humana non libertate coÌ„sequitur gratiam sed gratia potius libertatem man doth not by freedome of will attaine to grace but by grace obtaineth freedome of vvill and though it be in the will and by the will that we receiue grace yet x Prosper de vocat gent lib. 1. cap. 5. Omnibus hominibus percipiendae gratiae causa voluntas Dei est in all men the will of God himselfe is the cause of the receiuing of the grace of God 16. W. BISHOP Now in fevv words I will passe ouer the obiections which he frameth in our names But misapplyeth them First obiection That man can do good by nature as giue almes do iustice speake the truth c. and therefore will them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue libertie of vvill in ciuill and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it And his answer here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the vvorke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure heart and a faith vnfained and also in the end which is not the glorie of God Answer It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the heart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to releeue the poore mans necessitie God his Creator and Maister is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed towards him when the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto R. ABBOT It was a caution giuen by the Pelagians a Prosper de lib. arbit Proclamat cauendum esse ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctoruÌ„ merita referamus vt nihil n si quod malum est humanae ascribaemuâ— naturae that vve may not so attribute to God all the merits or good workes of holy men as that we ascribe to the nature of man nothing but that that is euill This caution
the grace of God he saith which Pelagius also would say but both teaching no other grace but what the heathens themselues confessed that m Arist de mundo Cic. de Nat. Deer Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatud uino vnquam suit Neminem nisi inuante Deo talem fuisse creuoÌ„ dum est neuer any man proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct so that Aristotle and Tully and such other acknowledging the same must now be taken for Preachers of the grace of God Wherein we may wonder at their impudencie that doubt not to affirme a thing so plainely absurd and so resolued against by S. Austin in his defences against the Pelagians concluding by imitation of the Apostles words that n Aug de nat grat cap. 2. Seâ—er uniturum iullâ—â—a sutilla fâ—dâ— assiâ—â—s Christi resurrectious instâ—tans cego Câ—â—ssâ—â— gratis â—â—â—â—us est if by the law of nature there be righteousnesse without the faith of the passion and resurrection of Christ then Christ died in vaine And againe that o Ibid. cap. 9. Fece quod est crutem Chr sti euâ—cuare sine illa quenquam per naturalem legem voluntatis arbitrium iustificari posse contendere to affirme that a man may be iustified by the law of nature and Free will is to make the crosse of Christ of no effect But by all this we see that their speech of grace for conuerting of man to God is but collusion and meere Pelagian hypocrisie as whereby indeed they attribute no greater a work to God in bringing man to righteousnesse then to the diuell in bringing man to sinne Which being condemned in the p Frosp de lib. arbit Ostendere volun inter boni mali contrarius suasiones ita omnem hâ—minem proprie discretiom esse commissum â—t câ—â—mplus a Deo praesidij quà m a Diabolo fis periculi Pelagians as a horrible impietie and blasphemie yet by Costerus the Iesuite in his Enchiridion is manifestly acknowledged to be their meaning q Coster Enchirid cap 5. Sicut daemon tentatione mentem nostram praua cogâ—tatione concupiscentiae motu tangit ac pulsat afficereque conatur voluntatem vtiâ— peccatum consentiat quae sua libertate motiones has omnes admittere potest reijcere tia sunt in nobis dâ—umi quidam insiuxus aliquddo quidem aliquando constantiores qui cor nostrum pulsant relicta interim voluntati sua libertate qua fieri potest vt vel susciptan tur vel repulsam patiantur that as the diuell by temptation and suggestion toucheth our minds and knocketh at the doore of the heart and seeketh to moue the will to consent to sinne which notwithstanding is at it owne libertie to admit or reiect the same so are the influences of Gods preuenting grace whether sudden or more constant which do beate and knocke at the hart but so as it is left in the libertie of the wil to accept or refuse euen in as plain termes as Pelagius said r August Epist 107. Consentire hominis libero arbitrio constitutum est c. Libertate naturali si vult facit si non vult non facit that to consent to God consisteth in mans Free wil and that by libertie of nature he doth so if he will This paines I haue taken to vnhood M. Bishop and his Councell of Trent and to make good that that I haue before affirmed that the Church of Rome now maintaineth the heresie of Pelagius which anciently was condemned by the Church of Rome That which he alledgeth out of Thomas Aquinas is of the same stampe neither can his antiquitie of three hundred yeares adde any grace to that which eight hundred yeares before him was vniuersally condemned by the whole Church Whether M. Perkins his reasons do destroy their assertion of Free will vpon determining the state of the question in the next section it shall appeare 6. W. BISHOP Now the verie point controuersed concerning Free will M. Perkins hath quite omitted which consisteth in these two points expressed in the Councell First whether we do freely assent vnto the said grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it And secondly when we concurre and worke with it whether we could if we listed refuse to worke with it In both which points we hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of which our Author is silent only by the way in his fourth reason toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul which are commonly alledged against Free will R. ABBOT This true point of the controuersie is contained in the proposition of the Pelagians that a Aug. ep 107. Vt Euangelio consentiamus non est donum Dei sed hoc nobis est à nobis id est expropria voluntate quam nobis in nostro corde non operatus est ipso to consent to the Gospell is not the gift of God but that this we haue of our selues that is to say of our owne will which he hath not wrought for vs in our hearts For thus you haue M. Bishop all this while affirmed that grace hauing performed and done what appertained to it for the conuersion of man there is behind a distinct and proper act of the will which either by consenting and yeelding maketh good or by dissenting and refusing maketh frustrate all that grace hath done This you all inculcate beate vpon that that when God hath wholy done his part it is in mans will either to make or marre and so do plainly teach with Pelagius that God doth helpe b Idem de grat Certisti to it Pelag. Celest lib. 1. cap. 25. possibilitatem naturae our naturall power that we may be able to consent and will but actually to consent and will is left still free to our owne will and choise And thus M. Bishop you your selfe informe vs when propounding the first part of the question Whether we do freely assent vnto grace when it is offered vs that is whether it lie in our power to refuse it you hold affirmatiuely that by Free will we assent vnto grace hauing it in our power and choise to refuse the same Whether this be so or not is the point and we resolue with S. Austin c Idem ibid. Non solùm Deus posse nostrum donauit atque adiuuat sid etiam velle operatioperatur in nobis that God doth not onely giue vs and helpe vs to be able to will and to worke but also worketh in vs to will and to worke he doth not so offer vs grace as to leaue vs to assent vnto it if we will but himselfe worketh also in vs to be willing and to giue our assent vnto it who d De praedest sanct cap. 20. Cum Deus vult aliquid fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibus oportet fieri incitnantur eorum cordae vt hoc vt
shepheards vpon the dounes sing these things Do not poets vpon the stages act them Do not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them Do not maisters in their schooles and Prelats in their pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the whole world confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not chuse but do Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest companie of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sence doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this strange light of the new Gospell R. ABBOT As touching ciuill and outward actions we doubt not as before is sayd but that God hath left a libertie and power to the will of man and therefore iustly are they punished who runne wilfully into enormous actions from which it is in them to forbeare And this addeth much to the iust condemnation of man that euen in those things wherein he hath power to do otherwise yet he carieth himselfe frowardly and rebelliously against God And yet of outward actions in some degree Hierome rightly obserueth a Hieron cont Pelag. li. 3. Dicimus posse hominem non peccare si ve lit pro tempore pro loco pro imbecillitate corporea quamdus intentus est animus c. Quòd si se paululum remiserit c. discit fragilitateÌ„ suam multa se non posse cognoscit that a man can forbeare to sinne if he will at a time or in some place or by some let of bodily weaknesse or so long as the mind is intent and heedie but he soone findeth that wholy not to sinne it is not possible To speake then indefinitely of sinne it is true that man left in the power of his owne Free will cannot chuse but sinne For how can he chuse but sinne who of himselfe is nothing but sinne Yea we know that the corruption of sinne lieth as a punishment vpon the whole nature of man and therefore is sayd to haue befallen b August de nat grat ca. 34. by the iust reuenge of God and is called c Idem de perfect iustit Rat. 9 Poenalis vitiositas a poenall vitiousnesse or subiection to sinne Now if it be as it were a prison or punishment it is not in our choise to be rid thereof because a man cannot rid himselfe of a prison or punishment which he hath drawne vpon himselfe And therefore doth Saint Austin affirme it to be d De nat grat cap. 67. ex lib. 3. de lib. arbit cap. 18. Approbare falsa pro veris vt erret inuitus resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculà non posse à libidinosis operibus teÌ„perare non est natura instituti hominis sed poenâ— damnati the punishment of man by condemnation to approue falshood for truth so as to erre against his will and being vexed with the griefe of the bond of the flesh yet not to be able to temper himselfe from libidinous actions Thus haue we heard him before to auouch e Sect. 3. a necessitie of sinning and this necessitie he acknowledgeth in some part to continue still in the state of grace f De nat grat cap. 66. alledging thereof the words of the Prophet Dauid g Psal 24.18 De necessitatibus meis educ me deliuer me from all my necessities And therefore vainely doth M. Bishop except that by the helpe of God a sinner may call for grace and repent him and chuse whether he will sinne or no. For in men conuerted it is true that they cannot chuse but sinne in repentant men it is still true that they cannot chuse but sinne For the forbearing of this or that action doth not put a man in case to chuse to sinne but though he arise one way yet the law of sinne holdeth him still vnder a necessitie to fall another way vntill h August de nat grat cap. 66. Opitulante gratia c. mala necessitas remouebitur libertas plena tribuetur this euill necessitie be taken away and full libertie granted which shall i Idem in Ioan. tract 41 Quando plena atque perfecta libertas trit Quando nullae inimicitiae quaÌ„do nouissimae inimica destructur mors then be when we shall see him face to face Or if M. Bishop will say otherwise let him bring vs foorth the man that can chuse to sinne the man that can do more then euer Patriarch or Prophet or Apostle or Euangelist could do For if they could chuse to sinne why did they sinne or if they did not sinne why did they say Forgiue vs our trespasses If he will needs follow the Pelagian deuice that k Hieron epist ad Cresiph Licet alius non fuerit tamen potest esse qui esse voluerit though no man be indeed without sinne yet a man may be so if he will I will answer him with Hieromes words l Ibid. Quae est argumentatio ista posse esse quod nunquam fuerit c. dare cui libet quod in Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis nequâ—as approbare What a reason is this that that may be that neuer was and that he should yeeld that to I know not whom which in the Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles he cannot proue Repentance therefore and conuersion so altereth the course of a mans life in the maine as that euen in the way of righteousnesse it still leaueth in him a necessitie of sinne Neither doth this conuersion stand indifferent to all as he dreameth nor doth God affoord to all sinners grace sufficient to bring them to repentance He noteth for his purpose the place of Peter that God would not haue any to perish c. but let him take the whole words and they will cleere themselues m 2. Pet. 3 9. He is patient TOVVARDS VS not willing that any namely of vs should perish but that all of vs should come to repentance He speaketh of Gods elect of them whom he hath chosen to make vp the body of his Church of whom our Sauior Christ saith n Iohn 6.39 This is the will of the Father that hath sent me that of all that he hath giuen me I should loose nothing but should raise it vp at the last day Of these he will haue none to perish but doth patiently beare till he haue accomplished the nuÌ„ber that he hath decreed for himselfe So did God say by the Prophet o Ezech. 33.11 As I liue saith the Lord I desire not the death of a sinner but rather that he be conuerted liue but he said it
c. not onely the delight but also the consent and act that he admitteth in his sleepe calling those lasciuious motions a sicknesse of the soule saying that the soule therein committeth a filthinesse of corruption and lamenting that in this kind of euill he continued vnperfect still Whereby it appeareth that whatsoeuer M. Bishop deeme of these dreaming fancies consents yet that they are indeed a sinfull corruption and vncleannesse of the soule such as God abhorreth albeit to the faithfull he imputeth them not And this haply God would haue to be considered in that that by the law he was vncleane from whom by such fancies n Leuit. 15.16 the seed of generation had issued by night the outward vncleannesse seruing to aduertise of that that is within And to the clearing of this whole point that sin may be where the will consenteth not we may very probably make application of sundry other pollutions that are noted in the law of Moses arising of those things which were either natural or casual without any procurement therof by the will Which Gregory plainly approueth when speaking of the womans monethly disease for which by the law she was vncleane he saith thereof that o Gregor apud Bedam hist eccles gent. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 27. Resp 10. Menstrua consuetudo mulieribus non aliqua culpa est videlicet quia naturaliter accidit sed tamen quia natura ipsa ita vitiata est vt etiam sine voluntatis studio videature esse polluta ex culpa venit vitrum in quo seipsa qualis per iudicium facta sit humana natura cognoscat vt homo qui culpam sponte perpetrauit reatum culpae portet inuitus it is no sin because it commeth naturally but yet because nature it selfe is so corrupted as that without any furtherance of the will it is seene to be polluted of sinne came that infirmity wherein the nature of man may take knowledge in what case it is become by the iudgement of God whilest man that sinned by his will doth now beare the guilt of sin by that that he is against his will euen by p Jbid. Resp 11. in fix◠Captiuus ex delectatione quam pertat inuitus the delight of concupiscence which he beareth in him against his will as he expresseth it afterward Let M. Bishop therefore learne that there is a pollution and vncleannesse which is not voluntary to him that is thereby vncleane but lieth as a punishment vpon the nature of man for that sinne that voluntarily was committed in the beginning by man Which serueth him for answer to those two places of Austine which he alledgeth two as he citeth them but indeed but one and that in the booke and chapter which he quoteth last for in the other place Austine hath no such words He saith indeed that q August de vera relig cap. 14 suprae sect 2. sinne is so voluntary an euill as that in no wise it is sinne if it be not voluntary and this is so manifest as that neither the small number of the learned nor the multitude of the vnlearned do dissent therefrom But as he saith so so he himselfe telleth vs in what meaning he saith it which M. Bishops learning should not haue bene ignorant of r Retract lib. 1. cap 13. It must be vnderstood of that sinne saith he which is onely sinne not which is also the punishment of sinne that is to say of Actuall not of Originall sinne But it is Originall sinne whereof we here dispute and therefore by S. Austines owne interpretation those words make nothing against vs albeit Originall sinne also was voluntary by the will of the first man as before was said Now therefore the vnlearned learned men of whom he speaketh are learned enough to see that he wanted not onely learning but discretion also thus to vrge against vs a saying of Austine against the Manichees which the same Austine to salue it against the Pelagians hath expounded in our behalfe directly against him 12. W. BISHOP The third reason for the Catholike is this Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth but in baptisme the forme of Originall sinne is taken away ergo M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltinesse of it which we hold to be neither the forme 1. 2. q. art 3. nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it See S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of originall iustice is the forme of Originall sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate bring by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of Originall sinne which consisteth in deordination of it is taken quite away by baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe which cannot be without his proper forme as the argument doth conuince R. ABBOT Of the first proposition of the argument there is no question because the essentiall forme giueth to euery thing to be that that it is The question then is wherin consisteth the forme of sinne what it is that giueth to it properly the nature name of sin M. Bishop saith that M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme yet he assigneth in their behalfe the same forme that S. Austine doth and inasmuch as they make S. Austine the ground of their opinion there is great reason that they should vnderstand sinne in the same manner as S. Austine doth But herein appeareth their singular falshood they shew plainly that they alledge him but onely for a colour knowing that if they take sinne in the same meaning as he doth their opinion cannot stand Why do they bring vs Austin to proue for thē that concupiscence is no sinne when in one meaning it is that he denieth it and they deny it in another S. Austine as before I haue shewed placeth the nature of sinne in the effect of it which is to make a man guilty When it doth not so he vnderstandeth it not to be sinne opposing sinne not to righteousnesse as we vnderstand it in this question but to remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes He saith that a August de nupt et concup lib. 1. ca. 26. supra sect 9. to be guilty of sinne is to haue sinne not to be guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne b Cont. Iulian. lib 6 ca. 5. supra sect 9. The baptized is without all sinne but not without all euill that is saith he he is without the guilt of all
priorum debito vniuersos posteros obligante the debt or trespasse of our first parents did binde all their posteritie after them Adam then bare the person of all mankinde either standing to stand for all or falling to fall for all being to beget children according to his owne image either wherein he should continue if he did continue or whereto he should fall if he did fall Therefore h Ibid. vt supra when he sinned we all being in his loines as Bellarmine saith sinned in him and by him and his sin by imputation lieth vpon vs all But saith M. Bishop euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his own personal iniquity sticking in him which is commonly called Originall sinne In which words he somewhat toucheth the reputation of his scholership in that he hath not learned to put difference betwixt personall and Originall sinne which writers commonly distinguish one from another For personall sinne is that which groweth from the person whose sinne it is and is taken to be that which we call actuall sinne but originall sinne is that which being actuall and personall to the first man is deriued by propagation and thereby becommeth naturall to all the rest Thus Cyprian mentioneth them as diuers when speaking of the Patriarches and Prophets and other iust and holy men he saith i Cyprian de ieiunio tentat Christi Nec originals nec personali caruere delicto they neither wanted originall nor personall sinne So Bellarmine M. Bishops good Maister seuereth them in saying that k Bellarm. vt supra Originale peccatum noÌ„ minus verè propriè peccatuÌ„ est quà m personale In Adamo actuale personale in nobis originale dicitur Originall sinne is no lesse truly and properly sinne then personall and that Adams sinne in him is called actuall and personall but in vs originall It is wonder that so great a man as M. Bishop should be ignorant in this point But now what will he make of this originall sinne Marry saith he we receiue the nature of man polluted with that infection really and not by imputation Indeede we receiue the nature of man polluted with infection but doth your learning serue you no better but to make infection the whole matter of originall sinne You should know that originall sinne conteineth l Bellarm. de Amiss grat statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 10. reatum maculam first a guilt of actuall transgression and consequently a blot of infection For of this infection or pollution of nature S. Austine in infinite places doth rightly obserue that it is m August Retract li. â— ca. 15. Peccatum tale vt idem sit paena peccati so a sinne as that it is also a punishment of sinne Now a punishment presupposeth a guilt of that sinne whereof it is a punishment For n Idem cont Iulian lib. 2. Non erat iustum sine crimine transire supplicium it is no iustice as Austine saith that the punishment should passe without the sinne Seeing therefore the punishment of the sinne of Adam is lying vpon vs it must necessarily follow that there is lying vpon vs an imputation of the sinne And so the same S. Austine saith that o Idem Retract li. 1. cap. 15. Dicimus eos reatu eius implicatos ob hoc poenae â—bnoxiâ—â— denneri we are holden enwrapped in the guilt therof and thereby are holden subiect to the punishment M. Bishop theÌ„ we hope wil learn henceforth to see that it ariseth of imputation that we receiue the nature of man polluted really with infection But by this meanes he is now become in a pitifull case hauing no way left to auoid the argument but that it standeth firme and sure that as from Adam we are first sinners by imputation and consequently sinfull by corruption so from Christ we are first iustified by imputation consequently renewed to inherent iustice by sanctification In moment of time both these concurre together but in order of nature there is first righteousnesse by imputation and thereby is way made to inward regeneration At this argument they are all faine to hoodwinke themselues because they cannot truly describe the state of originall sinne according to their owne grounds but they giue it way ineuitably to proceede against them They will haue it as M. Bishop here telleth vs out of p Bellarm de grat lib. arb li. 1. ca. 4. Bellarmine that the Apostles meaning is that we are made sinners by inherent corruption But we tell them and they can by no meanes auoid it that the condition of being sinners by inherent corruption because it is a punishment of sinne must presuppose vs to be formerly sinners otherwise and that is onely by imputation As therefore we are first sinners by imputation from Adam so are we first iustified by imputation from Christ regeneration to inherent righteousnesse following of the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ euen as inherent corruption followeth of the imputation of Adams sinne as before was said And hereof S. Bernard speaketh most notably q Bernard epist 190. Cur no aliundè iustitiae cùm aliuna è reatus Alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui iustificat a peccato alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non iustitia in Christi sanguine sed iustitia inquiet si cuius est quid ad te Esto sed sit etiam culpa cuius est quid ad me An iustâ—tia iusti super eum erit impietas impij no erit super euÌ„ Non conueniâ— filium portare iniquitatem patris fraterna fieri exortem iustitiae Why should not righteousnesse be of another seeing guilt is of another It is another that maketh me a sinner it is another that iustifieth from sinne the one in his seede the other in his bloud Is there sinne in the seede of a sinner and is there not righteousnesse in the bloud of Christ But thou wilt say If there be a righteousnesse of any ones what is that to thee Be it so but then let the fault also be whose it is what is that to me shall the righteousnesse of the righteous be vpon himselfe and shall not the wickednesse of the wicked be vpon himselfe It is not meete that the sonne should beare the iniquitie of the Father and be denied to be partaker of the righteousnesse of his brother In which words we see that most clearely he affirmeth both the imputation of Adams sinne to condemnation and the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ accordingly to iustification I will conclude this point with the words of Chrysostome r Chrysost in Rom. hom 10. Si tibi Iudaeus dixerit Quo pacto vno rectè agente Christo vniuersuâ— orbis saluus factuâ— est possit illi respondere Quo pacto vno non obediente Adam vniuersus orbis condemnatus est If a Iew shall say
one of vs. Where my portion raigneth I beleeue that I also raigne where my bloud ruleth I beleeue that I also haue dominion where my flesh is glorified I know that I also am glorious Albeit I be a sinner yet I doubt not of this fellowship of grace Albeit my sinnes hold backe yet my substance namely being now of his flesh and his bones requireth it Albeit mine owne defaults doe exclude me yet fellowship of nature putteth mee not away I might despaire because of my exceeding great sinnes and corruptions my defaults and infinite negligences which I haue committed and dayly without ceasing doe commit in thought and word and worke and euery way that humane frailtie can sinne but that thy Word O my God became flesh and dwelt amongst vs. But now I dare not despaire because he being obedient vnto thee vnto death euen the death of the crosse hath taken away the hand-writing of our sinnes and fastening it to the crosse hath crucified sinne and death Now securely I take breath and heart againe in him who sitteth at thy right hand and maketh intercession for vs. By these words and many other that might be alledged out of that booke the Reader may iudge of the construction that M. Bishop maketh of the words cited by M. Perkins We see nothing here but confession of sinnes in himselfe no other hope but onely forgiuenes of sins in Christ Surely these are not the speeches of a man dreaming of an ablenesse giuen vnto him to deserue eternall life No no it was neuer heard of in the world that the meaning of these words My hope is wholly in the death and merite of Christ should be that we hope to be able by Christ to merite and deserue saluation vntill these brazen faced hypocrites were hired and set to worke by Antichrist for the confusion of soules by making them to leane vpon the broken staffe of their owne merites in steed of the onely sauing merite of the bloud of Christ The faithful haue alwayes in their end betaken themselues to this hold and many returning vnto God euen at the last gaspe hauing nothing in themselues to comfort themselues haue securely reposed their hope in the merit and death of Christ and with ioy and comfort haue gone to God who if they had vnderstood hope in Christ according to M. Bishops exposition thereof of being to be made able by Christ to merite heauen would haue bene rent and torne in peeces with perplexitie and feare neither could haue conceiued any comfort thereof at all But let him alone he shall one day vnderstand the vntruth of his answer when he shall be glad to make vse of those words which we haue spoken of or the like without that good sence as hee calleth it which now his senslesse and dead heart imagineth of them The place of Basil is as cleare as the light yet he laboureth to cast a mist before it also but cannot so doe it but that hee is forced in part to acknowledge the truth on our behalfe k Basil in Psal 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is layd vp eternall rest saith he for them that striue lawfully in this life not to be rendered according to debt for workes but prouided according to the grace of the bountifull God for them that trust in him Where apparently Basill alludeth to the words of the Apostle l Rom. 44. To him that worketh that is to him that hath the righteousnes of workes the reward is not imputed * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by fauour but by debt and therefore the phrases being borowed from the Apostle must with him haue the same meaning as with the Apostle they haue His meaning then is plaine that that eternall rest is not rendered by way of debt but by way of fauour and grace and neuer hath any ecclesiasticall writer vnderstood those phrases otherwise Onely M. Bishop telleth vs that Basils meaning is that it is not rendered according to the debt of workes that is according to the iust rate of workes but in a fuller measure and aboue our merites But his masters of Rhemes reiect this commentary of his and doe tell him that our workes are m Rhem. Testam Annot. 2. Tim. 4. fully worthy of euerlasting life God then doth not exceed the rate of our workes as they say but giueth onely what we are fully worthy of what we fully and iustly merite and deserue thereby Yea and they saw well that to teach otherwise as M. Bishop doth is to ouerthrow merite For if God do giue vs aboue our merits then we do not merite that which God giueth or if we do merite it then it cannot be sayd to be aboue our merites But it is aboue our merites sayth M. Bishop therefore it followeth necessarily that we doe not merite or deserue it Yea wee haue seene before out of Fulgentius and Bernard that Gods reward doth so incomparably exceede all the merite and worke of man as that eternall life is not due thereunto by right neither should God doe any wrong if hee did not giue it and therefore the sentence of Basill is true according to the Apostles intendment of those termes which he vseth that eternall life is not rendered by way of debt for workes but by grace that is freely bestowed to them that trust in him M. Bishop telleth vs that hee maketh eternall life to be the prize of the combat but what of that seeing hee giueth vs to vnderstand that this prize is with fauour and mercie proposed and with the same mercie and fauour rendered to them that fight the combat Therefore hee sayth in another place n Basil de humilit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is nothing left thee O man to glorie of whose glorying and hope consisteth in this that thou mortifie all that is thine and seeke in Christ the life to come whereof hauing the first fruites we are now therein liuing wholly by the grace and gift of God There is then with Basil no merit no debt in any sort because we liue wholy by the grace and gift of God so that M. Bishops exposition is but a meere falsification of Basils words M. Perkins further alledgeth a saying of Austin He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits M. Bishop answereth that S. Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his pen. He questioneth the matter What congruitie is it to say thus He directeth a better forme of speech It had bene better sayd thus Now if the sentence be S. Austins what will men but take M. Bishop for a foole that wold so vnaduisedly befoole S. Austin and take vpon him to correct his words when he had no cause The place indeed is misquoted either by M. Perkins mistaking or by the ouersight of the Printer for in steed of Psal 102. he hath quoted Psal 120. by misplacing of the figure a very small and easie ouersight But S.
the gifts of toongs of healing of knowledge of wisedome of vtterance and such like Of this sort is the gift of continencie which because it is not necessary for saluation we can no more presume to obtaine by fasting and prayer then we can any of those other or health wealth preferment or any such outward and temporall benefite We may assay and vse the means to see what God wil do but we haue no promise whereupon we may certainly resolue our selues for successe therein As therefore to vow the vse of those other gifts when a man hath them not onely vpon presumption by prayer and fasting to obtain them is the part of a brainsicke and distempered man euen so is it for a man to vow continencie not hauing receiued but presuming afterwards by fasting and prayer to obtaine the gift whereby he should containe But where M. Perkins answereth that the gift of continencie cannot be presumed of by prayer and fasting because it is not necessary to saluation M. Bishop replieth that it is necessary for all them that haue vowed chastitie And why so For otherwise they can not keepe their vowes but to the dishonour of God and their owne damnation should breake them Where we see that M. Perkins vnderstandeth necessary in one respect and M. Bishop in another Master Perkins intendeth that prayer and fasting do not certainly obtaine any thing but what in it selfe and simply is necessary to saluation M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that it obtaineth certainly whatsoeuer is necessary in respect of a vow for the performance thereof But because that which M. Perkins saith is true therefore that which M. Bishop saith is false neither may we imagine by prayer fasting to subiect the gifts of God to the madnesse of our vowes What because a man voweth to be a prophet or to speake strange toongs shall it therefore be necessary for his saluation that God bestow vpon him the gift of prophecy or the gift of toongs because otherwise he shall breake his vow If we will thinke this absurd we must say in the vow of continencie as we wil in this that the gift of continencie is not necessary to saluation but it is necessary for a man to repent him of his rash and headlong vow to aske God mercie for abusing his sacred name in so vnlawfull sort and to vse the meanes ordained by God for auoiding the mischieues of that vow wherein he findeth not himself seconded and confirmed by the gift of God Because I say the gift of continencie is not in it selfe necessary to saluation therfore God doth not alwayes yeeld it to the prayers of men howsoeuer they haue vowed it but leaueth them to the repentance of their errour and to the remedy which he hath appointed for them and they who hauing vowed against mariage and not hauing the gift of continency do perseuere therin they do no other but rebell against God and not further their saluation by keeping their vow as they call it but increase their owne damnation by the pollution and vncleannesse of filthy lust Whereas he faith that they only teach that such as haue vowed chastitie can keepe it I answer him as Austin did to Iulian the Pelagian that where m August cont Julian lib. 5. ca. 10. Non omnes capiunt c. cū posses dicere Nō omnes capiunt verbum hoc sed qui voluerit si verū esset quod dicitu vos Christ saith All receiue not this saying but they to whom it is giuen he might haue said All receiue not this saying but they that will if it be true which they say For if they that haue vowed chastity can consequently keep it then whosoeuer wil vow it is presently thereby put in state for the keeping of it and that is whosoeuer will because whosoeuer will may vow Which because it is apparently absurd therefore our argument is strong enough to satisfie a wise man against so vaine and childish answers 12. W. BISHOP But to the further confirmation of this point let vs heare what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibilitie of this vow Tertullian neare the end expounding these words * Lib. de monog He that can take let him take * Mat. 19. Chuse saith he that which is good if thou say thou canst not it is because thou wilt not for that thou mightest if thou wouldest hee doth declare who hath left both to thy choise Origen vpon the same place * Mat. 19. He that will take this word that is set downe of chastitie let him pray for it beleeuing him that sayd Aske and it shall be giuen you and he shall receiue it which doth plainly confute M. Perkins who saith that although we aske neuer so much we cannot obtaine this gift With Origen agreeth Saint Ierome vpon the same place who saith It is giuen vnto them who haue requested it who haue desired it and trauelled that they might receiue it The same song chaunteth Gregory Nazianzene which is of three kinds of Eunuchs * Orat. 31. Saint Chrysostome saith It is possible to all them who make choise of it and further addeth that our Sauiour Christ himselfe doth proue it there after this sort Thinke with thy selfe if thou hadst bene by nature an Eunuch or by the malice of men made one what wouldest thou then haue done when thou shouldest both haue bene depriued of that pleasure and yet not haue had any recompence for thy paine Therefore thanke God because thou shalt haue a great reward and a glittering crowne if thou liue so as they must do without any reward yet saith he thou mayst do it more easily safely and pleasantly both because thou art fortified with hope of recompence and also comforted with a vertuous conscience We will wrap vp this point with Saint Augustine who directly confuteth Master Perkins by many reasons and examples Lib. 2. De adulterinis coning cap. 12. Et de bono viduit cap. 20. And vpon the Psalme an hundreth thirtie seuen hee yeeldeth another reason why God will more really assist them saying He that exhorteth thee to vow will helpe thee to fulfill it All which heauenly doctrine because it is spiritually iudged as the Apostle speaketh the carnall man cannot vnderstand and therefore Master Perkins being perswaded that few can liue chastly except they marrie auoucheth that this Vow doth bring forth innumerable abhominations in the world not the hundreth part so many as the fleshly heretickes imagine and out of flying and lying tales report and bruite abroade Nay I dare affirme that let the authenticall Records of our Realme be well perused and you shall find more lewd filthie lecherie to haue bene practised by Ministers and their wiues this last age then was in a thousand yeares before by all the Catholike Priests and religious persons of the Land This may serue for a reproofe of all that M. Perkins obiecteth against the Vow of chastitie afterward the man