Answer to Assertions of Fecknam, Body of L.T.s answer · Part 1
1 That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements.
BEfore I come to your proues & allegations, I must say a word or two of your coloured art and goodly shew you make in your first proposition. It is the fashion of Rhetoricians (as you know) especially when their cause is not all of the best, & therfore misdoute the euent of their action, so to behaue them selues in their Exordium, that they may at the least purchase thus much, yt they may be heard, some by one meanes, some by an other, the worst is not by procuring an euill suspicion too his aduerse partie. So is your dealing in this present case, to be better heard peraduenture or to make your cause séeme to bée better, you geue forth that in M. Goughes doctrine of the impossibilitie of kéeping Gods commaundementes, he followeth the race of the Maniches and the Valentinians. A gréeuous accusation yf it were true and worthy to cause his doctrine to bee reiected, yf all that you speake were a Gospell. But peraduenture you thought you hadde the sexton of Paules in hand, when you presented this your writing to the worships of these in déede worshipfull & godly gentlemen. The matter is thus, not many yeres since, a good companion minding to recreate him selfe with the sexton, charged him selfe with a baskette heauy laden as he made the matter appeare, directing his way through Paules Churche, because it was the shorter: where he was mette of his mate: and demaunded why in that solemne time he passed thorough that place so charged, a thing not to bée endured, the circumstaunces beyng considered. This companion desired him to lette him passe, for that hée was heauye laden with certayne plate, and therefore the gladder too take the shorter way. The sexton woulde not bée persuaded, but alleadging the Quéenes profite, caused him to sette downe his baskette, and sente immediatlye for suche as too whome it appertayned to hauehave the view of such matters: who thinking to hauehave found some▪ greate matter, as they had bin enformed by the sexton, willed the basket to be opened, and what found they? for a cupbourde of plate a basket of hornes. Thus had he his iest at the sexton: but you M. Fecknam, thankes be vntounto God, hauehave not to do with a sexton: they doo well see your horny plate: but bycause you your selfe deceyued your selfe, thinking it to be plate, they hauehave vsed this charitable way, that it may be shewed vntounto you, that they are in deede but hornes. And therefore this horne will nothing moue them as I trust,Aug. Ep. 95 vntill you bée able to shewe that the denying of frée will, to the establishing of the grace of God, wherby wée are iustified from sinne, and saued from infirmitie, is the doctrine of Maniche or Valentinian. Epiph. con. haeret. lib. j To. 2. cap. 31.This I remember Valentinian and his say, that to vsus, qui ab Ecclesia sumus, opera necessaria esse, aliter enim impossibile est seruari, which are of the Churche woorkes bée necessarie, for otherwise it is impossible to bée saued, and that teach you: s…ipsos verò non per opera, sed propterea quòd ex natura spirituales sunt, penitus & omnino saluari docēt, but they teach that they them selues are wholy & altogither saued, not by workes, but bycause of nature they bee spirituall: and this teacheth not M. Gough. Therfore that glose might well hauehave bin lefte out, yf you hadde more thought vponupon the truth of the matter, how well you might hauehave alleaged it, than onelyonly for a cloke of your self barely to alleage it. For to proue M. Gough a Manichean, or any of his fellowes in his heresies, it will bée hard for you, and as impossible as to fulfill the law: but to prooue you a Pelagian, it is easie enough, and as easie as in Christ Iesus for M. Gough and vsus to kepe the lawe. But to prooue you suche a one is not my chéef purpose: my mind is rather to conuince your heresie, and bring you to the flocke of Christ, yf it so please God too giuegive you the eyes of vnderstanding, and a hart to repent. Therfore to doo the dutie of good Christiās, let vsus yeld our selues vntounto God to be gouerned by his spirit, & submit our selues in hūblenes to his word, & without al vayne opinion of wel or euil defending a question, arrest our selues vponupon his Prophetes & Apostles, which hauehave and doo shew vsus the way to walke in, and minister vntounto vsus the true light, whereby wée may chase a way al these darknesses. This waye if wee take, no doubt he will shew vsus the truthe: if we reiecte it, why should he not farther punish vsus with blindnesse?
So then to come to your first position, That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements, I wil aunswere youre places of the scripture alleadged and your Doctors, and there withall shewe oute of them both the contrarie, that it is impossible, and so shall I shew I trust, that in that article M. Goughe hath taught no vngodly point of doctrine, and so will I do consequently with the residue. And that it may be more plainly and euidently done, that there may be no occasion of doubte in any braunche of my doctrine, I wil first shewe howe they are impossible, and by what meanes: and after, howe they are possible, and howe they may be fulfilled. This done, I shall sufficiently aunswere youre places alleadged, and if GOD so will, take awaye this vayle from before youre eyes, which is a let vntounto you that you can not sée.
Touching the firste, S. Paule dilating and amplifying his probation of the free iustification which we hauehave thorough the tender merciemercy of GOD in Christe Iesus, sayeth in this wyse: foreign. &c. Rom. 8. ver. 3.For that that was impossible to the Lawe in as much as it was weake bicause of the fleshe, God sending his sonne in the similitude of sinfull fleshe and for sinne, condemned sinne in the fleshe. The wordes are but fewe, and therefore easie to be remembred, nay therefore better to be considered: God sent his owne sonne: Why? To condemne sinne in the fleshe: Why so? Bicause it was impossible to the lawe: wherefore? in as much as it was weake bicause of the flesh. Why then we may conclude,Act. 15. vers. 10. that the Lawe is a burden, and so gréeuous a burden, that neither wée nor oure Fathers were able to beare, and that bycause of oure weakenesse. Hereof it is that he sayth in an other place, foreign. &c. For if there had bin a law giuē which could hauehave giuen lyfe, surely rightuousnesse should hauehave bin by the Lawe. It is the woorke of grace to saue and quicken, the receyuers whereof, althoughe they were extréeme enemies to the wholesome doctrine of the holy scriptures they become fréends. It is not the worke of the doctrine, which whosoeuer heare and reade without the grace of GOD, they are made worse enemies. Therefore the grace of God is not in the nature of free will and in the lawe and doctrine as the peruerse Pelagian dothe deceyptfully beleeue and teache: but at eueryevery moment it is giuen by his good wil and pleasure,Psal. 68. vers. 9. of whom it is sayd: Thou o God sendest a gracious rayne vponupon thyne inheritaunce. For we lost both frée wil to louelove god by the greatnesse of our first sinne:Rom. 7. ver. 12. and the lawe also and the doctrine thereof, although it be holy and good and iust, yet it killeth if the Spirite do not quicken, by which spirite it commeth to passe that not by hearing, but by obeying, neither by reading, but by louing, it is obserued. For the Lawe without grace, is but a letter, it remaineth to conuince sin, but not to gyue saluation. So sayth the Apostle. For yf there had bin a lawe gyuen,Gal. 3. vers. 21.22. whiche could hauehave giuen lyfe, surely rightuousnes shuld hauehave bin by the lawe. But the Scripture hath concluded all vnderunder sinne, that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ should be giuen to them that beléeue. Of this letter he sayeth in an other place: The letter killeth,2. Cor. 3▪ vers. 6. but the spirite quickeneth. Thou hast the letter but thou dost not fulfill the letter. And why dost thou not fulfil the letter? Bycause thou presumest of thy selfe, thou extollest thy workes, thou knowest not that the grace of the helper is necessarie, that the precept of the cōmaunder may be fulfilled. Behold, God hath cōmaunded thée, do that which be commaundeth: thou beginnest to do, as of thyne own strength, and thou fallest, and so remayneth the punishing and not the sauing letter. Let vsus a little more neare consider this question, what these woords importe, and what they meane,2. Cor. 3. vers. 6. It is not impossible to fulfil the law: The Law and the Spirit are set as opposite, as killing and quickening, as Moses & Christ, therfore in playne woordes the question is this:…h. 1, vers. 17 Whether it bée possible, without Christ: by the works only of the Lawe whiche we can perfectly and absolutely performe in suche order and manner as GOD hath commaunded, to be saued? And your position is, that wée can if wée list perfectlye as he commaundeth in all poinctes fulfill his Lawe, and so purchase lyfe vntounto oure selues, without the quickening spirit, without the grace of God. For if you saye not this, you saye nothing, as you shall hereafter more plainely vnderstand. A preuenting grace and helping you graunt (whereof I will not defraude you) and after permitted to your owne willes you can do what you liste, and kéepe the commaundements, and purchase heauen, & as it foloweth, caste Christ away: Now then let vsus ioyne togither: I say that thou O Man what soeuer thou arte, so setting Christe his death and passion a syde, of whose fulnesse we hauehave all receyued,Joh. 1. vers. 16.17. and setting asyde grace and truthe whiche commeth by Iesus Christ, I say that thou cāst not by any possibilitie, if thou shouldst lyue seuen hundreth yeares, fulfil the law of GOD, and so be saued. For if there had bin a Lawe giuen, whiche could hauehave quickened, iustice had bin by the Lawe, neither should a Sauiour bin sought for, nor Christ hauehave come, nor with his bloud hauehave sought his lost shéepe, as the Apostle sayeth in an other place. For if rightuousnesse be by the Lawe, then is Christ dead in vayne. Let vsus consider what is the best of vsus, Salomon sayd at the dedicatiō of his Temple:2. Reg. 8. vers. 46. Psal. 143. vers. 2. There is no man on the earth which sinneth not. Dauid sayeth, no man liuing shall be iustified before God. Saint Paule plainly affirmeth this, The fleshe coueteth ageinst the spirite,Galat. 5.17. Galat. 3.10. Deut. 27.26 and the spirite ageinst the flesh: and vseth no other reason to proue that all whiche are vnderunder the lawe are cursed, but this: Bicause it is written, Cursed be they that confirme or fulfill not al these words of this law to do them. And such were mē not in their time only, but such is oure nature at this day: ther is no time nor seasō, no houre or momēt, in which we ought not to say, forgiue vsus our trespasses, & where forgiuenesse is requisit, ther is no perfectiō, ther is no law fulfilled, there is no saluatiō wrought: neither is it thus to be thought yt these & such like sentēces are spokē of men not regenerate & assisted with ye grace of god: for Paul speaking of himselfe & of the contention & strife yt he felt, sayd: Noui non habitare in me, id est, Rom. 7.18. Beda.in carne mea, bonū: nā velle adest mihi, sed vt quod bonū est perficiā, nō assequor. Non enim facio bonum quod volo, sed malum quod nolo, hoc ago. For I know that in mée, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with mée, but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good. Here you may sée that the Apostle himself was fraile in body, & that he had as yet no rightuousnesse & perfection. That you may know that ye Apostle himself which would saue others, is yet in way of curing, that ye may know that he is yet a curing, if you esteme his honor, marke what emplaister ye medicine hath layd to the swelling. Heare not me, heare himselfe confessing, that you may perceyue him teaching. Nowe may I say to the Apostle Paule: Be not proude thou holy Apostle: thou must take héede yt thou be not proud. What sayst thou to me saieth he. Heare thou also. Heare what I am, & be not high minded, but feare: heare how the little Lambe may goe in, where the Ramme is in such daunger.2. Cor. 12.7 Ne excellentia reuelationum supra modum efferrer, datus est mihi surculus infixus carni. &c. Leste I should be exalted, sayeth hée, oute of measure thoroughe the aboundance of Reuelations, there was giuen vntounto mée a pricke in the fleshe, the messenger of Sathan to buffit me, bycause I should not be exalted out of measure. Let vsus then by this example consider that we are men, let vsus acknowledge that the holy Apostles were men, chosen vesselles, but yet frayl, as yet pilgrimes in this fleshe. No doubte but Paule and Dauid, and the residue of the most saincts that euer were, thought this eyther the chéefest or the only perfection, if they knewe them selues to be vnperfecte. And you, sayth he, when you hauehave done al, say we are vnprofitable seruants,Hiero. To. 1. ad …hesiph. cont Pelag. we hauehave done but what we ought to doe. If hée bée vnprofitable whiche hath done all things, what shal wée saye of him which could not fulfill. Therefore the Apostle sayd that he had partly receyued and partly comprehē ded, and yet was not perfecte, and that hée forgate things past, and auanced him selfe to things to come. Hée that alwayes forgetteth things past and desireth things to come, declareth him self not content with things present. But can you shewe mée any other that was better in this case, than the Apostle? You say the commaundements, of GOD are easie, and yet you can shew none that hath fulfilled them al. Aunswere me are they easy or harde? If they be easie, shew me who hath fulfilled them, and why Dauid saith in his Psalme &c. You know where I am. I cut it of because I would be short, and yet must I say something: It followeth, But if they bée hard, why darest thou say that the cōmaū dements are easie, which no man hath fulfilled? Marke this by the way, whiche no man hath fulfilled. And if you think it peraduēture faultie to reason Ab esse ad posse negatiuely, although I might wel answer you that in attributo specifico it is no fault, although it be in indiuiduali: yet hauehave I rather to giuegive you the aunswere of him which may preuayle more with you than myne, and God graunt it may do so. Dicitis his verbis. &c. You say in this sorte: It is an other thing to bée, and an other to may bée, or be possible to bée. To be consisteth not in our power, but to bée able to bée is spoken vniuersally. That although one be not, yet he may bée that will bée. I pray you, what kind of reasoning is this, ye thing may be which neuer was? that that may be done, which you witnesse that no man hath done? to attribute that vntounto any man, who whither he shall be or no, you know not, & giuegive I can not tell to whom, that which you cā not proue to hauehave bin in the Patriarches & Prophetes & Apostles. Do not you perceyue that your assertions are contrarie within themselues? Either they are easie & a great nūber of men hauehave fulfilled them, or they are harde and you hauehave rashly sayd, that to be easie which is harde. You are wont to say this also: eyther the cōmaundements are possible and wel giuen of God, aut impossibilia & in his non esse culpam? or vnpossible, and no fault in thē which hauehave receiued the cōmaundemēts, but in him yt gaue those which were impossible. Nunquid Deus. &c. Hath god commaunded me to be that which God is, that there should be no difference betwixt men and the Lorde the Creatoure? that I should be higher than the Angels? That I should hauehave that which the Angelles hauehave not? Of him it is written as a propertie, whiche did not sinne, and there was no guyle found in his mouth. If this bée cōmō to mée with Christe, what had he proper? Otherwise your sētēce is destroyd of itself. If you think not this whole tretise which I hauehave alleaged, rightly cited against you, shew me wherin you differ. You say that the commaundementes are possible to be kept, you can shew none that hathe kept them either of the Patriarkes or of the Prophets, or Apostles. You say moreouer, that if God hath commaunded things vnpossible, the fault is in him and not in vsus. Seing then yt you accord in al these points with them, you must either shew some farther reason, why S. Hierome may not be deriued against you, or else giuegive glory to God and cōfesse your error. For to alledge for your selfe that you there in differ from them, because they only graunted gratiam praeuenuntem, and you both that & adi…ā tem, it auaileth you not. For the patriarks had that, the Prophets had that, ye Apostles had that and in such sort, that god was vntounto them semper larguor, semper que donator, alwayes a liberall giuer, and alwayes a frée giuer, and yet they could not as you there read. I could here bring in more allegatiōs both out of this father and other, but for feare of being to lōg, I leaue them. I trust these few may serue with the help of gods spirit to open your eyes & beleue. And thus hauehave I shewed how they are impossible.
Now to come to my second mēber, and to shewe you how they are possible & may be fulfilled, I will not stray far away, neither séeke very wide, for that I néede not: I will come home to my first Allegation which suffiseth for dissoluing of this dout: and therefore I chose it moued thereunto, because I sée S. Ierome vse the same order: and in eschuing of prolixitie, our rule is good: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: that is vainely done by a longer way, which may be done by easie and short meanes. Let vsus then sée how the Apostle dissolueth this dout. For that that was impossible to the law in as muche as it was weake because of the fleshe,Rom. 8.3. foreign. GOD sending his owne sonne in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condēned sin in the flesh.Col. 2.13.14 And in an ther place foreign &c. & ye which were dead in sinnes, & in the vncircūcision of your flesh hath he quickened together wt him, forgeuing you al your trespasses, and putting out the hand wryting of ordinances that was against vsus, which was cōtrary to vsus, he euen toke it out of ye way & fastned it vponupon ye crosse. &c. Now to cōdemn sin in the flesh, to fasten ye hād writing vponupon ye crosse, to spoile principalities & powers, to triūph ouer thē in ye cros, what other thing doth it import, than perfect rightuousnesse gotten, than a performing of ye law? if it be alredy performed, then was it a good cōsequēt to say it might be performed, & herein we agrée. By whō ye Apostle teacheth you, by Christ Iesus, & by him onelyonly, for so is Paules cōsequēt in these words. For that yt was impossible to ye law, in as much as it was weake because of ye flesh, God sending his son. &c. For ye cause why God sent his own son, was the weaknes of our flesh by reason wherof the law could not be fulfilled, & his anger appeased. So then this causeth vsus with confidence to say, O death where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victorie? there is no cōdēnation to thē which are in Christ Iesus. And in that, ye Christe is our iustification, our sanctification, our peace, wée may say yt we fulfil the law, & yt no one iote passeth vsus nor one pricke in yt he forgiueth what wée can not do.Aug. li. j. re…. cap. 19. And so you hauehave an other way how the commaū demēts are possible. Therfore to come vntounto you, I say as you say: yt the commandements are possible, & how these words are to bee vnderstād that elect vessel doth most playnly teach vsus as I alleaged. For that yt was impossible, &c. & again, …x operibꝰ legis, by the works of the law no flesh shalbe iustified. And yt wée may not thincke it onelyonly spoken of the law of Moyses, & not of al the cōmandements which are cōprehended in the name of the law, the same apostle witnesseth saying.Rom. 7.22. Consentio legi Dei. I delight in ye law of God cōcerning ye inner mā, but I see an other lawe in my members rebelling, &c. O wretched mā yt I am, who shall deliuer me frō ye body of death. Gratia dei ꝑ Iesū Christū dn̄m nostrū: it is ye grace of god through Christ Iesus M. Feck. For as we are cast doun by one,Rom. 5.17. so must ye gift of rightuousnes be by one, yt is by Iesus christ: and why it cā be but by Christ, yt this fulfilling of ye law,Rom. 7.14. this righteousnes must be, ye Apostle sheweth, in an other place foreign for we know yt the law is spirituall, but I am carnal sold vnderunder sin. For I alow not yt which I do: for what I wold that do I not, but what I hate that doo I: and so forth as it foloweth in the whole text. The nature of the most godly of all is such, that he can not do as he would. By the spirite he may doo muche, but as long as he is compassed with this body of death, he can not doo all. So sayeth the Apostle in this place. Non enim facio bonum quod volo. I do not the good thing which I would.Hierom. ad Ch…t. aduer. P…lag. Do not burden vsus, as you hauehave done in the beginning Master Gough, with the errour of the Manicheans and such like whiche trouble the Churche with their wicked phantasies, saying, that that nature is naught, whiche can not bée changed by any meanes, and impute this not to me but to ye Apostle, who knoweth yt God is one, & man another: the frailnesse of the flesh is one, and the strength of the spirite an other. For the fleshe desireth against the spirite, and the spirite ageynst the flesh: and these do so striue and contend eche with other, that wée can not doo such things as wée would doe. You shall neuer heare of me yt nature is naught, but how the fragilitie of the flesh is to bée reasoned of, let vsus learne of him whiche teacheth, Aske him why he sayde, for that whiche I would do,Rom. 7.19. that I do not, but the euil which I hate, that do I. What necessitie hindreth his will, what force commaundeth him to do things so hatefull, so that, not that which he would, but that which he hated and would not, he is constrayned to doo. He wil aunswer… you: O man, what art thou,Rom. 9.20.21. Beda. that so aunswerest God? shall the clay say vntounto the potter, why hast thou made me so? hath not the potter power ouer his claye, to make of one lumpe a vessell to honour, and an other to dishonour? Concerning iustice and grace, it may bée well sayd of the giltie whiche is absolued, and of the giltie whiche is condemned. Take that whiche is thine, and go thy wayes, I will giuegive this man that which is not due vntounto him. Is it not lawfull for me to do what I liste?Mat. 20. vers. 15. Is thy eye naught, bycause I am good? Héere yf he should say and why not to me? he shall worthely heare, O man, what art thou that so aunswearest God? whome thou séest towardes one of you to bee a moste bountifull bestower, and towardes thée a most iust exactor, and yet in nether of you vniust. Seing that he should be iust, yf he punished eyther, he whiche is deliuered hath to giuegive thankes, he which is condemned hath not to reprehend. Sure it is, that our flesh is frayle, that our nature is corrupt, and so corrupte, that it letteth vsus, that we can not do our dutie, let vsus not séeke howe it is so, but as S. Paul him self did, how ye may be deliuered from it, and still cry with our selues, Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius, Ro. 7.24.who shall deliuer me out of the body of this death? you stand vppon the possibilitie of the law: there are diuersitie of gifts as you knowe, can you attaine to all of them? there are many sciences, as Grammer, Rhetoricke, Logike, &c. Who is he of all vsus, bée he neuer of so excellent a wit, that can bee a perfect Gramarian, a perfect Logician, a perfect Rhetorician, a perfecte Philosopher,Hie. li. j. c. Pelag. a perfect lawyer, a perfecte Phisician? the excellent orator & lawyer he sayeth, There are few which attayne one, but both no man can. You sée, then that God hath commaunded a possible thing, and yet that whiche is possible, no man can performe by reason of our nature. He hath giuen therfore diuers precepts and diuerse vertues which wée can not hauehave all togither. To bée shorte and to make an ende of this parte, the olde saying is true, non omnia possumus omnes, there is none of vsus all can doo all things: and there is none or very rare is that riche man, whiche in all his substaunce possesseth all thinges equallye. God hath commaun…ed possible things, I graunt it. But all these possible things, wée can not eueryevery one hauehave, not for the weaknesse of nature (that is, as it was firste made of God) least you slaunder God, but for the wearinesse of minde which can not hauehave all vertues togither, and alwayes. And thus much touching these twoo partes, wherby you may vnderstande, how wee say that the kéeping of the law is possible. And how it is vnpossible. This considered, I come to your argumentes.
Your first is taken out of the eleuenth of Mathew: and your woordes are these. Contrarie to this doctrine, is our Sauiour Christ, where he willeth vsus to take his yoke vppon vsus, because it is light. Tollite iugum meum super vos, iugum enim meum suaue est▪ & onus meum leue. Take my yoke vppon you, for my yoke is sweete, and my burden is lighte. If it bee a light burden, M. Goughs heauy example, hath not a peny worth of good skill.
This is neyther contrarie to his doctrine, M. Fecknam, neyther is his heauy example voyd of skill. But that which causeth you to thincke it to bée contrarie, is that you deceyue your selfe, and make a Paralogisme as the Logicians call it, à fallacia accidentis, which I shall bée able to shew you by your doctours. For you doe not reason with M. Gough in sensu vniuoco, and in his proposed matter. He taught you in his sermon that to fulfill the law was impossible, you oppose and lay for an aunswere, that the yoke of Christe is easie. S. Ierome vppon the same place teacheth you that here bée subiecta diuersa, & therfore in your disputation there is no vniuocatio. Your subiectes are Lex and Euangelium, the lawe and the Gospell, of which two he sayeth thus. Quo modo leuius lege Euangelium: quum in lege homicidium, in Euangelio ira damnetur? Qua ratione Euangelij gratia facilior, quū in lege adulterium, in Euangelio concupiscentia puniatur? In lege multa precepta sunt, quae Apostolus non posse compleri plenissime docet. How is the gospell lighter than the law, séeing ye murder is condemned in the law, and anger is condēned in the gospel? How is the grace of the gospell easier, seeing that in the law adulterie, and in the gospell concupiscence is punished? Many things are commaūded in the law, which ye Apostle sheweth most plainly, that they can not be accomplished. In ye law works are required, which who soeuer doth, shal liue in thē. In the Gospel ye will is required, which although it hauehave not the effect, yet it léeseth not the reward. So that by this Doctor, here is a comparison betwixt the law and the gospel, and as farre difference there is betwixt your two arguments, as is betwixt velle and facere. And marke then, is this a good argument. Non possum facere, ergo nō possum velle, I am not able to do, therefore I am not able to will: or this, Possum velle, ergo possum facere, I am able to wil, therfore I am able to do. Take which you wil, these are your arguments. I am sure you sée how little holde there is in them: therfore cōfesse the truth, giuegive glorie to God, and be not ashamed to hauehave erred, but be ashamed to remayne in your error. The gospel sure is easier than ye law, ye grace of Iesus Christ forpasseth & surmounteth the letter. If you will cōsider your heauy burden and come vntounto Christ, & craue pardō for your sins, & hauehave a mind to walke in his pathes, and where you fall downe desire him to lift you vp, to cloth your nakednesse with his garmente, you shall find reste and refreshing. and this is an easie yoke. But yf you will néedes doo, when he requireth the will, you will burden your self with an heauie yoke. I could alleage vppon this same place of Mathew Theophilact, and Glossa ordinaria, whiche neyther of them take the place as you do, but I passe them ouer because I would be short. You your self may read them.
1. Iohn. 5.Your second argument is of like force. Where you say thus. S. Iohn to this effect sayth. Quod mandata eius grauia non sunt. That his cōmandements be not heauy, yf they be not heauy, they be far vnlike M. Goughs lump of lead, impossible to be taken vp and remoued.
It is I say of like sorte, as Nicholas de Lyra interpreting the place of Mathew doth alleadge out of Augustine, where he sayth thus. Mandata gra…ia non sunt, quod exponens Aug. dicit. s. amanti: The commaundementes are not heauy, which S. Augustine expounding sayth, that is, to the louing. S. Iohn sayth so him self in effecte foreign &c. For all that is borne of God ouercometh the world. For in déede the commaundements beyng tempered.Au. …et. 1.1… with the merciemercy and goodnesse of our heauēly father accepting then all donne, when that is pardoned which is not done,Psal. 130. vers. 4. and as Dauid sayth, &c. Chy immecha haselichach. For with thée is pardon that thou mayst bée feared. Then to the child of God, to him that hath the victorie of ye world, that hath Emunah, a sure and a stable faith, that beléeueth in Christ Iesus the son of God,Psal. 19.1…. to him the commādemēts are not gréeuous: nay they are hamnechmadim mizahab more desirous than gold, vinethukim middebasch ▪ and swéeter thā honie, & this is ye true sense of ye place.
Your third is this.Rom. 2. S. Paule in rebuking these idle hearers of the law, which say that they can heare it, but not doo it, and fulfill it, writeth. Non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabunt…r. For not the hearers of the lawe be iust with God, but the doers shall be iustified. If they doe the law, then it may be done, then it is possible. Ab esse ad posse is a good argument. They do works of the law, therfore they may be done.
First touching the scope of the Apostle, you are deceiued. Pardon me, I speake it not of malice or to taunt I protest, but for the truth of the matter. The Apostles purpose is not there to rebuke idle hearers of ye law, & say that they can heare it, but not fulfil it: But he goeth about to conclude al vnderunder sinne, and shew that eueryevery one hath néede of the glory of God: and therfore maketh this occupation. The Iewes can not exempt them selues from this sentēce, bicause they had the law amongst them. Nō enim qui audiunt legem. &c. For not they, which heare the law are iust with God. &c. And they did not the lawe as it appeareth in the same place. Therefore I maruaile how you conclude out of these words your so strong argument, Ab esse ad posse. If you wil néedes folow your owne sense & muse vponupon these wordes, Factores legis iustificabuntur, the doers of the law shall be iustified: Heare what you hauehave in Glossa ordinaria. Iustificabuntur .i. iusti deputabuntur: vel iustifient a Deo, vt sint factores. Non qui ante erant factores, post iustificabuntur: vt si diceretur, homines creabuntur, quia ipsa creatione sit vt sint homines. Sic ipsi non qui ante erant factores iustificabuntur quia etiam gentes. They shal be iustified, that is, they shal be accompted iust: or they shalbe made iust of God: that they may be doers: not which were doers, shalbe iustified. As if it should be sayd, men shalbe created: bicause by the creation they are made men. So likewise not they which were doers before, shall be iustified, bicause the gentiles also. This would I repeat vntounto you, as a thing which you know well inoughe, bicause I thinke you hauehave often read it, for that he sayeth wel and truely, and according to the scriptures, although not verye fit to this place, to the end that you may see how litle it serueth for you, if you be not mynded to folow my first answer, which I thinke and hope you will, if you will looke vppon the place. And here I beseech you in ye mercies of Christ Iesus to consider with your selfe your owne state: I thinke the best of you, I think you hauehave not the Bible and other books about you: If you had you would neuer alleadge places in such sorte, so farre from the purpose of the holy ghost, so little to purpose. I speake it with griefe of hart, the Lord knoweth. I am sorie to sée you in such blindnesse: right glad would I be to sée the glorie of god appéere in you to your health and saluation, … not to your destru…ction. Wel the Glosa interlinealis goeth farther. Non enim auditores legis .i. pro auditu legis, sed factores .i. gratia iustificat eos vt adimpleant legem, quia non faciunt vt iustificē tur, sed iustificantur vt faciant: For not the hearers of the law, that is, for the hearing of the law: But the dooers, that is, Grace iustifieth thē that they may fulfill ye lawe, bicause they do not the law that they may be iustified, but are iustified that they may do it. I shall not néede to stand vponupon these wordes (vt adimpleant legē, that they may fulfill the Lawe) for by that whiche I hauehave sayde before, I trust you vnderstand howe they are to be taken. Well let vsus go to your fourth Argument.
The Euangelist Saint Luke of these doers of the Lawe, Luc. 1.6.bringeth a full example, writing thus of Zacharie and Elizabeth: Erant ambo iusti ante Deum. &c. They were both iuste before God, walking in all the commaundementes and iustifications of the Lorde without blame. If S. Luke had the Spirit of truthe, when he sayd that those twoo walked in al the commaundements, then M. Goughe by his deniall and impossibilitie put thereof, must needs hauehave the Spirite of erroure and lying. 1, Ioh. 2. vers. 4.Saint Iohn sayeth: Qui dicit se nosse Deum, & mandata eius non custodit, mendax est. Hee that sayeth he knoweth God and keepeth not his commaundements, is a lyer.
No doubt, M. Fecknam, but Sainct Luke had the Spirite of truthe, and yet hath not M. Goughe the Spirit of errour and lying. He teacheth no contrarie doctrine why you should so conclude. Well let vsus examine the woordes and so shall wée sée.Vide Hiero… lib. 1▪ cont. Pelag. They were both iust, foreign before God. Not ye god had nothing to lay to their charges putting Christs deliuerāce a syde, not that he had nothing in their liues to find fault withal, his merciemercy being put a parte, Nō est qui faciat bonum, non est vsus que ad vnum: there is not one that doth good (in such sorte) not one. I truste you will not so say. Well how then foreign .i. Before God? You knowe M. Fecknā which are learned in tongues, that this phrase is borowed of ye Hebrewe tongue, biphne Iehouah, and that is so to walk in ye sight of the Lord, as in the eyes of God. As he sayd: Si Deos, homines que celare possum, If I could or might hyde this from Gods and men. &c. meaning that hée and she walked vprightly, not as dissembling Hipocrites, not in a faire shewe to the world as others, but their iustice was such as which is done in the sight of God, playn and sincere, without al dubblnesse. And that is, be leb hatum, and not▪ be leb tahur. And this doth partly note vntounto you both Theophilactus and Lyra, vponupon this place. I referre you to ye places: I néed not to recite the words. Let vsus goe forward: Walking in all the commandements: Non quod nō procauerint sayth your Glossae interlinaris. &c. Not bicause they sinned not, but bicause that thei being washed with the grace of God left to sinne. I trust you wil not stumble here neither, as though they sinned no more. For if we say so, veritas Dei non est in nobis, the truth of god is not in vsus: the last word is foreign inculpate blamelesse. How this is to be vnderstanded I refer you to Iustinus Martyr, in Solu…q. 141. where he hath in effect these words. Iustus ex lege dicitur, foreign. qui cùm p̄cauerit in ijs quae possunt cōdonari, sàcrificiorū oblatione & delicti redemtione, remissione accepta mundus efficitur, & a crimine liber. He is said to be iust by the law, who after he hath sinned in those things which may be forgiuen, hauing remission by the offering of sacrifice & redemption of ye offence is made cleane & frée from fault, and so are Elizabeth & Zacharie said to be foreign blamelesse. Touching your last place of s. Iohn. chap. v. I hauehave sayd sufficient before in the place of ye .j. Iohn. chap. v. This wil I adde by the way, yt in déede the knowledge of God can not be without efficacie, and therfore they that brag them selues to be the childrē of God and to hauehave a fayth, and walke not in his commaundementes, are but lyers. Nowe to your authorities of S. Hierome and Augustine.
Tom. 4. in …pos. Symb▪ ad Damas. & …o. 1. in dialog. contra Pel. li. 1. &. 3.S. Ierom wryting of these teachers which sai that it is impossible to kepe the law, hath these words: Execramur eorū blasphemiā, qui dicunt impossibile aliquid homini à Deo praeceptum esse, et mandata eius non a singulis sed ab omnibus in communi posse seruari: That is: we detest their blasphemie which say that God hath commaunded man to doe any thing impossible: and that the commaundements of God may be kept, not of eueryevery one in particular, but of all in generall. He witnesseth that Gods commaundementes may be obserued of eueryevery one in particular, and that God commaundeth nothing impossible: for he detesteth the contrarie doctrine, and calleth it blasphemie, and therfore I hauehave little cause to like it.
I will not say as other do, & as I might wel, that this is suspect: I hauehave his mind in the same question, when he was vrged with the same argument of the Pelagian. Possibilia inquit, A Cresiph. adu. Pelag.mandata dedit Deus: Et quis hoc negat: Sed quomodo haec intelligenda sit sententia. &c. God gaue, sayth he, cō maundementes which are possible: and who denyeth it. But how this sentence is to be vnderstode, the chosen vessell dothe plainly declare.Rom. 8.3. That which was impossible to the law in as much as it was weak bicause of the flesh, God sending his owne sonne in ye similitude of sinful flesh. &c. and in an other place he sayth, Possibilia praecepit Deus. &c. God commanded things possible, and I graunte it: but all these possible things, we can not eueryevery man hauehave. Not for the weakenesse of nature, least thou slaunder God, but for the wearinesse of ye minde, which can not hauehave al vertues togither and always. Therefore if these be both Ieromes, and Ierome be not contrary to him selfe, you muste thus vnderstand youre place that he is to be detested which sayeth that God hath commaunded mā to do any thing that was impossible in it self to be fulfilled, had not ye frailnesse of mans nature other wayes bin a let: and them also that say that eueryevery one in particular, beyng a true beleeuer, can not fulfill them in him,Iohn. 1.16. of whose fulnesse wée all receyue, and whose Iustice is ours by his gifte and grace. And in thus taking of it, I trust you will neyther reiect my aunswere, neyther condemne M. Gough as one of that sort. Now to your place of S. Augustine.
To. 10. ser. 61. de tempore.S. Augustine likewise to the same ende sayth. Deus neque impossibile aliquid potuit imperare, qui iustus est, nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo, quòd non potuit vitare, qui pius est. That is: God neyther could commaund any thing that is impossible, who is iust: neyther will he condemne any man, for that which he could not auoyd, who is mercifull. The contrarie whereof to mayntaine doth blasphemously argue God, both of iniustice and impietie. VVhen he commaundeth vsus to do, which M. Gough saith is impossible and condemneth vsus. For that, which he sayth, we could not auoyde.
This place of Augustine is easie enough, and hath in it self sufficient to answere you, not swaruing a whitte from the state which I hauehave made you, and the true meaning of M. Gough. He exhorteth them ther vntounto charitie, and reprehendeth withall the folish tergiuersations and resistances which they made against ye scriptures. But a man will say, sayth he, I can by no meanes louelove mine enimies. In all the Scriptures, God sayth vntounto thée that thou canst: thou on the contrary part answerest that thou canst not. Marke nowe whether should a man beléeue thée or God. And therefore bicause the truthe can not lie, let mannes frailenesse now leaue his vain excuses, Quia nec impossibile. &c▪ Bicause he could neither cōmaund any thing which is impossible, who is iust, neyther will condemne man for that that he could not eschue, who is mercifull, it foloweth. Why dost thou resist in vaine? Nemo enim quantum possumus. For no man knoweth better what we can do or may do, than he that hath giuen vsus (ipsum posse) that we may. Therefore if the commaundements in themselues are not impossible, but by reason of our weakenesse, and God dothe giuegive vsus abilitie in this our defect in suche sort as I hauehave declared before, it must néedes follow that his iustice ageinst those that do it not is good and iust: and this M. Goughe teacheth. He saith also in the beginning of his Epistle. In reliquis operibus bonis &c. In other good works a man may sometimes pretend some maner of excuse: but in hauing charitie no man can excuse him selfe. A man may say vntounto me, I can not faste: Can he saye, I can not louelove? A man may say for the infirmitie of my bodye I can not absteine from wine & flesh: can he say, I can not louelove? A mā may say, I can not kéepe my selfe a virgine: A man may saye, that he can not sell all his substance and giuegive it to the poore, can he say, I can not louelove myne enemies and forgiue thē which hauehave offended ageinst me? Let no man deceyue him selfe (deare brethren) for God deceyueth no man. For although there be many things, which for the fragilitie of mans nature we can not corporally fulfill, yet without any doubte we may hauehave charitie in oure hartes God so inspiring it if we will in déed. Thus you sée by this place, what we may doe, when God giueth that which he commaundeth, when he worketh that in vsus that he requireth, and yet that wée of oure selues can not do so much as kéepe a virgine, as sel our substance, as giuegive to the poore. And so hauehave I briefly aunswered your Obiections, without all prolixitie of farther Allegation of moe authorities: desiring you rather to rest your selfe vppon the scriptures, wheron we may surely ground our selues, than vponupon the wauering iudgement of men in whom you sée verified the common saying, Quot capita, tot sensus. So many vnderstandings as be heads: and I woulde it were not so in eueryevery one of them.