that he hath a clean heart? Who can say, I am innocent and pure?' Whereas Isaiah himself, with the rest, becoming vile in his own eyes, pronounceth, in a lowly confession, All our righteousness is as the rags of a menstruous woman, and as the clothes of lepers, defiled with mattery filth.' Bernard: "What can all our justice be before the Lord?—shall it not, according to the prophet, be accounted as a menstruous garment? And, if it be strictly judged, all our justice will be found unjust, and having less than it ought. What shall we say, then, of our sins, when our righteousness is not able to answer for itself?" And in another place: "Our mean justice, if it be any, is, peradventure, upright, but not pure, unless we value ourselves above our fathers, who, no less truly than humbly, have confessed, all our righteousness is as the cloth of a menstruous woman;' and how can that be pure justice wherein sin is not as yet wanting?" And in the same manner Bonaventure, Cajetan, and the Enchiridion of Colen, expound that place of Isaiah. 6 The place of Job, chap. ix. 20, is expounded by Gregory, of the imperfection and uncleanness of our works, saying, "All our justice is manifestly proved to be injustice, if it be narrowly judged. And how much soever we travel in good works, we never attain true cleanness, but only imitate it." Secondly, whereas inherent justice consisteth principally of faith, hope, and charity; if these virtues be imperfect, then all our righteousness wanteth perfection. But that the same are imperfect appears by the Scriptures, exhorting just persons to increase in these virtues (Luke xvii. 5; Eph. iv. 15; James i. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 18), and reproving such as, having the same in verity, wanted degrees of perfection, (Matt. xiv. 31; Rev. ii. 19, 20; Job xxxviii. 1, with Job xl. 5). Arg. 2. From the testimonies of the Fathers. Augustine saith, " Poor am I, and miserable; and, being as yet congealed in the uncleanness of the earthly image, do, in earthly affections and terrene actions, more resemble the first Adam than the second." And again: "Being renewed by faith and hope, how many old things do we?-for we are so clothed with Christ, as that we carry some of the rags of the old Adam about us.' St. Augustine and all his scholars affirm, that the good works of just persons are imperfect in this life, and have not the purity which the law of God requireth. Augustine: "No man loveth God so much as the unchangeable rule of verity requires, and that which is less is sin. And the righteousness of this life is inchoate, according to the measure of our infirmity-a certain smaller justice. The same is called true, because it is unfeigned; yet not altogether fair, but by comparison: called perfect, because by the uprightness of a direct course it moveth towards perfection, wanting damnable crimes: unfeigned, but not pure: such as needeth God's eye to look upon it, affectu pietatis, non judicio veritatis: by the compassion of fatherly piety, and not by the judgment of verity." And the cavil which modern Papists use, saying, "The righteousness of just persons is called imperfect and impure, in respect of the purity of the divine nature, or of the glorious state of the heavenly saints," is censured by St. Jerome, saying, "No flesh shall be justified in thy sight; he speaketh not in comparison, as old and new heretics teach." Also the Fathers generally affirm, that the good deeds of just men, after they be wrought, "have need of mercy, and must be presented to God with prayer, and be excused by his mercy, and they cannot go with safety to God's tribunal without mercy; and they must borrow weight from the bowels of the Lord, and receive supply of that which is less from him." And Isidore saith, “At the bar of the judge the righteousness of a just person is not secure; and the very justice of the righteousness must be justified by God, otherwise before him it is sin." And Chrysostom: "The repentance of man alone could not wipe away sin, but that is mixed with the mercy of God." And Hugo Victorinus: "God by his grace bestoweth upon man faith, which faith again, by grace, he reputeth for perfection, even as if it were perfect." Another pillar of Popish justification is, that radical concupiscence, together with the first suggestions, agitation, and rebellion of the same, is not sin; for if the same be sin, then it followeth, first, that just persons are always sinners, having continually need of remission, and not imputation, of sin. Secondly, if concupiscence be sin, forasmuch as the same worketh in all the actions of man, it will distil into the same sinfulness; and thereby distain, impair, and attenuate them, so far as that they cannot attain to that height and strain of perfection, whereby they shall be able to justify before God, and to satisfy and merit. Object. Concupiscence may be only venial, and then it cannot hinder or impair the perfection of justice. Ans. Granting the same to be a sin, it cannot be venial by nature, because it is a transgression of the last commandment in the proper object of the same, (Rom. vii. 7). And that sin cannot be venial by nature which caused the apostle to cry out, "Oh, wretched man that I am," &c. (Rom. vii. 24). And if it be only venial by indulgence, and not imputation, this cannot hinder the physical or real influence thereof into man's habits and actions, more than the not imputation of original sin stoppeth the propagation of the uncleanness thereof into the posterity. Also, admitting the same in just persons to be venial, yet it hath so frequent and perpetual motions, that such a multitude of irregular cogitations and desires which the same produceth will equal some mortal sins; even as many lesser crannies in a ship equal one big one, and many small grains of sand make a heavy burden. And the perpetual conjunction and concomitance, yea, mixture of these sins with the purest motions and holiest actions of just persons, cause the same always to have need of remission, by reason whereof they cannot justify, merit, satisfy, &c. Object. But the holy Scripture and primitive Fathers manifestly teach, that habitual concupiscence and the motions thereof are not sin. Ans. First, the Scripture doth as expressly make it sin as the same doth theft, adultery, false witness, prohibiting and condemning it by a special commandment, (Exod. xx. 17; Rom. vii. 7). And that the apostle (Rom. vii.) speaketh of habitual concupiscence, appeareth by the actions which he ascribeth unto it, teaching that in himself it lusted against the spirit, and rebelled against the law of the mind; and yet, in regard of his consent, was involuntary, and resisted him (v. 20); and also it was such from which he could never be freed so long as he continued in this life. And the same apostle calleth it by the name of sin five times in Rom. vi., and six times in Rom. vii., and thrice in Ron viii. it hath the definition of sin; for it is repugnant to the divine law, (Rom. vii. 7, 23; 1 John, iii. 4). It hath the quality of sin, and is hateful to God and good men, (Rom. vii. 15). It is the very root of the evil tree, and grand stem which bringeth forth evil fruits (Matt. vii. 18); the mother of all sin; and whatsoever ignorance, unbelief, injustice, and wickedness, is committed by man, proceed from it, (Matt. xv. 19; Gal. v. 19; James ii. 14, 15). Secondly, St. Augustine, whose judgment in this matter is a breviary of the faith of the primitive Church, expressly teacheth that it is sin; and this not only in appellation, but in verity, saying, "Even as the cecity of the heart, which God removeth by illumination, is both a sin, and the punishment of sin; and the cause of sin, so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good Spirit striveth, is a sin, by reason there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind; and a punishment of sin, because it is rendered to him which was disobedient, and a cause of sin." And in another place: "This unreasonable and brutish anger would not arise unless there were sin in the members." The same Father calleth it "a culpable quality, a brutish motion, an evil and naughty sin, no small iniquity.' He saith "it is prohibited by the moral law, and is unlawful, lascivious, and filthy. Before baptism it is mortal sin, even original sin itself." And after baptism "it is taken away in regard of guiltiness, and remaineth in act. after baptism it must be purged by remission." And And whereas this Father saith in one place, "Concupiscence in persons regenerate is no sin." The answer is, that he simply denieth it not to be sin, but only that it is not imputed as mortal sin to such as resist it; and because it reigneth not, nor maketh them unjust persons who resist it; and is no crime; and intrudeth itself upon just persons, as an importunate guest, against their wills; and, lastly, because it is daily wasting, and tending to destruction, and not being. And, verily, until of late time, the best learned and godliest in the Church taught that it was sin. Isidore saith, "It is a filthy motion of the soul in the affection of unclean lust." And Hugo: "It is manifest that the law prohibiteth the first motions of concupiscence." And Strabus, the author of the ordinary Glosse, affirmeth the same. Ferus and Cajetan say it is sin; yea, Thomas, 3, q. 41, ar. 1, ad. 3. Our adversaries also piece out their justification by the distinction of venial and mortal sins, the sum whereof is And First, that venial sin is not simply sin, but imperfectly and analogically. No transgression, but pretergression of divine law, besides it, but not against it. Some of them maintain that God is not offended with venial sin; and they generally call such sins light, saying, that God, in justice, cannot punish them with more than a temporal punishment; and they are pardoned without repentance, even by the outward sprinkling of holy water, when one thinks not of them. And a man may merit the remission of these sins by the prayer of faith and other pious deeds. Secondly, with great presumption they place many foul sins in the rank of venial, as the examples following declare. If one in his rage and fury blaspheme God, not having had a precedent deliberate intent, he sinneth only venially. Parents cursing their children, without deliberation; children disobeying their parents, when the same proceedeth not of contempt, but of negligence or sensuality, is venial. Scurrilous and filthy speaking, in jest only; men's wearing of women's apparel in vanity of mind, painting of the face, &c., are venial. And drunkenness is ranked among venials by Bonaventure. William Edward Painter, Strand, London, Printer. |