A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

Of the power of Baptisme in infantes, and of Concu∣piscence. The 4. Chapter.

Harding.

What M. Iewel would saye in this matter, I can not certainly tel: he is so inconstant, and like a man, that is halfe ashamed of his doctrine. For one while he saith, the Sacrament dependeth of no man. At another time, The iust man shal liue not by the faith of his pa∣rentes, but by his owne faith. And yet he saith, S. Augustine, Iustinus Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and others write plainely, that the faith of the Parentes doth helpe. But how truly that is written, he wil not saye.

Againe, he saith, that Infantes are not void of faith: A litle after he writeth, God is able to worke saluation both with the Sacraments, and without them. And then he min∣gleth the Signe with the Thing, and the Thing with the Signe. Last of al he saith, In deede, and in precise man∣ner of speache, Saluation must be sought in Christe alone, and not in any outward signes. In effecte he sticketh, and maketh muche a doo (and faine he woulde if he durst) bring forth this proposition plainely, condemned of the Churche in olde tyme, That infantes maie be saued without Baptisme. But it is the heresie of Pelagius, and the same is against the word of God, saying, Except a man be borne againe of water, and of the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen. For whereas saith with the vow and desire of baptisme in a time of ne∣cessitie, doth serue him, that hath discretiō to beleue, seing the said faith is not in the child, excepte baptisme, which is the Sacrament of faith, be receiued of him: it doth

folow, that Children dying without Baptisme, are con∣demned. This much maye suffice for that point.

Iewel.

Concupiscence remaining in the faithful after baptisme, is sinne for∣cing S. Paul to crie out, I see an other law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and leading me prisoner to the law of sinne. And againe. O wretched man that I am, who shal deli∣uer me from this body of death?

Harding.

It is to be vnderstanded, that whereas Baptisme saueth vs, as S. Peter saith: al sinne is washed away therein. And we are made a new creature, according to that S. Paul saith In Christ Iesus, neither Circumcision is ought worth, nor vn∣circuncision, but the new creature, meaning by a new crea∣ture, as S. Chrysostom, and other holy Fathers expound it, that our nature, which was waxen old in sinne, Repētè baptismi lauacro renouata est, non aliter quàm si denu•• esset condita, is renued in the washing of baptisme, none other∣wise, then if it had ben made a newe. So that no sinne at al can be in vs now baptized, if wee haue worthily re∣ceiued Baptisme. Whiche notwithstanding, there is e∣uidently perceiued in our fleashe a certaine resistance, and rebellion against Reason: in suche wise that, as our minde, and soule being indued with grace desireth to do al goodnes: so do our senses, and sensual appetites intise and prouoke vs to muche naughtinesse.

Now bicause the sensual appetite deliteth vs, and so ouercommeth vs commonly, more or lesse: therefore it is called the law of the fleash, or the law, which the fleash would gladly follow, and obey: which law, or concupi∣scence, leadeth vs prisoners to sinne, so much as lieth in

it, and so ofte as we obey it.

Whether concupiscence be sinne, though we consent not vnto it.

But the point of the question is, whether it be truly and in deed a sinne in vs, although we consent not vnto it. We saie, it is not properly sinne. M. Iewel defendeth the contrarie: but S. Paules wordes proue not the con∣cupiscence which remaineth, to be a sinne, except we obey it. Otherwise if of it selfe it were sinne, we had not benne made a newe creature in Baptisme. For the creature wherein sinne is, remaineth stil an old creature. But albeit al sinnes be taken awaye in Baptisme, yet God suffereth the concupiscence to remaine in our fleash, partly that we maie by the Rebellion thereof, perceiue from what an enimie our soule is deliuered, and so geue thankes to God, as the Apostle doth in this place, which M. Iewel alleaged: partly that we may be exercised with tentati∣on, to thende we may be crowned for our victorie. I therefore (saith S. Paule) in minde (or soule) obey the lawe of God, but in fleash I obey the law of sinne. And who know∣eth not, it is the consent of the mind, and not the desire of the fleash, which maketh a man to be a sinner?

Concupiscence is in my fleash onely, and not in my minde, except I consent vnto it, and so take it into my minde, and then in truth it is a sinne. And this is the very discourse of S. Paule. For when he had said, in mind (or in the highest part of my soule) I obey the lawe of God, he concludeth thereupon, Nihil ergo damnationis est his qui sunt in Christo Iesu, qui non secundùm carnem ambulant. Therefore no part of damnation is to them,

who are in Christ Iesus, who walke not according to the flesh. For if a man walke according to the flesh, then in deede his Concupiscence, which before was no sinne, is becom a sinne. Thus albeit our flesh be the flesh of death, that is to say, mortal, as S. Chrysostom expoundeth it, and therefore S. Paul would faine be deliuered from it, as fea∣ring lest he should at any time yeeld vnto it: yet if he do not yeelde vnto it, there is no sinne in him. For the law of the spirit of life (which is the grace that iustifieth vs in ba∣ptisme) deliuereth him from the law of sinne, and of death euerlasting.

Ievvel 217.

S. Ambrose saith. There is not found in any man such concord (betvven the flesh and the spirit) but that the lavv (of concupiscence) vvhich is plan∣ted in the members, fighteth against the lavv of the mind. And for that cause the vvordes of S. Iohn the Apostle are taken, as spoken in in the per∣son of al Saintes. If vve say, vve haue no sinne, vve deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs.

Harding.

I graunt that in this cōtinual fight we are daily so con∣quered in some smal sinne, or other, that we neuer re∣maine any long time without venial sinne. But that hap∣peth, bicause we yeelde, and consent vnto sinne, and not bicause the concupiscence of it selfe is sinne, before we haue consented vnto it.

Ievvel. 217.

S. Augustine saith in most plaine vvise: The concupiscnce of the flesh, against vvhich the good spirite lusteth, is both sinne, and the paine of sinne, and the cause of sinne. Yet the late blessed Chapter of Trident in spite of S. Augustine, hath published the contrarie.

Harding.

Thus ye speake in spite of the Coūcel. Verely the Coū∣cel

of Trent did determine that, which it foūd in S. Augu∣stin, who teacheth most manifestly, that the Cōcupiscēce is not properly sin, but is only called so. And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be vnderstāded in the place by you alleged. His most plaine words are these. Dicimus Baptisma dare oīm indulgentiā peccatorū, et auferre crimina, nō radere: Sed de ista cōcupiscentia carnis, falli eos credo; vel fallere, cū qua necesse est, vt etiā baptizatus, & hoc, si diligē∣tissimè proficit, & spiritu Dei agitur, pia mente confligat. Sed haec etiāsi vocatur Peccatū, non vti{que} quia peccatū est, sed quia peccato facta est, sic vocatur, Sicut sciptura, manus cuius{que} di∣citur, quòd manus eā fecerit. We say that Baptisme geueth remissiō of al sinnes, and that it taketh crimes quit away, and doth not shaue them (as who would saye, it leaueth not the rootes behind). But I suppose that (as touching this Concupiscēce of the flesh (they be either deceiued them selues, or that they deceiue others. For of this Con∣cupiscēce he also, who is baptized, yea though he profit neuel so wel, and be guided with the spirite of God, must of necessitie suffer in his Godly mind some conflicte. But this Concupiscence, albeit it be called sinne, yet verely it is not so called, bicause it is sinne, but bicause it is made by sinne. As for example, any writing is called the hand of him, that wrote it, bicause the hand made it.

If then S. Augustine say most distinctly, that the Con∣cupiscence in them, that are baptized, is not a sinne, how spitefully, yea how falsely also haue you said, that the Councel of Trent defined the contrarie in spite of S. Au∣gustine? I pray you be not so angry with the Councel of Trent. If your stomake wil not holde in that spiteful hu∣mour, but you must nedes vtter it: yet wil truth be truth.

Notes

• Incer∣taintie of M. Iewels doctrine. Pag. 215. Pag. 216. Pag. 215.
• Pag. 216.
• Pag. 217.
• Ioban. 3.
• Augusti∣nus Epist. 23.
• Rom. 7.
• 1. Pet. 3.
• Gal. 6. Chrysost. Ibidem ad Galatas.
• Rom. 7.
• Rom. 8.
• Ibidem.
• Rom. 8.
• Lib. 10. epist. 84.
• 1. Ioan. 1.
• Contra Iulianum lib. 5. c. 3.
• Augustin. cōt. duas epist. Pela¦gi. li. 1. ca. 13.