Early English Books Online 2

Previous Section Next Section

The orthodox faith and vvay to the Church explaned and iustified in answer to a popish treatise, entituled, White died blacke; wherein T.W. p. in his triple accusation of D. White for impostures, vntruths, and absurd illations, is proued a trifler: and the present controuersies betweene vs and the Romanists are more fully deliuered and cleared. By Francis White Bachelour in Diuinitie, and elder brother of Doctor Iohn White.

About this Item

Title
The orthodox faith and vvay to the Church explaned and iustified in answer to a popish treatise, entituled, White died blacke; wherein T.W. p. in his triple accusation of D. White for impostures, vntruths, and absurd illations, is proued a trifler: and the present controuersies betweene vs and the Romanists are more fully deliuered and cleared. By Francis White Bachelour in Diuinitie, and elder brother of Doctor Iohn White.
Author
White, Francis, 1564?-1638.
Publication
London :: Printed by Richard Field for William Barret, and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the three Pigeons,
1617.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Worthington, Thomas, 1549-1627. -- Whyte dyed black -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A15081.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The orthodox faith and vvay to the Church explaned and iustified in answer to a popish treatise, entituled, White died blacke; wherein T.W. p. in his triple accusation of D. White for impostures, vntruths, and absurd illations, is proued a trifler: and the present controuersies betweene vs and the Romanists are more fully deliuered and cleared. By Francis White Bachelour in Diuinitie, and elder brother of Doctor Iohn White." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A15081.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 3, 2024.

Pages

Section 2. Concerning habituall concupiscence.

Another pillar of Popish iustification, is, that radicall concupiscence,a 1.1 together with the first suggestions, agi∣tation and rebellion of the same, is not sinneb 1.2. For if the same be sinne, then it followeth, first, that iust persons are alwayes sinners, hauing continually need of remis∣sion and not imputation of sinne. Secondly, if concupis∣cence be sinne, forasmuch as the same worketh in all the actions of man, it will distill into the same, sinfulnesse, and thereby distaine, impaire, and attenuate them, so far, as that they cannot attaine to that height and straine of perfection, whereby they shall be able to iustifie be∣fore God, and to satisfie and merit.

Obiection. Concupiscence may be onely veniall, and then it cannot hinder or impaire the perfection of iustice.

Answ. Granting the same to be a sinne, it cannot be veniall by naturec 1.3, because it is a transgression of the last cōmandement, in the proper obiect of the samed 1.4. Rō. 7.7.

Page 25

And that sinne cannot be veniall by nature, which caused the Apostle to crie out, Oh wretched man that I am, &c. Rom. 7.24.

And if it be onely veniall by indulgence, and not im∣putation,* 1.5 this cannot hinder the physicall or reall influence thereof into mans habites and actions, more then the not imputation of originall sinne stoppeth the propaga∣tion of the vncleannesse thereof into the posteritie. Also, admitting the same in iust persons to be veniall; yet it hath so frequent and perpetuall motions, that such a mul∣titude of irregular cogitations and desires which the same produceth, will equall some mortall sinnes: euen as many lesser crannies in a ship, equall one big onee 1.6; and many small graines of sand, make a heauie burdenf 1.7. And the perpetuall coniunction and concomitance, yea mixture of these sins with the purest motions and holiest actions of iust persons, cause the same alwayes to haue need of remission, by reason whereof they cannot iustifie, merit, satisfie, &c.

Ob. But the holy Scripture and primitiue Fathers mani∣festly teach,g 1.8 that habituall concupiscence and the motions thereof, are not sinne.

Ans. First, the Scripture doth as expresly make it sin, as the same doth theft, adulterie, false witnesse, prohibi∣ting and condemning it by a speciall commandement, Exod. 20.17. Rom. 7.7. And that the Apostle, Rom. 7. speaketh of habituall concupiscence, appeareth by the a∣ctions which he ascribeth vnto it, teaching, that in him∣selfe it lusted against the spirit, and rebelled against the law of the mind, and yet in regard of his consent, was inuoluntarie, and resisted him, v. 20. and also it was such, from which he could neuer be freed so long as he con∣tinued

Page 26

in this life. And the same Apostle calleth it by the name of sinne fiue times, Rom. 6.e 1.9 and sixe times, Rom. 7. and thrice, Rom. 8. it hath the definition of sinne, for it is repugnant to the diuine law, Rom. 7.7.23. 1. Ioh. 3.4. It hath the qualitie of sinne, and is hateful to God and good men, Rom. 7.15. It is the very roote of the euill tree, and grand stemme which bringeth forth euil fruits, Mat. 7.18. the mother of all sinne; and whatsoeuer ignorance, vnbe∣liefe, iniustice, and wickednesse is committed by man, proceed from it, Mat. 15.19. Gal. 5.19. Iam. 2.14, 15.f 1.10

Secondly, S. Augustine, whose iudgement in this matter is a breuiarie of the faith of the primitiue Church, expresly teacheth, that it is sinne; and this not onely in appellation, but in veritie, saying:a 1.11 Euen as the cecitie of the heart, which God remoueth by illumination, is both a sin, and the punishment of sinne, and the cause of sinne: so the con∣cupiscence of the flesh, against which the good Spirit striueth, is a sinne, by reason there is in it disobedience against the do∣minion of the mind; and a punishment of sinne, because it is rendred to him which was disobedient: and a cause of sinne. And in another place,b 1.12 This vnreasonable and brutish an∣ger would not arise, vnlesse there were sinne in the members.

The same Father calleth it, a culpable qualitiec 1.13, a brutish motiond 1.14, an euill and naughtie sinnee 1.15, no small iniquitief 1.16. He saith, it is prohibited by the morall lawg 1.17, and is vnlaw∣full, lasciuious, and filthyh 1.18. Before baptisme, it is mortall sinne, euen originall sinne it selfei 1.19. And after baptisme, it is taken away in regard of guiltinessek 1.20, and remaineth in actl 1.21. And after baptisme, it must be purged by remissionm 1.22.

Page 27

And whereas this Father saith in one place,n 1.23 Concu∣piscence in persons regenerate, is no sinne: the answer is, that he simply denieth it not to be sinne, but onely that it is not imputed as mortall sinne to such as resist ito 1.24, and be∣cause it reigneth notp 1.25, nor maketh them iniust persons who resist itq 1.26, and is no crimer 1.27, and intrudeth it selfe vpon iust persons, as an importunate guest, against their wils: and lastly, because it is daily wasting, and tending to destruction, and not being.

And verily, vntill of late time, the best learned and godliest in the Church, taught that it was sinne. Isiodores 1.28 saith, It is a filthy motion of the soule, in the affection of vn∣cleane lust. And Hugo:t 1.29 It is manifest that the law prohibi∣teth the first motions of concupiscence. And Strabus the au∣thor of the ordinarie Glosse, affirmeth the sameu 1.30: and Fe∣rus* 1.31 and Caietanx 1.32 say it is sinne.

Thirdly, let the absurdities be considered, whereinto our aduersaries fall by denying Concupiscence to be sin.

First, they grant that it is prohibited by diuine law, and repugnant to the samey 1.33.

Secondly, they acknowledge, it is hatefull to God, an iniquitie, and vicious qualitie, a thing neither good nor indifferent.

Thirdly, they place it among naturall defectsz 1.34.

But if it be an vnsinfull defect of nature, then it is not prohibited by the morall law, more then blindnesse and death. And if it be hatefull to God and good men, and prohibited by diuine law, then it must needs be sinne, 1. Ioh. 3.4. For whereas Bellarmine maketh answer, that

Page 28

Euen as the diuell is no sinne,* 1.35 although he resist the law of God: so concupiscence may resist diuine law, and be no sinne: I answer, that we reason in this maner: Euery vicious qualitie and action thereof resisting the law of God, is a sinne. Habituall concupiscence is a vicious qualitie, and the first motions thereof are vicious actions resisting the law of God. Therefore it is sinne.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.