The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

R. ABBOT.

It will be well for M. Bishop that misspending of time and vsing of idle words be reckoned for veniall sinnes; for God knoweth he hath misspent a great deale of time in the writing of these books, and hath sent vs a number of idle words. Tush, saith he, the sinne is but veniall, and the pu∣nishment but small and short for such light faults. But if it be a point of godly a 1.1 wisedome to redeeme the time, as S. Paul teacheth, surely it is a point of folly to esteem so light∣ly of misspending time; and hee will not so easily swallow

idle words, that regardeth what our Sauiour saith that b 1.2 of euery idle word that men shall speake they shall giue account at the day of iudgement. To come to the matter, M. Perkins reason is very good, There can be no forfaiture without breach of the condition of a bond. Euery sinne is a forfei∣ture. Therefore euery sinne is a breach of the condition of a bond. The obligation or bond here is the law of God. Se∣ing then euery sinne, and therefore euery veniall sinne ma∣keth a man subiect to a forfeiture of punishment, it must needs be that euery veniall sinne must be holden to bee a breach of the law of God. And because no man can liue without daily committing veniall sinnes, therefore it fol∣loweth that no man can liue without daily breach of the law of God. I dispute not heere whether sinne be rightly called veniall in his sense or not; I aime at the point, that because no man by their confession can liue without venial finnes for which he daily saith, forgiue vs our trespasses, and euery veniall sinne is a breach of the law of God, therefore no man can liue without daily breach of Gods law, and therefore that no man in this life doth fulfill the law. But well fare a schoole-tricke yet that shall put this argument quite out: forsooth there is a twofold bond whence the for∣feiture ariseth. One is the law of God, and veniall sinnes he telleth vs are not against the law directly; wee are not bound to auoid them by any prescript law directly. Thus faintly and fearefully he speaketh: his owne conscience telleth him that they are against the law of God, but being loth to confesse the truth, which thus notwithstanding reign∣eth ouer him, he minceth the matter with directly and in∣directly. But if the curse of God which is the penaltie of the law doe light vpon him for these sinnes, what shall it boote him to say, that he did but indirectly runne into it? Well they are not directly against the law, but against what are they directly? They are, saith hee, against the bond of some morall dutie, and we are bound in reason to auoid them. Heere is then the other obligation or bond, the bond of rea∣son,

the bond of morall duty. But is there any bond of mo∣rall dutie but only the law of God? and doth not the law perfectly determine all morall duty? or doth the reason of man find it selfe otherwise bound than by the conscience of the law? Surely S. Paul saith, c 1.3 I knew not sinne but by the law, and hath M. Bishop a way to know sinne otherwise than by the law? S. Paul saith; d 1.4 Where there is no law, there is no transgression, and shall we beleeue M. Bishop that there is transgression where there is no law? e 1.5 How should it not be forbidden by righteousnesse, saith S. Austin, if it be sin? and that that is sinne, saith he, shall be no sinne if God doe not forbid the being of it. Doth God forbid all sinne or else it is no sinne; and yet is there some sinne that is not against the law of God? Well, let vs leaue M. Bishop to his reason; for we see he knoweth not the law. As for vs, we doubt not but the law of God is the full description of all morall du∣tie, and that euery trespasse in morall dutie, and namelie their veniall sinnes are transgressions of the law, and there∣fore that no man fulfilleth the law because no man liueth without daily veniall sinnes: veniall as they call them, though all sinne by the law be adiudged mortall. Thus we see how foully M. Bishop was mistaken to thinke with his elder sticks to prop vp his foure points of Poperie, which whether he will or not are fallen to the ground, and he can deuise no further to hold them vp.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Ephe. 5.16.
• b 1.2

  Mat. 12.36. No man li∣ueth without breach of Gods law.
• c 1.3

  Rom. 7.7.
• d 1.4

  Rom. 4.15.
• e 1.5

  August. de pecc. meritis & remiss. l. 2. c. 16. Quomodo non vetatur per iu∣stitiam si pecca∣tum est? Neque peccatum erit si∣quid erit, si non diuinitus iube∣atur vt non sit.