A commentary or, exposition upon the divine second epistle general, writtenA commentary or, exposition vpon the diuine second epistle generall, written

Christian virtues are not natural: a man is not more borne with grace in his soul, then with apparel on his back.^y There is none righteous, no not one. If there were, what need was there of a new creation? The Philosophers said that Nature ⟨p. 35⟩had Igniculos & semina virtutum, the sparks and seeds of virtue in it. But Saint Paul sayes, Novi quod in carne non est bonum: ^aI know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: but if there be any good in me,^b by the grace of God I am that I am. The Rhemists quarrel with Saint Paul, for calling concupiscence a sin, which he proves to be a breach of the last Commandment. Rom. 7.7. For I had not known Concupiscence, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. They have in their Catechisms put out one of the former Precepts, and to make up again the Decalogue, and number of Ten, they have cut the last Precept into twain. There to serve their turns, they make of the last Commandment, two; here to serve their turns, they make of it, none. They are great patrons of Nature in their doctrines, and enemies of Grace: yet Nature is not so much beholding to them neither. For they take children from mothers, obedience of subjects from Kings; care of preservation from a mans self; hurry them into damageable, yea, damnable precipices; and dissolve all natural combinations. Their Jupiter Capitolinus must drink nothing but humane blood. Yet they are all for Nature, as if they cared not for Grace.

Christian vertues are not naturall: a man is not more borne with grace in his soule, then with apparell on his backe.^y There is none righteous, no not one. If there were, what need was there of a new creation? The Philosophers said that Nature ⟨p. 35⟩had Igniculos & semina virtutum, the sparkes and seeds of vertue in it. But Saint Paul sayes, Novi quod in carne non est bonum: