sinnes which are past and yet that is your doctrine If you answere that all sinnes before baptisme are absolutely pardoned then it may come to passe that a damned man may haue more sinnes forgiuen him then one that is saued that a man may haue 10000. sinnes forgiuen him and be damned for all that for some one Which is euident in the example of a man baptised in the end of his life who yet after baptisme committs some deadly sinne without repentance as if in his going from the Font he fall out with some man and presently kill and be killed not hauing any thought of receiuing absolution by the sacrament of penance Therefore baptisme is not alwaies accompanied with remission of sinnes Now that some obtaine forgiuenesse of sinne that neuer are baptised the Papists themselues graunt in two cases at the least For they teach that votum baptismi the purpose to be baptised is sufficient when the thing it selfe cannot be had and that martirdome is insteed of Baptisme Both these cases are without warrant of scripture if we hold a necessitie of Baptisme absolutely to iustification as they do but yet this they teach be it true or false Baptisme is indeed the Lauer of Regeneration because all they that are baptised and none but they are regenerate But we vnderstand not by baptisme the outward washing only but the inward especially whereof that is nothing but a signe and a seale yet such a signe and seale as by the grace of Gods spirit confirmes the Christian soule in the true beliefe of remission of sinnes Many are saued that neuer were baptised many haue beene baptised that neuer shall be saued therefore baptisme is in effect and force the Lauer of regeneration to those only that are saued to all other it is the signe without the thing by reason that they receaue not grace as well as water They saith he that allow not the sacrament of penance c. L. deny the remission of sinnes The Sacrament of Penance is a fancie of men Our Sauiour Iohn 20. 23. ordaines no such Sacrament but onely promises that the worke of the Ministerie shal be effectuall to the remitting and reteining of sinnes and indeed there is no sacrament of ordinarie vse in the Church which Christ himselfe did not either receiue or giue If you will say that Penance could not belong to him because he neuer sinned after Baptisme I will affirme with as good reason that no more did Baptisme because he neuer sinned at all for Baptisme as you here teach is the Lauer of Regeneration for that in it the soule dead by sinne is newlie regenerated by Grace But Christs soule was neuer dead neither indeed doth the Sacrament of penance serue for any purpose to him who is washed from all his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ as all truely baptised are What Protestant euer denyed that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen or what Papist can better tell what it is to haue sinnes forgiuen then the holy Ghost in Scripture who affirmes that reconciliation with God is made by hauing sinnes not imputed But what sayes our Sauiour Psal 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 7. 8. Luc. 22. 34 Acts. 7. 60. Christ Father forgiue them How doth Stephen in other words make the same prayer in the like case Lord laye not this sinne to their charge But you say the botches and Biles still remaine What botches These are words without matter when the Prince pardons any crâ—me what remaines after the pardon Is not originall corruption pardoned in Baptisme yet by your Doctors confession it remaines though it be not as they falsely teach Veri proprij nominis peccaâ—um that is truely and properly sinne yet the botch is there still as appeares by the continuall running more or lesse in the life of euery Christian Therefore we do not seeke to couer our sinne with any vaile but professe that it is truely properly and perfectly pardoned But we deny that which this man seemes not to vnderstand that by forgiuenesse of sinnes originall and actuall sinne is wholy and at once destroyed in vs the strength of it is abated yea the deadly wound is giuen to it so that it shall neuer recouer but yet weake though it be and drawing on to the very point of death it is the same thing it was before Therefore whatsoeuer can belong to the forgiuenesse of sinnes concerning the nature thereof we acknowledge and professe but we cannot contrary to all experience and warrant of Scripture yea to the very nature Nom. 7. 23. of a pardon fancie to our selues an absolute deliuerance from the being of sinne These 2. points are no doctrines peculiar to those whom M. this Author calles Puritans who dissent not from their brethren but only in some matters of discipline and ceremonie howsoeuer some few make doubt of the latter But because the former of these 2. is a matter of especial importance charged as a great heresie vpon Caluin by Bellarmine and our english Rhemists I will answere distinctly to euery part of this mans accusation The Papists flatly do all Protestants wrong first by Chalenging all saue Puritans of their owne error secondly by avouching so heynous a crime of them in part as is altogeather false for wee all with one mouth and heart affirme that Christ is the true and naturall sonne of God hauing whatsoeuer he hath as he is the sonne from God the father and no whit of it from himselfe But let vs examine his proofe They saith hee that affirme that Christ is God of him selfe and not God of God denie in effect that hee is the Sonne of God by denying that hee receaued his Diuinitie from his father Indeed if it were all one thing to bee God and to bee the Sonne the proposition were true but hee that hath learned that the Father and the Sonne beeing onâ— God are 2. disstinct Persones knowes that the Godhead belongs not to the nature of the Sonne because then the Father and the Holy Ghost not only might bee but needes must be the Sonne aâ— hauing the whole Godhead What hee would proue by these 2. places of Iohn it is not certaine but that he cannot proue the point in question it is more then certaine I aske no more of any man but to Ioa. â— 24. read them Therefore I said to you that you shall dye in your sinnes For if you beleeue not that I am he you shall dye in your sinnes But when the spirite of truth cometh hee shall teach you Ioa. 16. 3. all truth for hee shall not speake of himselfe but what thinges sosoeuer he shall heare he shall speake and the thinges that are to câ—â—e he shall shew you Now let any reasonable man iudge whether it can be gathered out of these places that Christ is not God of himselfe but God of God But it may bee the penner or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses and put 24. for
Iesus Christ All the blessings that Abraham the Father of the faithfull could make any claime to were to be held by guift vpon promise Therefore if we wil be his children as we must be if we be faithfull we haue nothing to trust to but Gods promise in Iesus Christ Faith then is the ground of Hope and according to the measure of true beleeuing so is the measure of all true hoping Let vs exemplifie it a little Do I hope for euerlasting life What reason haue I to hope for it the promise of God that proclaimeth pardon of sinne and inheritance of Glory to all that beleeue in his sonne Iesus Christ But how doth that concerne me by reason of my faith in Christ So that if I beleeue not in Christ I doe but deceiue my selfe with a shadowe of hope for true Christian hope I haue none But I hope I beleeue in Christ But that will not serue thy turne For so dooth euery man that hath heard of Christ and beleeueth the truth of the Gospell and yet he is farre from true hope and from that which the Papists themselues require of euery Christian Who teach that euery man by receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme is actually purged from all his sinnes before committed which he must certainely be perswaded and assured of The like they say of their sacraments of penance and of extreame vnction Which he that receaueth dying hauing a generall Catholicke faith shall surely go to heauen though perhaps through Purgatory In somuch that if he which is thus prepared should doubt whether he were saued or no he should sinne mortally Therefore to conclude this point which I haue hit vpon this by the waie I say it is plaine that faith limits hope and that there is no true hope or reason of hoping but proportionably to the measure of beleeuing Which will easilier be acknowledged of vs if we remember that hope in the Scriptures is applied to those things which we must of necessitie beleeue by faith And in deed the true difference betwixt faith and hope is not in the diuersitie of assurance but in the circumstance of time Faith reaching to all times past present and to come hope being restrained onely to the future time A Christian man beleeueth by faith that God will blesse him in all things of this life so farre forth as it shall make for his owne glory and the beleeuers saluation Therefore also he hopeth for this blessing from God not absolutely but with those conditions which faith obserues in beleeuing The same man beleeues by faith that because he trusts in Christ he is now in the fauour of God and shall so continue for euer Therefore accordingly he hopes for saluation without any other condition Of the truth of these things I dispute not but only bring them to shew the nature of hope which is alwayes fitted according to the nature of the promises which faith rests vpon Where we beleeue conditionally we hope conditionally where our faith is absolute our hope is so too That the proposition is false it appeares by the example B. To the proposition of Dauid Who praies to God for the pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen for so was he assured from the Lord by the prophet Nathan vnlesse we shall charge him with infidelity for not beleeuing the prophet since the speech was so plaine that hee could not but vnderstand it I haue sinned against the Lord. A plaine and 2. Sam. 12. 13. true Confession The Lord also hath put away thy sinne thou shalt not dye As plaine and certaine an absolution Will you come in here with your vaine distinctions of guilt and punishment of temporall and eternall If you do it is to no purpose For whatsoeuer the respects were in which Dauid praied for the forgiuenes of sinnes once this is cleere that he praied for it and then what remaines but that you condemne him of sinning greeuously in asking God pardon for those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen or of infidelitie for not beleeuing But if Dauid in some regard might craue pardon when it was already graunted and beleeued by him to be so be thinke your selfe what will become of your proposition and how wisely you haue charged vs with sinning greeuously for doing that which in some respect may be lawfully done Now for your distinctions I will not wast time nor blot paper to refute them but onely shew that in this case they cannot helpe you Which of the former is apparant because the Prophet precisely mentions both parts The Lord hath taken awaie thy sinne There is the guilt wipt away Thou shalt not die There is the punishment forgiuen Yea you will say the eternall punishment but not the temporall I pray you whether of the two is it that God threatens Adam Gen. 2. 18. withall The day thou eatest thou shalt die the death The punishment yea the whole penaltie of the statute concerning sinne is Thou shalt die See how God for the comfort of Dauid proclaimes this pardon in the very contrary words Thou shalt not die Who shall perswade vs now that the pardon is lesse generall then the penalty But is the eternall punishment indeed forgiuen I thinke you mistake your selfe or els popish doctrine hanges but ill fauoredly togeather For what is that which you say is changed from eternall to temporall Is it not the punishment due to sinne how is it then forgiuen vnles forgiuenes of sinnes be nothing els but a changing of the punishment which if we grant then Christ hath not obteyned any more for vs but the altering of the punishment then God hath not pardoned our sin but remitted somwhat of the penalty Speake not here of the effect of baptisme for if by forgiuenesse of sinnes therein we are wholy acquitted from the guilt and punishment why should the same words after baptisme signifie a change of the punishment and not a full pardon Dauid therefore in praying for pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were already pardoned by his practise destroyed this popish reason long before it was hatcht Nor may you answere that this prayer was for any temporall Calamity which was layde vpon him for this sinne because the scriptures make these requests diuers Hee was threatned by the prophet that the child borne in adultery 2. Sam. 12. 18. Psa 32. 3. 4 51. 1. 2. should surely dye For the life of the childe he prayes fastes and weepes but those 2. Psalmes I spake of are of another nature not once mentioning nor once glancing at any temporall or outward affliction And if there be in deede any such dictinction of guilt and punishment Dauid intreats directly and principally for the former According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me throughly c. Euery verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soule for the conscience of sinne cōmitted against God And whereas he makes also request
righteous But we deny that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation in any part weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ Which he may easily conceaue that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God by the saluation of his chosen For he knowes that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe is taken from God God and man after this reckoning may part stakes God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation and abilitie to vse those meanes man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded Yet if all men that are inabled did so helpe themselues there were lesse cause of boasting more reason to giue God the glory of iustification For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace that God imparts to them that they are iustified But when some vse it well some ill and this difference of well or ill vsing it flowes from the free-will of men by their owne power what a small part of glory is left to God in the seuerall iustification of those that are saued Hence it follows that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie before a man is at all iustified by workes meritorious after he is begun to be iustified is dishonorable to God the death of all goodnesse in those very workes that are done Because the intent which our Papists magnifie so much is directly derogatorie froÌ„ the glory of God without the true and sincere purpose whereof no workes of any man baptised are one iott better then the morall actions of heathen men But the sonnes of the bond-woman being of a seruile nature respecting themselues either only or principally being ignorant and without feeling of the affection of childreÌ„ can neuer be perswaded that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse and thankfulnesse to his father but must needs doe that he doth like a hireling for loue of wages And by such meanes our Papists would procure and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe not imputing their sinnes What is it to be reconciled to God but to haue Gods displeasure remoued his fauor fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs This hath Christ procured by his death and bloud-shedding the increase of our sanctification in vs by the dayly dying vnto sinne and rising againe vnto newnesse of life restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs by naturall corruption and manifold actuall transgressions but reconciles vs neuer awhit the more to God When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father starued and euill coloured in his body ragged and torne in his apparrell who can doubt for all this but he was fully reconciled to his father when he fell on his neck kissed embraced and entertained him but as his flesh euery day came better and better as his colour mended and waxed more fresh when he was arrayed according to his estate he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father The same is our case in Christ by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God For we are made his Children but we begin dayly more and more to resemble him as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature and conuersation Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions and I know not what supposed vertues It is sufficient for vs that Christ hath by his bloud made our peace and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God by his bloud and propitiation then his dying the Apostles preaching and our beleeuing is all in vaine How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse especially if it be remembred that we shut al men out from iustificatioÌ„ that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ They tell vs saith hee that faith anâ— good workes can not be seuered Would you knowe what faith he meanes only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke namely Feare The diuills beleeue and tremble Iac. 2. 19. But if they would speake any thing to the purpose they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ iâ— nothing els but to be perswaded that these points that the Scriptures teach of Christ are true Which will neuer be done as long as that famous distinction is retemed Credere Deum deo in deum To beleeue there is a God to beleeue that all that God sayes is true to beleeue or trust in God or to rest vpon him and as our Nor theme men speake very plainely and significantly to beleeue on God Secondly that a man thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him for al this beleuing is not iustified contrary to the whole course of the Gospell Thirdly they must shew vs that a man may be iustified and yet not sanctified then which nothing is more repugnant to popery For the popish Doctors teach vs that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht and grace infused into vs whereby and for which wee are as they say truely and habitually iust in the sight of God If they answere that these maâ—ters haue bin already proued by their Diuins we reply that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes and that if either this accuser or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures that haue bin aledged to this end any further or bring any that yet haue not bin brought he shall receaue by the grace of God true and sufficient satisfaction if truth will satisfie him In the meane while it shall suffice to put this Author in minde that his experience failes him beeing made not of those that beleeue in Christ but of them that beleeue Christ or at the most geue credit to those things which are spoken of him in the Gospell Whereunto I ad that neither faith which hath force to remoue mountaines is so noble as that which makes a man heire of heauen nor because that faith can be without Charitie Therefore either he that beleeues in Christ can bee without iustification or he that is iustifyed without sanctification They assure vs saith he that faith once had can neuer be lost What then This vaine securitie saith he opens the gap to all libertine sensuality If he speake of the euent all experience refuts him because no men liue more soberly and Christianly then they that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion And indeed it cannot bee otherwise For this is no where but where the spirit of God is and where he is there only is true sanctification If he blame the doctrine in respect of
and most effectually intended their sinnes For he that intendeth any effect wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned consequently intendeth it as for example He that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea inteÌ„deth coÌ„sequently the death of all the men which be in her In like mâ—ner if God intended that Iudas should sell Christ vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned consequently God intended the sinne as well as the selling C. Cal. lib. 1. institution C. 18. §. 1. The Minor is to to euident for the Protestants deride Gods permission they say that all his actions are energetical or effectual they desperatly auerre that Pauls conuersion Dauids adultry were in like maner the works of God and as he elected some to Glory before the preuision of workes so he reiected some from glory before the preuision of sinnes Here hence I inferre that according to the Protestants principles God is most properly the author of sinne because he impelleth most effectually thereunto Next that he is the only author of sinne for that he inforceth D. men vpon necessity to sinne and they as instruments follow the motion of their first cause Againe that man sinneth not For where there is necessitie of sinning there is no sinne For sinne is free or no sinne Besides how can man sinne in conforming his will to Gods will Finally God is worse then the diuell For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth in the mouing perswading and inducing of men to sin the which by the Protestants confession God performeth more effectually then the Diuell because the motions of God are more forcible lesse resistable then the illusions or suggestions of the diuell Many sinnes moreouer are acted without the temptations of the diuell some of ignorance some of passion but none without the motions of God so that God is worse then the Diuell both in causing greater multitude of sinnes then the diuell and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto The which doctrine is as good a ground for Atheisme as euer hell could deuise for were it not much more reasonable to saye there were no God at all then to beleeue there were such a God as commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth men to sinne and yet for the same sinnes will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell Protestant Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds perswades vrges A. impells to sinne makes God the cause of sinne Of this proposition there is no question betwixt the Papists and vs. Yet I hold it necessary to speake a word or two of it not by way of refutation but of explication If a man commaund vrge c. to that which is euill and the effect ensue therevpon he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise For that which he B. commaunds being otherwise euill chaunges the nature by his commaundement so that neither he that commaunds nor the partie that obeies commit any sinne in commaunding or obeying For example it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice yet God commaunds Abraham to do so and Abraham is ready to fulfill the commâ—undement Both without sinne because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes and he that gaue man a lawe hath reserued authoritie to himselfe to dispence with that lawe when and as it pleaseth him and as this Papist saith truely Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will to the will of God But yet this is not simply true For admit that Iudas had knowne that it was Gods will that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him might he therefore the doing of it At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it that it might be lawful wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill But if God had geuen him commission to do it as he did to abraham for the offring of his sonne then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God and had not sinned in obeying So much doth it concerne a man to liue in obedience to those lawes which God hath prescribed to all and euery man generally and particularly Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby God wil giue him warrant and charge to kil without which howsoeuer Gods wil stand Abraham cannot do it lawfully And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas Pilate or the Iewes intending that good end which God intended to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose which is more then a knowledge that God would haue it done This being vnderstood we disclayme as needelesse all such excuses for God as this Papist seemeth to make on our behalfe For we say not that God moued them for a good end but that he did not moue them at all and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing and commaunding perswading vrging impelling since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing which I suppose God doth and you will graunt may do without being guilty of sinne for so doing But if we would maintaine that God moued them it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes which he giues to man and his will being the rule of Iustice that which he will haue done by his willing of it ceasses to be euill So that he cannot doe any euill though he may commaund that to be done which till he commaunded it could not be done without sinne But you vrge vs further that God indirectly and most effectually intended their sinnes Of his effectuall intending by and by in answere to the Assumption Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying that we hold it absurd to make any question of it For what is more plaine in the scripture then that 2 SaÌ„ 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne haue occasion to punish the people as he did Doth not Michah professe that it was Gods purpose 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gileâ—d by hearkening to the false prophesies of them whom a lying spirit was to seduce Goe saith God thou shalt preuaile And to come to your owne example did not God intend decree that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas falsely accused by the Priests vniustly condemned by Pilate If he did not certainly determine these things so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed
so without warrant from him in euery matter contrary to his reuealed commaundements Blasphemous therefore and not be thought on by any christian much lesse vttered are these consequents and especially the last of them which inferres that God is worse then the diuill Because neither doth God as I haue often said impell or induce any man to sinne and though he should for causes knowne onely to himselfe incline as Austin saith the hearts of men to euill things yet were it still blasphemous to denie the iustice of his iudgement whatsoeuer prophane flesh and bloud imagines O man Rom. 9. 19. 20. what art thou that disputest with God! shall the clay c. Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Protestant This point it should seeme stickes in this mans stomack he is so much troubled with it Art 5 in the extrauagant syllogisme Art 4. the third point and here it makes a whole article The principall syllogisme is thus to be framed If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption of this syllogisme he offers to proue in this maner Papist Whosoeuer leeseth his charitie leeseth his faith A. But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charitie Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith The Maior is a principle vndoubted of in the Schooles of Protestants For they peremptorily affirme that true faith such as was in Dauid one of Gods elected can no more be seuered from charitie then heate from fire or light from the Sunne and therefore if Dauid killing Vrias lost his charitie no doubt but therewithall he lost his faith The Minor I proue for whosoeuer remaineth in death B. is without charitie But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charitie If he was without that which once he had no doubt but then he lost it for he was depriued thereof for his sinne The Maior Proposition of this last Syllogisme thus I prooue For charity is the life of the soule and it is as impossible for a man to haue charity and remaine in death as it is impossible for a man to be dead in body and yet indewed with a reasonable soule The Minor cannot be denied to wit that Dauid by killing Vrias remained in death For it is the expresse word of God Qui non diligit manet in morte He that loâ—eth not his neighbour remaineth in death but certaine it is that Dauid loued not Vrias when he killed him Ergo likewise certaine it is that Dauid remained in death The same position might easily be proued out of Ezekiel Ezech. c. 18. ver 24. Si autem aâ—erterit se iustus a iusticia sua c. Protestant Whosoeuer looseth his Charity looseth his faith If by Charity A. Rom. 13. 10. you vnderstand an absolute being without sanctification which is signified by Charity because Loue is the fullfilling of the Law your proposition is true but your assumption is false If thereby you meane not performing some act of Charity or doing the contrary your proposition is false For not euery one that failes in the performance of some duties of loue or doth some thing contrary to the rule of Loue by such omission of good or committing of euill looseth nor in deed may truely bee said to loose his Charity though he sinne against the lawe of Charity in so doing Your proofe being grounded vpon a misconceauing of the Protestants principle which I expounded in the 4. Article is of no force True faith such as wee confesse Dauids was alwaies after his calling can no more be without loue then the sunne without light or the fire without heat But â—et he that hath this faith and loue may sometimes neglect some duties of this loue and do some works of hatred Because his sanctification being vnperfect his obedience also must needs be so But it neither falls out that such a man becomes againe wholy vnregenerate by which meanes onely and by none other sanctification or loue can bee altogeather lost But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his Charity Nay rather if Charity can be lost he then lost it when he committed â— Adultery vnles we shall say that either Adultery is not against Charity or that murther only not Adultery procures a dâ—priuation of Charitie But Dauid did not loose his Charitie by either or both of them though in each he greuously sinned against the loue of his neighbour Which for murder this man grants for Adultery that parable that Nathan brings prooues vndoubtedly Whosoeuer remaines in death is without Charity Namely 2. Sam. 12. 1. 2. so farre as he is in death If he be altogeather in death he is wholy without Charity But a man may in respect of some sinnefull action be in death and yet for all that bee truely sanctified though not throughly In regard whereof he may must be takeÌ„ for a sanctified man as in truth he is howsoeuer hee doe some thing contrary to the grace of sanctification according to the lusts of his naturall corruption He that hath some of his members dead as his hands or his feete in respect of these parts is dead and yet may be aliue in all the other How much more may he then be truely said to haue liuing charity in him which failing in some one duty and that but of one part for a time brings forth notwithstanding many fruits of loue euen of the same kind of which that sinne against loue is What needs any further answere to your proofe then hath already bin geuen For in deed it is of no force Vnles that be granted which is the question that euery act contrary to loue drawes loue out of the soule so that a man thereby ceasses to haue any part of regeneration in hâ—m And this answere were sufficient though Charity were in deed the life of the soule Which is but an Idle popish fancy or rather a sudden conceipt of this quick disputer Rom. 1. 17. If there be any other life of the soule then God surely it is faith rather then loue by which the righteous man liueth Is it not inough for our Papists to make Loue the forme of faith but that they must haue it also the life of the soule Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death In respect of that sinne yet was hee translated from death to life by beleeuing in the Messias to come and accordingly brought forth the fâ—â—its of sanctification in obeying both the other commaundements and that also oâ— not kilâ—ing which by the murther oâ— Vrias he brake So thaâ— the proofe which followes is vnsufficient Because that Dauid could not be charged simply with the want of loue though he did not loue Vrias in that action Which yet proceeded not somuch from the haâ—red of his person as from Dauids feare to haue his former sinne