serued and surely if in it selfe it be not sinne why should the Apostle so much complaine of it since by the trouble it put him to it did but occasion him to shew his valour and as you Papists say was a means to make him deserue a crowne of glorie speaker W. P. Reason II. Infants baptized and regenerate die the bodily death before they come to the yeeres of discretion therfore original sin in them is sin properly or els they should not die hauing no cause of death in them for death is is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne As for actuall sinne they haue none if they die presently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason or affection speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God vvho freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bin both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therfore is it said most truely oâ— S Paul Death entred into the vvorld by sin But the other place the vvages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidelity the wages whereof if they had noâ— repented them had bâ—n hel fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shâ—w great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sin was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it speaker A. W. Master Perkins reason is thus to be framed That which is the cause of bodilie death to infants Baptised and regenerate is sinne properly But Originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants Baptised and regenerate Therefore it is sinne properly The proposition he proues by two places of Scripture the assumption by shewing that they haue no actuall sinne and therefore since death is not but where sinne is originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants that dye before they come to any vse of reason or affection First you deny the assumption viz. that originall sinne is the cause of bodily death to infants But the reason of your deniall is insufficient For it doth not follow that originall sinne is not the cause of death to them because the meanes of their death is distemperature or externall violence For then the death of many reprobate men were no iudgement of God against sinne and though God of his absolute power may take away any mans life because he gaue it him yet it pleased his Maiestie to binde himselfe to a course in the creation that death should be the consequent of sinne The day thou eatest thou shalt dye so that wheresoeuer we see death we may conclude there is sinne either really as in all Adams posteritie or by imputation as in Christ. Then you come to the proofe of the proposition where you graunt the one place to be rightly alleaged because death indeede had not found any place of entrie had it not been for sinne The other text you say is foâ—lly abused first because the Apostle vnderstands by it eternall damnation he doth so principally but why may not death be taken as largely here as it is there from whence all these phrases of Scripture come But there it signifies both kinds of death Here S. Paul chiefely puts them in minde of the greater hauing shewed before that bodily death came into the world by the meanes of sinne and although the Apostle be occasioned to deliuer that speech by reason of the Romans actuall transgressions it doth not abate but sharpen the edge of his exhortation to expound the place of all sinne whatsoeuer for if there be no sinne no not originall but shall haue death for wages certainely these actuall transgressions shall be punisht with it Master Perkins in the place alleaged speakes of that punishment which is condemnation as the very words following declare in which he prooues that the punishment is taken away by that of the Apostle There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus It is true that bodily death also is chaunged from being a punishment yet the reason of that death is the dwelling of sinne in the regenerate which by the dissoluing of the bodie through death must be abolisht If it had pleased God to haue giuen Master Perkins life that he might haue seene this your exception being better acquainted with your sleights and his owne meaning he would haue answered you more fully as in other poynts so in this also speaker W. P. Reason III. That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I haue said Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is inticed then when lust conceiueth it bringeth forth sinne And therefore it is sinne properly such as the fruite is such is the tree speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had been by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one vvay or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. John All that is in the vvorld is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing vvhich allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as vvide is it from all morall vvisdome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sinnes For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text vvhich M. Perkins bringeth to persvvade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite
away the disease and ease the diseased so doth God lab our by his grace in vs to consume sinne and deliuer man And that it is not onely sinne as it comes from sinne and causeth sinne but also properly as a disobedience Austin shewes euidently by this similitude As blindnes of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne whereby the proud heart is worthily punished and a cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of the heart so that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusteth is both sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the minde and a punishment of sinne because it is laid by desert vpon the disobedient and the cause of sinne by the fault of consent or the contagion of birth Yea Austin doubts not to say as we doe that the guilt of concupiscence yet remaining is pardoned that it may not be imputed for sinne In them which are regenerate saith Austin when they receiue forgiuenes of all sinnes whatsoeuer it must needes be that the guilt also of this concupiscence yet remaining is forgiuen that as I said it may not be imputed for sinne Further it is plaine that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne because he receiues and allowes of Ambrose his opinion who calles it iniquitie because it is vniust that the flesh should lust against the spirit This sinne Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand to be our â—lothfull and corrupt will and a violent inclination to euill And Peter Lombard saith that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault but so that it reignes not in vs. speaker W. P. But by the circumstances of the text it is sinne properly for in the words following S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated And. verse 24. he crieth out O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dvvelling in him made him to doe the euill vvhich he haâ—â—a How proues this that sinne there must be taken properlie it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not be sin properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the vvill But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby vvas so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercomming that euill As vvitnesseth S. Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence vvhich being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned This first circumstance then alleadged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him than for him speaker A. W. The reason lies thus Originall sinne dwelling in the Apostle made him doe that euill he hates therefore it is sin properly You answere it rather prooues the contrarie because yâ— which the Apostle doth with hatred of it is not sin for sinne is not committed but with liking and consent of the will I answere that whatsoeuer a man doth against the law of God it is sinne whether he like or mislike it Secondly that the consent of the will makes it not sinne but our sinne Thirdly the Apostle denies not that he doth this euil with his will for else he would not doe it but affirmes that he doth it against his iudgement as euen naturall men doe that are ouercome of their affections Witnes Medea in Ouid I see what is good and like it and doe that is euill Otherwise such actions of theirs should not be sinne I denie not that the regenerate haue a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into and vpon a better ground but yet the naturall men also oftentimes doe that which they mislike in general though they do it willingly That this was the Apostles meaning he that will reade the chapter may easily perceiue I allow not saith he that I doe that is I know it to bee euill and I would faine leaue it vndone but the strength of my corruption is such that I am carried away to the doing of it and so because I am but in part regenerate in part I serue God and in part sinne As for that you adde out of S. Austin it makes not any whit against vs who acknowledge that reason especially being regenerate oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence shall haue reward for it Yet are not Austins words as you report them but thus Reason sometimes manfullie bridles and restraines concupiscence euen when it is stirred when it so happens we fall not into sin but with some little wrastling are crowned But sometimes againe as the Apostle plainly confesseth it is vanquished by sinne or naturall corruption and drawne to the committing of some actuall sinne inward or outward which being euident Master Perkins reason is not answered as the sight of it may prooue That which dwelling in S. Paul made him doe that he hates is sinne properly Indeede why should he hate it if it be not sinne But originall sinne dwelling in him made him doe that he hates Therefore originall sinne is properly sinne speaker D. B. P. Novv to the second O wretched man that J am who shall deliuer mee from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne hovv this may be dravvne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument vvhere he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text vvhich he can find to proue S. Paul to take sinne there properly speaker A. W. That originall sinne called sinne by the Apostle is sinne properly our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in that chapter It is not good It hinders vs from doing good It drawes vs to the doing of euill It makes the Apostle crie out Oh wretched man that I am To which they adde out of other places It is an euill that doth compasse vs about It fights against the Commandement Thou shalt not lust It is an euill to be crucified and mortified Vpon al these descriptions of it we conclude that it is truly and properly sinne speaker A. W. Novv I vvill proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence Jt is not I that doe it â—lâ— sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is but this vvas not done by S. Paul Ergo. Let vs now see your proofes to the contrarie the first whereof you frame thus All sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is But this was not done by S. Paul Ergo. First your proposition is false secondly your conclusion is either
would haue it gloriouslie appeare both abroade in his business and at home in his Pallace and in the middest of the Citie of â—oâ—e with this Posie In this signe of saluation I haue deliuered the Cittie Wâ—… it also he blessed his visage With fasting and other corporall affliction he chastized his body that he might please God He with incredible admiration honored prosessed Virgins and made lawes in their fauour He builded many Churches in honour of the Apostles and Martyrs And as S. Chrysostome recordeth He that was reuested in purple went to embrace the Sepulchres of S. Peter and S Paul and all Princely state laide aside stood humbly praying vnto the Saints that they would bee intercessors for him vnto God He farther tooke order for the burying of his owne body in the middest of the Tombes of the twelue Apostles that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers which should be there offered in the honour of the Apostles Neither was he frustrated of his holy desire for as it followeth in the 71. Chapter of the same booke at his funerals the people ioyning with the Priests with many â—cares and great sighs powred out prayers for the good Emperours soule Againe at a 〈◊〉 feast which he held at the dedication of the Church built by 〈◊〉 Ierusalem some of 〈◊〉 cleargie preached and expounded the holy Scriptures and o the 〈◊〉 me with vnbloudie Sacrifice and â—…st all consâ—crâ—lions appeased the Godhead and prayed for the hâ—â—lth of he Prince Moreover this â—…alous Eâ—peroâ—r reprehended Acasius a Nouatian hâ—…ke 〈◊〉 saying that it was not in the power of Priests but of God only to forgiuesinnes Finally toward true Bishops the law full Pastors of Christs Church he caried such a reuerend 〈◊〉 that being in the Councell of Nice he would not â—iue dowâ—e â—efore they 〈◊〉 backâ—ed vnto him so to doe And was so farre 〈…〉 vpon hâ—â— to 〈◊〉 pâ—came iudge in causes Ecclesiasticall that hee 〈◊〉 thâ—re prof â—ied that it did not belong to him to iudge of Bishops 〈◊〉 to be iudâ—… by them It was not the 〈◊〉 but the thing signified viz. Christ crucified to which Constantine shewed his affection and by whom he obtained all his victories by this God not by this signe The chastising of his bodie was not to please God by the worke wrought but to fit himselfe to prayer whereby hee might obtaine mercie saith Eusebius appeasing God by supplication To make virginitie a more diuine life than the maried estate as Eusibius in that place calles it is to say Adam liued a more diuine life before God created Euaâ— than he could doe afterward and so to make her not an helpe but an hinderance to him Eusebius speakes not of the Apostles but of the Martyrs to whom the Churches were dedicated but to God onely and were called the Lords houses Dominicae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kyrch Churches They were also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because they were built in honour of the Martyrs but because as I shewed before the Christians vsed anciently to assemble in the places where the Martyrs had been buried or because of Christ who was accounted the prince of Martyrs in respect of whom the Martyrs refused the name as belonging properly to him Therefore Eusebius calles the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the translator terme it Martyrum domum in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This testimonie out of Chrysostome may well be suspected being in the same words in a Sermon falsely attributed to Austin de Sancto Paulo and alleaged out of a later writer one Theodorus Daphnopathus by Garret a Chanon at the least we may well remember that caueat of Sixtus Seneâ—sis and take the speech to be hyperbolicall It was the Apostles glorie that people in such multitudes came to the places of their buriall to pray though they prayed not to them nor thought their prayers euer a whit the better because they were made there And where there is mention in Eusebius of the peoples praying for the Emperour with more zeale than knowledge there is no mention of honouring the Apostles by prayer He should haue said with vnbloodie sacrifices which were not Mastes but prayers and perhaps some offerings for reliefe of the poore and maintaining of the Temple Your author saies that Acasius affirmed this onely of the sinne that is to death Hereupon the Emperour replied Set vp a ladder for thy selfe Acasius and goe alone into heauen which saith he I thinke the Emperour said to Acasius not that he might commend him but that men might thinke that they are not free from the staine of sinne Sozomen that writes the historie thinkes the Emperour did not intend to praise Acasius but to instruct other you affirme peremptorily that the Emperour reprehended him speaker D. B. P. It pleased the gracious Emperour so much to honour those worthie and reuerend Fathers but it becomes not your Bishops or Popes therefore to exact such behauiour of their Soueraignes and much lesse to make them daunce attendance barefooted or hold their stirrups as for that profession of the good Emperour it shewes â—is zeale but prooues not that Princes may not iudge Bishops being their subiects especially since the reason is strong for Soueraignes principally for Bishops but as their deputies You saith the Emperour are appointed gods to vs and it is not conuenient that man should iudge gods but he only of whom the Psalmist saith God sits in the assemblie of gods If then this right Puissant Emperor and most sincere Christian reuerenced the Sacrifice of the Masse and beleeued that there was power in Priests to remitte sinnes that Saints were to be prayed vnto and that prayer was to be made for the dead and such like as appeareth by the euident testimonie oâ— most approued Author that liued with him hath your Maiestie any cause to doubt but that in matters of faith he agreed with the present Romane Church Wherefore my hope and trust in Almighty God is that you in your high wisedome vpon mature and due consideration how many old condemned errors the Protestants holde and with aâ—lwell weighing that the whole frame of their Doctrine tendeth to the disgracing of God and his Saintes to the discouragement of men from well doing and doth as it were loosen the reines vnto all fleshly liberty will in time make a most Godly resolution to imitate that famous Emperour Constantine He contrary to his former education embraced with aâ—h spower that same Romane Religion which we now professe And which is worthy to be obserued he feared nothing the contrarie disposition of the multitude or greater part of his subiects that were wholy led another way But following the blessed example of his most vertuous Mother S. Helâ—â—a reposed himselfe in the powerfull assistance of the Almightie and chasâ—â— all other Religions into
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne for by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
vnto the person and in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Annotations vpon our Consent speaker D. B. P. First we say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadillo speaker A. W. Neither doe we say that the punishment of originall sin is in it or any part of it but that in handling that point it is to be considered much lesse doe we charge you with saying so What it is you call a peccadillo or small sinne I vnderstand not certainly If you meane that originall sinne is small and deserues no punishment but a due correction either the death of all men in Adam is no punishment or God punisheth without desert speaker D. B. P. But there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here hee quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can deny this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be perdoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it self remaineth guilty as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in itselfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senselesse imaginations be these speaker A. W. The sinne is pardoned so that the partie shall not be punisht for it but it is not so pardoned that in it self it hath not iust cause of punishment and this both philosophie and reason allow all our actuall sinnes are pardoned as soone as we beleeue in Christ and yet they are truly sinnes whensoeuer afterward they are committed by vs. speaker D. B. P. Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contrarios in one part of the subiect at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the wil at the same instant can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost oontent to inhabit a body subiect to sinne all which must be granted contrary to both Scripture and naturall sense if we admit the â—ault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other oddâ— corner speaker A. W. Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrary to the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued Not being imputed hinders not the being of the thing there but rather proues it for if it were not there what fauour were it not to impute it Who knowes not that contraries may bee in one part of the same subiect at once though not in the same respect Do we not while we are here know in part and so remaine ignorant in part Is not our wil imperfectly reformed The holy Ghost is not content that the bodie he doth inhabit should be subiect to sinne and therefore hee labours continually to free it from that subiection but he is content to inhabit the man whom he hath begun to reforme that hee may purge him thoroughly II. The dissent or difference speaker W. P. Thus far wee consent with the Church of Rome now the difference betweene vs stands not in the abolishment but in the manner and the measure of the abolishment of this sinne Papists teach that Originall sinne is so farre sorth taken away after baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sin properly and is nothing else but a want defect and weakenes making the heart fitte and readie to conceiue sinne much like tinder which though it be not fire of it selfe yet is it very apt and fit to conceiue fire And they of the Church of Rome denie it to be sinne properly that they might vphold some grosse opinions of theirs namely That a man in this life may fulfill the law of God and doe good workes void of sinne that hee may stand righteous at the barre of Gods iudgement by them But wee teach otherwise that though original sinne be taken away in the regenerate and that in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after baptisme not only as a want and weakenes but as a sinne and that properly as may by these reasons be prooued Reason I. Rom. 7. 17. Paul saith directly It is no more I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me that is originall sinne The Papists answere againe that it is so called improperly because it commeth of sinne and also is an occasion of sinne to be done speaker A. W. I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne aâ— vvriting is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it maâ—es a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins shall be well coursed by the plaine circumstances of the place If S. Austin were a Papist in this point because of this sentence questionlesse hee was in the same point a Protestant because of some other which I will recite Doest thou not marke saith Austin doest thou not perceiue that he who doth so vehemently persecute his bodie if he doth persecute nothing that displeaseth God doth God great wrong by persecuting his temple without cause Now what I pray you displeaseth God but sinne But this corruption wee speake of is also hated of God and therefore day by day consumed As the Physitian saith Austin hates the disease of the sicke man and labours by curing it to driue
false or not to the purpose Your proposition hath two faults the one that in stead of saying All that is sinne properly is done c. You say All that is sinne is done properly applying properly to the committing of sinne and not to the nature of it The other fault is that the matter of your proposition is vntrue For there is some sinne namely originall which is not done by him in whom it is but is bred with him If in your assumption you meane that the Apostle doth not properly doe the euill which he hates you are deceiued For whether it be an inward action of the minde or an outward of the bodie it must needes be performed by some nature that hath a true being but there is no third nature in man besides the soule and bodie and what is done by either of these is done by the man of whom they are parts If you say it is done by a vicious qualitie in man that qualitie hauing subsistence in man as in the subiect of it is not properly the doer of the action but the facultie by which a man is fitted for the doing of it To your proofe I answere that the Apostle consefleth he did it I allow not that which I doe What I hate that doe I. I doe that which I would not The euill which I would not that doe I. And at last he concludes I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Where he teacheth vs to expound his doing or not doing I doe not the euill which I hate that is in my minde or in respect of my regeneration I doe that is in regard of my corruption In my minde I my selfe serue the law of God in my flesh I my selfe serue the law of sinne I doe both my selfe but the one in my minde regenerate the other in my flesh vnregenerate If you will conclude for that you leaue at large in this reason it should seeme of purpose because in the other two you set downe your conclusion expressely Therefore it is not properly sinne your conclusion is false because it containes more than is in the antecedent If your meaning be either that originall corruption is not sinne or that the euill which S. Paul hates is not sinne as one of these two you must needes meane your conclusion is from the purpose For the question is not whether originall sinne be sinne which both parts grant but whether it be properly sinne or no neither doe you vndertake to prooue that the euill which the Apostle did with hatred of it is not sinne So that this first proofe of yours is neither for you nor against vs. speaker A. W. Secondly out of those vvords I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see an other law in my members resisting the lavv of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that vvas seated in the flesh ergo it vvas no sinne properly Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule But that was not seated in the soule but in the flesh Therefore it was no sinne properly As the image of God after which wee were created was though principally yet not onely in the soule so the corruption of nature wherby that image is defaced hath place both in soule and bodie and therefore your proposition is not simply true But your assumption is simply false For by saying it was seated in the flesh you must needs denie that it was seated in the soule or else your syllogisme will be nothing worth Now by flesh the Apostle meanes nature vnregenerate both soule and bodie The wisedome of the flesh is â—nmitie against God signifying the very best part of a mans soule Hence it is that he calles a naturall man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animalem and wils vs to be renewed in the spirit of our mind affirming that some are puft vp with their fleshly minde and I pray you consider whence these workes of the flesh arise Idolatrie witchcraft hatred debate heresies c. The Apostle saith Austin ascribes those sinnes to the flesh which beare principallsway in the diuell who it is certaine hath no flesh for he saith enmitie contention emulation enuie are workes of the flesh the head and fountaine whereof is pride which raigneth in the diuell though he haue no flesh Yea Bellarmine himselfe grants though with much ado that concupiscence though it be as he saith principally in the sensuall part yet hath place also in the minde speaker D. B. P. The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is novv therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that vvalke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dvvelling in them if they vvalke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sin properly For the vvages of sin is death that is eternall damnation speaker A. W. If say you there be no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it then it is not properly sinne But there is no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it Therefore it is not sin properly If by these words there is no condemnation you meane they shall not be condemned I denie the consequence of your proposition For it may be properly sinne though they in whom it is haue it not imputed to them to condemnation I denie your assumption whether you meane they are not condemned de facto or they deserue not condemnation de iure In the former sense you teach that all infants which die vnbaptized are shut out of heauen and yet none of them walke according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne In the latter sense we and you are wholy of opinion that originall sinne is a iust cause of condemnation euen to infants who actually sinne not The place alleaged by you serues not to prooue either of your propositions as you haue set them downe for the Apostle saith not that there is no condemnation to them which walke not according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne but to them which are in Christ Iesus I grant that all but they which are in Christ doe walke according to such desires yet it is not all one to say the one and the other For you seeme to bring that as a reason why there is no condemnation to them whereas the Apostle addes these words to shew that they which are in Christ do not walk after the flesh but after the spirit therein concluding his former disputation of iustification and sanctification speaker W. P. Thence I reason thus That which once was sinne properly and still remaining in
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
litle knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience there secret faults in deed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that faculty which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine That sinne is so voluntary an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntary And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chaunce to dreame of vncleannes whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxe of sinning without a mans consent is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth Neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to deny this and greater matters too speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly answered that although men know no sinne but that which is voluntarie because they make all sinne to be in the act yet in Gods iudgement it is otherwise who condemnes all for sinne that is any way against his iust and holy law The place you alleage out of Austin prooues no more but that those actions that are not voluntarie are not sinne which wee easily grant But Master Perkins addes a â—…ond answere which you craftily according to your custome omit because you know not what to say to it The answere is that originall sinne may be called voluntarie because Adams sinne was voluntarie and so ours in him as Austin truly affirmes Those dreames that are occasioned by any fault of ours or by our naturall corruption are our sinnes and to them that are not in Christ damnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth also but after baptisme in the regenerate the forme of originall sinne that is the guilt is quite remoued and therefore sinne ceaseth to be sinne Answ. The guilt or obligation to punishment is not the forme of originall corruption but as we say in schooles an accident or necessarie companion thereof The true forme of originall sinne is a defect and depriuation of that which the law requireth at our hands in our minde will affections and in all the powers both of soule and bodie But they vrge this reason further saying where the guilt and punishment is taken away there is no fault remaining but after baptisme the guilt and punishment is remoued and therefore though originall corruption remaine it is not as a fault to make vs guiltie before God but onely as a weaknes Answ. Guilt is remoued and not remoued It is remooued from the person regenerate which stands not guiltie for any sinne originall or actuall but guilt is not remoued from the sinne it selfe or as some answere there be two kindes of guilt actuall and potentiall The actuall guilt is whereby sin maketh man stand guiltie before God and that is remoued in the regenerate But the potentiall guilt which is an aptnes in sinne to make a man stand guiltie if he sinne that is not remooued and therefore still sinne remaineth sinne To this or like effect saith August We say that the guilt of concupiscence not whereby it is guiltie for that is not a person but that whereby it made man guiltie from the beginning is pardoned and that the thing it selfe is euill so as the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltines of it which we hold to be neither the forme nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it Sâ—e S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of Originall iustice is the forme of Original sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate being by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of originall sinne which consistâ—d in deordination of it is taken quite away by Baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe vvhich cannot be vvithout his proper forme as the argument doth conuince speaker A. W. The forme of originall sinne as I shewed before is not onely the absence of righteousnes but also an habituall inclination to euill which is not wholy taken away in this life but onely by degrees diminished and in death vtterly abolished speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Lastly for our disgrace they alleage that we in our doctrine teach that originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose rootes still remaine in the flesh growing and increasing after they are cut as before Answ. Our doctrine is abused for in the paring of any thing as in cutting of the haire or in lopping a tree the roote remaines vntouched and therupon multiplieth as before But in the mortification of originall sinne after baptisme wee hold no such paring but teach that in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne receiueth his deadlie wound in the roote neuer afterward to be recouered speaker D. B. P. Conferre this last answere with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly vvounded in the roote there it remaineth still vvith all the guiltines of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this he comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it as at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the rootes Indeed they doe him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Original sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his workes and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter speaker A. W. This is a meere cauill of yours and no contradiction of Master Perkins originall sinne hath all these effects and yet is not wholy rooted vp as you falsely make him speake but wounded in the roote so deadly as that it neither shal nor
former question is on this manner The thing saith hee that maketh vs righteous before God and causeth vs to bee accepted to life euerlasting is remission of sinnes and the habite of inward righteousnes or charitie with the fruites thereof We condesend and graunt that the habite of righteousnesse which wee call sanctification is an excellent gift of God and hath his reward of God and is the matter of our iustification before men because it serueth to declare vs to be reconciled to God and to bee iustified yet wee denie it to bee the thing which maketh vs of sinners to become righteous or iust before God speaker D. B. P. The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes vvhich is in our selues The Cathòlikes affirme that those vertues povvred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before vve hold that God of his mecre mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freetie beâ—lovved that iustice on vs. speaker A. W. The word iustification wee vse continually the cauill about our not vsing iustice but righteousnes for our aduantage is sufficiently answered by Doctor Fulke against Gregory Martin and the Rhemists The true reason why our translators chose rather to say righteous and righteousnes than iust and iustice was because the former words are more generall the latter for the most part restrained in common vse to one particular vertue betwixt man and man We denie not that Christians being iustified are truly righteous by inherent righteousnes but that wee are to pleade our owne imperfect righteousnes before God to our iustification speaker D. B. P. Note that M. Perkins comes to short in his second rule vvhen he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience vvhereas obedience if it had been vvithout charity vvould haue merited nothing at Gods hands speaker A. W. Master Perkins comes as neere the marke as you acknowledging the loue of Christ in his obedience distinctly both to God and vs. And indeed it were ridiculous to imagine obedience without loue though the Apostle mentions the one without the other speaker W. P. And this is the first point of our disagreement in the matter of iustification which must be marked because if there were no more points of difference betweene vs this one alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our religions for hereby the Church of Rome doth race the very foundation speaker D. B. P. And vvhereas M. Perkins doth say that therein vve raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface vve make Christ a Pseudochrist vve auerre that herein vve doe much more magnifie Christ then they do for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they do but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men vvorthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarivvise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestâ—mable merits that vve hold them vvell able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and vvorthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued speaker A. W. This slander was answered before We acknowledge the power of Christs death as to iustification for the forgiuenes of sinnes so to sanctification for inherent righteousnes and that such righteousnes as is sufficient to make vs pure and holie in the sight of God though we attaine not to the perfection of it as long as we liue in this mortall bodie speaker D. B. P. Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnes wisdome and iustice in their iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers vvhited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder Then the wisdome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquitie or his goodnes abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it vvith the mantle of Christs righteousnes Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnes to thinke it speaker A. W. We doe God no wrong in maintaining his truth that sanctification followes iustification in nature though in time they come together Luther saith as the truth is that he which beleeues shal be saued and that faith is not destroyed by any sinne but infidelitie A man iustified as I haue said often is righteous by inherent righteousnes and therefore not like a whited sepulchre Our corruptions and sins God seeth and mislikes but hauing punisht them in Christ he laies them not to our charge speaker D. B. P. And why doth he not for Christs sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infnite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first Father Adam in state of innocency And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnes If then we had no other reason for vs but that our iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and brigeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleadge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnes speaker A. W. It is enough for vs to know what God doth without inquiring curiously into the reason of it Yet in this case wee may answere that God doth not make vs perfectly righteous at once that wee may continually depend vpon him and not thinke too highly of our selues as you by reason of that conceit doe ascribing the best part of your second iustification
soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
so much as allude to the Psalm but onely say according to that text of Iob which he there expounds that man compared to God cannot be counted righteous That place of Iob hath the doctrine which you would wring out of the Psalme but where is the proofe that because it is there therfore also it is here But let me also shew that this which you rest vpon cannot bee the meaning of the Psalme Which I take to be plaine because if we vnderstand it so it is no reason to moue God not to enter into iudgement For what though no man bee so righteous as God If he be so rigeteous as God requires such a creature should be it can neuer hurt him though God enter into iudgement with him a thousand times So the sentence should be vaine there being no occasion of it Now the conclusion wee make out of these and such like places is that no man should fancie to himselfe a possibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements when the holiest men that euer were dare not stand before Gods iudgement seate to giue account of those things they haue done since they were iustified and as the Papists say receiued this grace speaker D. B. P. One other ordinary hackney of theirs is that out of the Prophet All our righteousnes is as a menstruous or defiled cloath The which I haue already ridde to death in the beginning of the question of iustification whereit was alleadged The answere is briefly that the Prophet praying for the sinnes of the people speaketh in the person of the sinfull Such as the common sort of them were who had more sins then good workes and so their righteousnesse was like vnto a spotted and stained cloath Now this disproueth not but that their good workes although but few yet were free for all sportes of iniquity it only proueth that with their few good they had a great number of euill which defiled their righteousnes and made it like a stained cloath speaker A. W. I will let passe your lewd allegorie and your coleworts twice sod referring the reader to my former answere Only this I will adde that the Prophet may well bee thought to refuse your exposition because he speakes in the plurall speaker D. B. P. All our righteousnesses or rather to make English of it all our good deedes 3 There is not a man who doth not sinne And blessed is the man whose sinnes be not imputed to him And such like I answere that the best men sinne venially and are happy when those their sinnes be pardoned but all this is cleane besides this question where it is only enquired vvhether the good workes that the iust doe be free from sinne and not whether they at other times doe sin at the least venially This is all vvhich M. Perkins here and there obiecteth against this matter speaker A. W. Neither the former nor the latter can reasonably be applied to veniall sinne that being Salomons in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple praying for the people in regard of such sinnes as should prouoke God to deliuer them into their enemies hands The other Dauids after those great sinnes of murther and adulterie Of that idle distinction of veniall sinne it is needlesse to say any thing till it be better prooued speaker D. B. P. But because some others doe alleadge also some darke places out of the Fathers I thinke it not amisse to solue them here together S. Cyprian saith That the beâ—eiged mind of man can hardly resist all assaults of the enemie for when couetousnes is ouerthrowen vp starts lechery and so forth Ans. All this is true that the life of man is a perpetuall warfare yet man assisted with the grace of God may performe it most valiantly and neuer take any mortall wound of the enemies although through his â—vvne â—…tie he may be sometimes foyled S. H. 〈◊〉 affirmeth That then vve are iust vvhen vve confesse our selues to be sinners Ans. That all iust men confesse themselues to sinne venially but neither of these places come neare the point in question that not one good deede of the iust man is without some spot or staine of sinne S. Augustine hath these wordes Most perfect charitie which cannot be increased is to be sound in no man in this life and as long as it may bee increased that â—hich is lesse then it ought to be is faultie of which fault it proceedeth that there is no man vvho doth good and doth not sinne All this we graunt to be true that no man hath so perfect charitie in this life but that sometimes he doth lesse then he ought to doe and consequently doth notso well but that now and then he sinneth at the least veniallâ— and that therefore the said holy Doctor had iust cause to say Vâ—oe be to the laudable life of a man if it be examined without mercie All which notwithstanding iust men may out of that charity which they haue in this life doe many good workes which are pure from all sinne as hath beene prooued They alleadge yet another plase out of S. Augustine That belongeth vnto the perfection of a iust man to know in truth his imperfection and in humility to confesse it True that is as he teacheth else where First that the perfection of this life is imperfection being compared with the perfection of the life to come Againe that the most perfect in this life hath many imperfections both of wit and will and thereby many light faultes Novv come vve vnto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle out of vvhose svveete vvords ill vnderstood they seeme to haue sucked this their poison He saith The holy man Iob because hee did see all the merit of our vertue to bee vice if it bee straightly examined of the invvard iudge doth rightly adde if I vvill contend vvith him J cannot ansvvere him one for a thousand I ansvvere that by our vertue in that place is to be vnderstood that vertue vvhich vve haue of our ovvn strength vvithout the aide of Gods grace vvhich vve acknovvledge to bee commonly infected vvith some vice that S. Gregorie so tooke it appeares by the vvordes both going before and follovving before he vvriteth thus A man not compared to God receiued iustice but compared vnto him he leeseth it For vvhosoeuer compareth himselfe vnto the author of all good leeseth that good vvhich he had receiued for be that doth attribute the good vnto himselfe doth fight against God vvith his evvne gifts And after thus â—o contend vvith God is not to giue to God the glorie of his vertue but to take it to himselfe And so all the merit of this our vertue vvhich commeth not of God but is attâ—â—buted vnto our selfe as proceeding onely from our selues is the very vice of pride and cannot be preiudiciall vnto true good vvorks all vvhich vve acknovvledâ—e to proceede principally from the grace of God dvvelling in vs. He saith
with such or such a carriage of the bodie without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed with other like circumstances I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly may bee said in some good sense to haue deserued the hire that he laboured for though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit But if this man should faile in many or any of these circumstances though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did might he in iustice claime the prize as due to him vpon desert This is our case in the point of merit There is no man but he failes very much and often in his best workes some lesse some more but euery one more or lesse So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice though he should denie all men the reward due to the keepers of his Commandements speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew mercie vpon thousands in them that loue me and keepe my commaundements Hence I reason thus where reward is giuen vpon mercie there is no merit but reward is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law therefore no merit What can we any way deserue when our full recompence must be of mercie speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it speaker A. W. What though he doe not and yet it must needes be implied in the text if your interpretation be true For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance which is neuer without faith to him he will certainly giue the kingdome of heauen But the reason is strong by a comparison from the lesse to the greater For if these outward fauours which God bestowes vpon them that keepe his Commandements be of mercie how should heauen be of debt speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam if hee had stood to this day he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience haue procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand but should only haue continued that happy estate in which he was first created speaker A. W. That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods giftes might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue been otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen this by the way speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose because it prooues the question thus If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot But his could not therefore ours cannot Your answere is little to the purpose For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes but of procuring or rather deseruing a more happie estate whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing And surely vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam For the Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vpon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him and neither makes mention nor giues signification of any reward at all much lesse vpon desert speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said The reward of good works is eternall life if life euerlasting could bee deserued which cannot because it is a free gift speaker D. B. P. True But wee speake of good workes and not of bad which the Astle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God speaker A. W. Nay where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text to shew what the proportion of the argument required namely that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life as the wages of sinne is death And thus without question would the Apostle haue spoken to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall if euerlasting life could be deserued speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaid for workes and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue been done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these words Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred vvere giuen speaker A. W. S. Austin in the places alleaged by you neither expounds that text nor speakes of any proportion betwixt the desert of death by sinne and life by good workes But because I am not ignorant that it is his opinion that euerlasting life is due to good workes if you will giue me leaue I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God not from the dignitie of the worke which I thinke to haue been his meaning because he speakes so often and so much of the imperfection of our workes If to countenance your owne error you will needes haue Austin thought to haue erred which is not impossible at the least shew some good reason why the holie Apostle should forbeare to say Euerlasting life is the wages of good works when it would so fitly haue serued his turne for exhortation and when the nature of the sentence
with S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ He in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things vvhich vve call merits are the vvay to the Kingdome but not the cause of raigning speaker A. W. You that twight vs so much with ignorance and brag so much of your owne knowledge especially in the old writers should haue all these places at your fingers ends but this answere if it were true must needs be more by gesse then by cunning Bernard sayes merits are the way not the cause if he had meant as you would haue him he should and would haue said that they were not the whole cause but the party or ioint cause but he denyes them altogether the nature of causes by giuing them another place to be the way to heauen speaker A. W. I answere that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Which is Bernards owne doctrine What is Bernards owne doctrine your whole answer or only the later part of it let the reader iudge These are Bernards words As it is inough to merit not to presume of merit so to want merits is inough to condemnation If he speake of merits properly taken what presumption is it for a man to demand his right But because our good works which he as other auncient writers calls merits are imperfit therefore our greatest merit is to know we merit not for the later part of his sentence we graunt that it is inough to damnation for a man to be without good works It followes in Bernard No infants regenerate want merits but haue Christs whereof notwithstanding they make themselues vnworthie if they had opportunitie to add their owne and neglected it which is the danger of riper yeares Infants sayes Bernard haue Christs merits but if they come to yeares they must also haue some of their owne What merits to deserue heauen then were Christs insufficient but they must haue good works without which they make themselues vnworthie of any benefit by Christ. Is not this whollie our doctrine let vs heare his conclusion Haue a care sayes Bernard to haue merits hauing them know they were giuen thee hope for the fruite of them by the mercy of God and thou hast auoided all danger of pouertie vnthankefulnes and presumption We must haue good workes else wee are poore we must know they are not of our selues else we are vnthankfull we must looke for reward of mercie not of debt else we are presumptuous So that Bernard requires good workes not as the cause but as the way betwixt Gods promise and performance of giuing euerlasting life to them that are iustified and sanctified speaker W. P. August Manual cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit my merit is the passion of the Lord. I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting speaker D. B. P. Secondly he citeth Saint Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sense that is by the vertue of his death and passion my sinnes are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes and so to merit speaker A. W. You leaue out the better halfe of that which was alleaged out of Austin which indeede ouerthrowes your answere That Christ hath procured pardon and grace for you to merit by but Austin saith that the death and passion of the Lord are his merit that is by your interpretation his merit of grace not of glorie For that he must merit by well vsing the grace which Christ hath deserued for him to cut off this Austin addes I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting Haue those works the true and whole nature of merit which receiue their worth from Gods mercie If you will answere that by Gods mercie he meanes not his accepting of the worke but his supplying vs with grace to worke I replie that he may for all that mercie want merits because it depends vpon his own free will when God hath done his vttermost whether hee will worke or no. But that which followes in Austin shewes that all is in Gods mercie If saith he the mercies of the Lord be many I am much in merit the mightier he is to saue the more am I secure So that Austin takes all from himselfe and giues it to God speaker W. P. Basil. on Psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them which haue striuen lawfully in this life not for the merits of their doings but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God in which they trusted speaker D. B. P. These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combate and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the works but in a fuller measure according vnto the bounty of so liberall a Lord Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits speaker A. W. Wherein lies the error of the translation You take too much vpon you as if all the world were bound to allow your word without any further proofe But let vs examine the translation Eternall rest saith Basil is reserued for them who in this life haue striuen lawfully not as a debt paid them for their worke but giuen them vpon the most bountifull grace of God in whom they haue hoped He is desirous to picke quarrels that findes fault with such translations What one word hath Master Perkins left out or misinterpreted that might be any thing to your aduantage But the testimonie was too plaine to admit any cauill else the translation had been good enough But your proofe is at least as bad as your accusation To prooue the words are vntruly translated you tell vs that Basil makes eternall life the prize of the combat what is this to the purpose where is the fault of the translation But let vs take your interpretation of his meaning If the reward be not giuen according to debt but in a fuller measure and yet no greater thing giuen than euerlasting life doubtlesse our workes deserue not truly and wholy the reward of euerlasting life that God bestowes on them of bountie speaker W. P. August on Psal. 120. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne What congruity is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his ovvne gifts not thy merits It had been better said He crowneth thee not c. speaker A. W. It may be apparant to all men who consider this mans course in answering the testimonies of the Fathers that
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
of men when they are wronged All these we maintain as necessary for neither Church nor common-wealth can well bee without them considering they are notable meanes to vphold ciuill peace and otherwhiles they are fruits of true faith as the satisfaction of Zacheus was speaker A. W. This is wittily acknowledged by him but little exercised among Pro testants for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as onefold for their extorsion bribes vsury and other craftie ouer-reaching of their neighbours Whatsoeuer our practice be and yet if it did not exceed yours we had good cause to be ashamed of it the question is now of our doctrine which Master Perkins hath truly deliuered As for the helpe you would haue imagined to come from Auricular confession to the exercise of satisfaction who is so ignorant of your courses in appointing penance that he knowes not how little you inioyne this satisfaction and how easily it may be bought out if it be enioyned with some contribution to some of your Abbeyes Frieries Churches Chappels and such like speaker D. B. P. But of this kind of Satisfaction which we commonly call restitution vve are not here to treate nor of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly speaker A. W. There was reason to mention this publike penance as well that all men might the better vnderstand what is in question as also because the testimonies which in this case your men alleage are wholy or principally of that kinde of satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But of such priuate penance which is either enioyâ—ed by the confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here speaker A. W. Your speech and matter are both very strange who would speak so By visitation that is by punishment to purge men from paine that should be endured May a man satisfie against his will or without his knowledge for both these fall out in Gods visitations that a man is visited against his will wholy if hee could helpe it and that hee doth not so much as once thinke vpon satisfying for his sinnes by it yea sometimes if he should he should thinke amisse for all visitations of God are not chastisements for sinne but speciall trials and meanes of Gods glorie speaker W. P. Conclus II. Wee acknowledge Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction and that is when any hauing giuen offence to the Church of God or any part thereof doe make an open publike testimonie of their repentance Mirian for murmuring against Moses was stricken with leprosie and afterward by his prayer shee was clensed and yet for all that shee must goe seuen daies out of the tent and congregation that shee might make a kinde of satisfaction to the people for her trespasse And in the old testament sackcloth and ashes were signes of their satisfaction Conclus III. We hold that no man can be saued vnlesse he make a perfect satisfaction to the iustice of God for all his sinnes because God is infinite in iustice and therefore will either exact an euerlasting punishment or satisfaction for the same The dissent and difference The points of our difference and dissent are these The Church of Rome teacheth and beleeueth that Christ by his death hath made a satisfaction for all the sinnes of men and for the eternall punishment of them all yet so as they themselues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment of their offences either on earth or in purgatorie Wee teach and beleeue that Christ by his death and passion hath made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for the whole punishment thereof both eternall and temporall Thus wee differ and herein wee for our parts must for euer stand at difference with them so as if there were no more points of variance but this one it should bee sufficient to keepe vs alwaies from vniting our religions and cause vs to obey the voyce of Christ Come out of her my people For as in the former points so in this also the papists erre not in circumstance but in the very foundation and life of religion speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnely That no man can be saued vnlesse bs make a perfect satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for all his sinnes Yet in the explication of the difference betvveene vs defineth as peremptonly that no man is to satisfie for any one of all his sinnes or for any temporall paine due to them Which be flat contradictorie propositions and therefore the one of them must needs be false But such odde broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground vvorke of his questions and therupon raiseth the tottering building of his nevv doctrine and lets not like a blind man to make an outcrie that in this matter the Papists erre in the very foundation and life of religion speaker A. W. Is it contradiction to say that euery man must make satisfaction and that Christ hath made satisfaction Might you not easily haue vnderstood if you did not that the satisfaction which Christ hath made is made by euery one that beleeues in him So then the latter proposition doth not contradict the former but shew by what meanes that satisfaction is made which in the former was required Euerie man must satisfie and euery man doth satisfie by and in Christ are not contradictorie propositions as a man with halfe an eye may see The very foundation and life of religion is the acknowledging of full redemption by the sacrifice of Iesus Christ. But how can that be acknowledged where satisfaction remaines to be made by perhaps many thousand yeeres punishment Our reasons speaker W. P. I. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is indeede no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they doe adde a supply by humane satisfactions and thus much a learned schooleman Biel in plaine words confessed Although saith he the passion of Christ be the principal merit for which grace is conferred the opening of the kingdome and glory yet is it neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause it is manifest because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignity of him that receiueth grace or glorie if hee bee of yeeres and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason For that which admitts a supply by another is imperfect in it selfe Therefore humane satisfactions cannot stand speaker D. B. P. This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon vvhich hath both propositions false The first is childish for
priesthood of Christ is incommunicable cannot passe from him to another Now to make satisfaction for sinne or any part of the punishment thereof is a dutie or a part of Christ his priesthood and therefore to make satisfaction is a worke that cannot passe from his person to the person of any man speaker D. B. P. Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christs and redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue therof satisfie not for the crime it self or euerlasting punishment which is lincked with it because that would require an infinite vertue But for the temporall paine of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it speaker A. W. It was not for nothing that you would not set downe Master Perkins words For you saw well enough that if you should doe so your poore blinded Papists would venture to reade them which now they dare not doe and so your weaknes in answering might be discouered Master Perkins hath refuted your answere of applying Christs satisfaction before it was hatcht you passe it by as not seene and propound his answere to another obiection by halues leauing the obiection out altogether I will make the matter as plaine as I can with shortnes You Papists say that Christs satisfaction merited that mans workes should satisfie for temporall punishment Master Perkins denies it vpon this reason If Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie he made euery beleeuer a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer a Priest in the same order with himselfe But he did not make men Christs and Iesuses Redeemers and Priests in the same order with himselfe Therefore he did not satisfie that man might satisfie The assumption he prooues because Christs Priesthood cannot be communicated to any other the consequence of the proposition depends vpon this that satisfaction is a part of Christs Priesthood you denie the consequence but neither shew any reason of your deniall nor answere his proofe onely you tell vs that a man is able to beare the temporall punishment though not the eternall as though wee denied temporall because a man cannot beare it speaker D. B. P. And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine Let him consider that in sinne there are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glorie lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth Novv vvhen he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning avvay from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure vvhich he tooke in the sinne the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnes of that his pleasure he is to doe penance speaker A. W. First your distinction belongs not to all sinnes and so prooues satisfaction needfull but for some sinnes onely To what doth a man turne when in the error of his iudgement he denies Christ to bee God without any respect of glorie lucre lust or such like Again may not a man sweare vnaduisedly and rashly without this turning and without any pleasure in that sinne Yea may not a man thinke the murthering of his Soueraigne lawfull and meritorious as many Popish traytors haue done without this turning to I cannot tell what Sinne is the transgression of Gods commendements as for this turning to and from it is an idle speculation of men that seeke a knot in a rush he that doth that which God forbids whatsoeuer the occasion or end of his doing be sinnes in so doing He that makes his money his god sinnes not because he loues his money or turnes to his money but because hee loues it otherwise than hee should and so turnes from God to it Secondly what a fond distinction is that betwixt the sin and the pleasure in the sinne Is not that pleasure in the sin a sinne too if it be voluntarie and if it be not voluntarie but onely be a consequent vpon the sinne hauing no ground in the will any way how is it punishable speaker W. P. Againe if Christ by his satisfaction giue power to man to satisfie then man doth satisfie by Christ and Christ beside his owne satisfaction vpon the crosse must daily satisfie in man to the ende of the world but this cannot be for Christ vpon the crosse when death was vpon him said It is finished that is I haue fully satisfied for all the sins of mankinde both in respect of the fault and punishment As for Christs buriall resurrection which followeth his death they serued not to satisfie but to confirme and ratifie the same speaker D. B. P. But Christ saith M. Perkins said On the Crosse it is finished VVherefore all satisfaction vvas at Christs death ended as vvell temporall as eternall Ans. That those vvords haue a farre different sense To vvitte that Christ had then ended his course and fulfilled all prophecies and endured all such torments as pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind of satisfaction temporall there is no mention neither can any thing be dravvne thence against it speaker A. W. There is no mention of any satisfaction at all and yet you grant that eternall satisfaction is there signified You must then shew some good reason why the one was then finished and not the other which it is vnpossible for you to doe because you confesse that both were then performed for all sinnes before Baptisme Look by what reason you can draw that doctrine from that place by the same will we conclude the other If you will say al was done that belongs to mans redemption I aske whether Christ haue not also redeemed vs from temporall punishment You grant from all that was due to sinne before Baptisme I demaund further whether these punishments were not part of that penaltie which the breach of Gods law laies vpon vs if they were then either we are redeemed from them by Christ or he hath not made perfect redemption But questionlesse his redemption is perfect and these are punishments due to sinne Therfore he hath freed vs from these also speaker W. P. Againe Paul saith 2. Cor. 5. 21. Hee that knew no sin was made sinne for vs that is the punishment of sinne for vs but if the Church of Rome say true that Christ doth daily satisfie then Paul spake too short and should haue said further that Christ was made sinne for vs and in vs too and that God was not onâ—ly in Christ but also in vs reconciling the world to himselfe But Paul neuer knew this learning and therfore let them turne themselues which way they wil by putting a supplement to Christs satisfaction they doe indeede annihilate the
plea of Pardon For in thesame petition we are taught also to pardon others euen as we will looke to be pardoned speaker A. W. We are taught onely to pleade pardon the clause that is added is not to satisfie God or deserue forgiuenes but to perswade God to forgiue vs as wee pardon other or as Luke expounds it for euen wee are so kinde as to forgiue them that offend vs. How then should God not shew his kindnes when he is intreated speaker D. B. P. Againe if there were only a plea of pardon it would not serue Master Perkins purpose For who would say that within the compasse of the Pater noster all things necessary to saluation be conteined speaker A. W. If praying for pardon of sinne be a sufficient meanes for the procuring of it to them that beleeue in Christ surely there is no satisfaction necessarie That it is such a meanes it is plaine because our Sauiour wils vs not here to vse any other meanes and yet assures vs that our requests shall be granted You answer that all things necessarie are not contained in the Pater noster What of that It will serue our turne that the Lords Prayer prescribes sufficient meanes for the obtaining of pardon and yet meddles not with satisfaction But what speak you of things necessarie to saluation The satisfaction in question is of no such nature For you tell vs that all feare of eternall punishment is taken away by Christ and a man may come to heauen though hee neuer dreame of any temporall satisfaction the worst is but the enduring of the painted fire of Purgatorie for a certaine time speaker A. W. Besides prayer is one part of satisfaction as shall be proued hereafter and so by oft praying for pardon we may well satisfie for much temporall punishment Praying for pardon is a poore satisfaction else might a felon or a traytor easily satisfie for his fault and the punishment especially for the imprisonment and fine you speake of But we shall examine this better when we come to answere your profe of it speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Tertul. de Baptism Guiltinesse being taken away the punishment is also taken away speaker A. W. M Perkins fourth Argument is taken out of certaine odde fragments of auncient writers Guiltines being taken avvay the punishment is also taken avvay True he that is guilty of nothing cannot iustly be punished for guiltines is a binding vp to punishment as M. Perkins defineth then if the band to punishment be cancelled the party is freed but all this is nothing to the purpose for guiltines of temporall punishment doth remaine after the sin and guilt of eternall be released If by these odde fragments you meane the treatises of the authors whence the testimonies are fetcht you are glad to patch vp your profes out of these odde fragments If you meane the sentences alleaged what bring you of this kind but odde fragments And what else can be brought vnlesse a man should absurdly write out the whole treatise speaker D. B. P. Your answere is nothing to Tertullians purpose who speakes of washing by baptisme in which both guilt and punishment are wholie taken away Death saith Tertullian is destroyed by washing away of sinnes but death is the whole punishment of sinne The day thou eatest thou shalt dye therefore freedome from death is freedome from the whole punishment speaker W. P. August Christ by taking vpon him the punishment and not the fault hath done away both fault and the punishment speaker D. B. P. Iust the eternall punishment which was due to that fault not the temporall as S. Augustine himselfe declareth God of compassion doth blot out our sinnes committed if conuenient satisfaction be not on our parts neglected speaker A. W. To what was the temporall punishment due if to the fault it is taken away vnlesse there be some fault for which Christ hath not satisfied or that punishment may be due where there is no fault Beside the punishment that Austin speakes of as you would easily haue seene if you had lookt vpon the place and not answered by gesse rather then by skill is our mortalitie which is no part of the eternall punishment He saith Austin in his sermon 37. de verbis Domini not de verbis Apostoli where there are in all but 34. had two good things righteousnes and immortalitie we two naughtie things sinne and mortalitie Sinne as he shewes afterward was our fault mortalitie our punishment This Christ tooke vpon him that he did not and by taking the one freed vs from both namely so that mortalitie is no longer a punishment and we by him shall be come immortall As for the satisfaction he requires it is not to procure release of any punishment belonging to vs but to shew our repentance which God will take knowledge of by outward actions so that when he sees them he may seale vp our forgiuenes by assurance of it speaker W. P. And Tom. 10. hom 5. he saith when wee are gone out of this world there will remaine no compunction or satisfaction Some new Editions haue foisted in the worde aliqua and so haue turned the sense on this manner There will remaine no compunction or some satisfaction But this is flat against Augustines meaning who saith a little before that when the way is ended there is no compounding of our cause with any speaker D. B. P. To that other sentence out of him VVhen vve are gone out of this vvorld there vvill remaine no compunction or satisfaction It is easie to answere vvithout the helpe of any new edition For it will be too late then to repent and so there is no place left to compunction that is contrition of hart neither consequently to confession or satisfaction as if he had said before we goe out of this world there is place for both compunction and satisfaction and so that place is rather for vs. speaker A. W. The satisfaction required by Austin is nothing else but true repentance or newnes of life that we loue God our neighbours and our enemies as it followeth immediatly vpon the words set downe That we may saith Austin do all these things that is haue compunction and make satisfaction by the help of God let vs loue not our friends only but our enemies also that that may be fulfilled in vs which is written The whole law is fulfilled in one word Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe now this is a necessarie dutie and cannot be properly any satisfaction But for such satisfaction as we make by repentance there is place in this world And howsoeuer a man himselfe cannot make satisfaction in his owne person but by suffering after this life yet by your doctrine he may by other men and haue full pardon and release procured him at the Popes hands or otherwise by masses and almes paid for and bestowed after
his departure And therefore in your learning Austin shewes either his ignorance or his craft in telling vs that we cannot satisfie hereafter which is not true but of satisfying in our owne persons speaker W. P. Chrysost prooem in Esa. Say not to me I haue sinned how shall I be freed from so many sinnes Thou canst not but thy God can Yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall remaine no print of them which thing befalls not the bodie for when it is healed there remaines a skarre but God as soone as hee exempts thee from punishment he giueth thee iustice speaker D. B. P. All this is most true and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of originall sin but nothing touching satisfaction for we hold that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be iustified is washed whiter then snow so that there is no staine or print left in it of the filth of sinne It is also freed from all eternall punishment but not from some temporall speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes not of originall sinne but of dayly actuall transgressions as his whole discourse shewes which God by pardoning of them so takes away as that neither guilt nor shame of them remaines in his sight yea he makes supply of the contrary vertues To Master Perkins purpose they are thus to be applied that Chrysostome requires nothing of him that is to be pardoned for his full release but repentance only which thing he repeates oftentimes in that proeme before Esay without any the least inkling of temporall satisfaction which is almost as needfull as the other if your doctrine be true for it is in our shallow estimation as fearefull almost to fry I know not how many thousand yeares in Purgatory as to be for euer in hell Euerlastingnes we cannot comprehend many thousand yeares are as much as we can reach to therefore since Chrysostome in that one preface so many times promiseth so full pardon and requires nothing but repentance it is more then likely he knew not your satisfaction speaker W. P. Ambrose saith I reade of Peters teares but I reade not of his satisfaction speaker D. B. P. Now gentle Reader prepare thy selfe to behold a proper peece of cousenage Ambrose saith I read of Peters teares but I read not of his satisfaction The colour of the craft lyeth in the ambiguity of this word Satisfaction which is not alwaies taken for the penance done to satisfie for the former fault But is sometime vsed for the defence and excuse of the fact So speaketh S. Paul Bono animo prome satisfaciam with good courage I will answere in defence of myselfe or giue you satisfaction in like manner Ready alwaies to satisfie euerie one that asketh you a reason of that hope vvhich is in you In this sense doth S. Ambrose vse the word as is most plainly to be seene to them that reade the place and conferre it with the very like of his I find not saith he vvhat Peter said but I finde that he vvept I read his teares but I read not his satisfaction but that which cannot be defended may be vvashed avvay So that nothing is more manifest then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault which Peter vsed not but sought by teares and bitter vveeping to satisfie in part for it for this bevvayling of our sinnes is one speciall kind of satisfaction as Saint Ambrose testifieth saying That hee vvho doth penance must vvith teares vvash avvay his sinnes speaker A. W. A man may easlyer behold malice in you that construe euery thing to the worst then cousenage in the allegation of Ambrose for if your interpretation of it be neuer so true it is such as might escape a diligeÌ„t reader and not be seene yea perhaps if it had not bin so prest by our meÌ„ you would haue read Ambrose ouer a good many times before you had dreampt of that sense Bellarmine from whom you had this as the rest of your answers for the most part layes no such matter to Peter Martyrs charge out of whom he brings this obiection you see not more then he did but write with more spleene If Master Perkins had read and at the writing of this sentence remembred Bellarmines answere either he would not haue alleaged it or else haue giuen some speciall reason for his allegation But this me thinks may be obserued out of this testimonie that Ambrose accounted confessing and crauing of pardon to be the satisfaction God lookes for which is alwayes performed by a sinner before he can haue any true hope that his sinnes are forgiuen This therefore going before the pardon of the eternall punishment what other satisfaction shall neede for the temporall Now that Ambrose in that place vnderstands by satisfaction both confessing his fault to Christ whom he had offended and intreating for pardon it appeareth by these speeches and such like Therefore Peter brake out into teares intreating nothing by voyce Teares wash sinnes which it is a shame to confesse Teares are as it were silent prayers I finde why Peter hold his peace least the crauing of pardon so soone might more offend Teares are part of repentance when they come from the true griefe of the heart but not any part of satisfaction for temporall paine which we should else indure as that very sentence of Ambrose prooues Hee saith Ambrose that repents must not only wash away his sinnes with teares but also couer and hide his former sinnes with better deeds that sinne be not laid to his charge Now where sinne is not imputed there can no punishment be due and where such repentance is not there sinne is imputed euen to eternall damnation So that the teares Ambrose speaketh of are parts of outward repentance for pardon of sinne not satisfaction for temporall iudgements remaining after pardon speaker W. P. Againe let vs adore Christ that hee may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes of this world nor the waues of bodily sufferings I haue remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose de bono mortis Let vs adore Christ that â—e may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes nor the vvaues of vvorldly sufferings I haue remission of â—â—nâ—es is rather for vs then against vs for if by adoring and seruing of God vve may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them then doth it follow that praiers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them speaker A. W. This adoring of Christ is comming to him whereupon ensueth escaping of death as it followeth a few lines after Whosoeuer saith Ambrose in our Sauiour Christs person comes to me that is beleeues in me shall neuer see death By this adoring we are freed from all sinnes and all punishment due
that forgiuen If it were then al the people had true faith in the Messiah which is a very bold assertion without all likelihood of truth But no doubt some of them were indeed true beleeuers They were and of them it remaines to be prooued that their shutting out of Canaan was to appease the remaines of Gods wrath against their murmuring There is no such thing in the text but that God did it to make all the earth see his glorie Adde hereunto that this punishment was not occasioned by this sinne onely but by former murmurings and those many perhaps not at all pardoned by any such speciall entreatie of Moses speaker D. B. P. The like iudgement vvas giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron for not glorifying Gad at the vvaters of contradiction both of them had their sinne pardoned yet vvere they both aftervvard for the same de barred from the entrance into the holy Land speaker A. W. The like answere I make to the example of Moses and Aaron that is I denie the antecedent Moses and Aaron were not punished that God might be satisfied for the temporall punishment belonging to their sinne but that they and the people might learne to put their trust in Gods promises made to them and to weight on him with patience The end of their punishment was not Gods satisfaction but their reformation and the peoples speaker D. B. P. To this M. Perkins ansvvereth first that man must be considered in a tvvofold estate as he is vnder the lavv and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions vvere curses of the lavv in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into vvhat you vvill else sauing satisfaction Novv to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleeuing Israelits vvith Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it vvas a punishment or penaltie of the law laide vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it vvas an admonition vnto all ages follovving to take heed of like offences as Paul vvriteth All thâ—se things came vnto them for examples and vvere vvritten for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastlie after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shall not enter into the land because he hath been disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the vvaters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their daies were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so deaâ—eth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies not that this punishment was laid vpon them for those sinnes but that the Scripture affoords any proofe to shew that it was a penaltie of the law as a part of the Curse which appertaines to sinners by the law for which Christ hath fully satisfied The punishments in themselues were penalties of the law but they are notsuch to them who by true faith in Christ haue all their sinnes fully satisfied for by him speaker W. P. Obiect III. Dauid was punished after his repentance for his adulterie for the child died and he was plagued in his owne kind in the incest of Absolon and when hee had numbred the people hee was yet punished in the death of his people after his owne repentance Answ. I answere as before that the hand of God was vpon Dauid after his repentance but yet the iudgements which befell him were not curses vnto him properly but corrections for his sinnes and triall of his faith and meanes to preuent further sinne and to renew both his faith and repentance as also they serued to admonish others in like case for Dauid was a publike person and his sinnes were offensiue both within the Church of God and without speaker D. B. P. What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to deny but yet in other tearmes that the simple whom only he can beguile may not perceiue it If the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sinne and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen Which is most properly to satisfie for them speaker A. W. Dauid was punished but not to satisfie Gods wrath remaining after the eternall punishment was taken away by the sactifice of the Messiah made effectuall to Dauid by his faith The reason of his punishment as the Scripture expresly saith was the stopping of the Heathens mouthes who were likely to blaspheme God because of Dauids sin as if God either would not haue seene or had not cared what manner of man by his speciall prouidence he had preferred to the kingdome of Israel Master Perkins truly and constantly denies the same thing still viz. that Dauids punishment was for satisfaction to God by bearing part of the curse due to sinners by the law which onely is to satisfie The reason of this deniall that I may answere once againe for all is that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law being made a curse for vs. speaker D. B. P. Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sack-cloath lying on the bare ground by watering his couch with teares and making ashes his food and in this most pittifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquitie he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour but in the Psalme saith That such an humble and contrite hart is a sweete sacrifice vnto God speaker A. W. Dauid had not so little feeling either of his Sauiours loue or his owne sinne as to thinke that the one had satisfied by halues or the other by such outward cariage could be satisfied for His praying and humbling of himselfe was to another end partly to intreate for the childs life whom he loued most dearely and partly to obtaine the recouerie of that ioy and comfort which he had formerly taken in the sense of Gods loue to him to which
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our