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
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
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
no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and thâ—â— followers speaker A. W. What a bad practise and foolish question are these of yours Master Perkins saith that fasting of it selfe conferres no more to the obtaining of heauen then eating doth You leaue out the principall point in reporting his opinion and then you aske why the Niniuits fasted if eating be as acceptable to God you must adde of it selfe as fasting because though of it selfe it pleased not God yet as part of repentance it doth when it shewes humiliation and sorrow But they might haue fasted long inough without being humbled and haue bin neuer awhit the neerer for it But let it be granted that fasting did please God of it selfe as prayer doth will you thereupon conclude that therefore it satisfies Gods iustice Proue the consequence Iohn Baptist is described to haue liued vpon such meate as the place where he abode did ordinarily afford but it is not said that he vsed a thin diet much lesse is he commended for it as if the thing of it selfe had pleased God It was fit for him by the extraordinarie direction of Gods spirit to follow such an austere course of life not to satisfie for any punishment but to make the Israelites the more carefully attend so extraordinary a mans preaching The reward that God will giue to them that in priuate repent of their sinnes with fasting is not because fasting of it selfe pleaseth him but for that such fasting is part of their repentance speaker W. P. Thirdly and lastly almes deedes cannot be works of satisfaction for sinnes For when wee giue them as we ought wee doe but our dutie whereunto wee are bound And we may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another as to say that by doing his dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes These we confesse be fruits of faith but yet are they no workes of satisfaction but the onely and all-sufficient satisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sins is to bee found in the person of Christ being procured by the merit of his death and his obedience And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared and it is to be learned carefully of our common people because the opinion of humane satisfaction is naturall and sticks fast in the heart of naturall men Hereupon when any haue sinned and feele touch of conscience any way their manner is then to performe some outward humiliation and repentance thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience and by doing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes Yea many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede the Lords prayer and the tenne Commandements so foolish are they in this kinde speaker A. W. A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Bussone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes If the similies were as simple as your answers to them a man should lose both his time and his labour to reade either of them shew their vnfitnes for the purpose if you can speaker D. B. P. That Almesdeeds redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all things clean vnto vs hath bin already proued out of holy scriptures I will ioyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Maityr Saint Cyprian Our frailtie could not tell vvhat to doe vulesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the vvorkes of iustice and mercy had shevved vs a certaine vvay of preseruing our saluation which is that vvith Almesdeeds we might vvash cleane avvay the filth of sins vvhich vve had contracted after Baptisme The holie Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeeds and saith speaker A. W. Cyprian intending to exhort all men to almes deeds is somewhat too farre caried with his earnestnes to perswade especiallie since he ascribes to it the purging of sin whereas it can reach no farther at the vttermost by your doctrine then to satisfie for the temporall punishment His proofe out of scripture is not there to be found for though your vulgar translation haue it yet it is not in the originall nor in your interlinear Bible nor in Montanus nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase nor in Vatablus The Greek seemes to haue had it added out of the Apocryphall speaker D. B. P. Now to M. Perkins Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessarie vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great need vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. Perkins Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to know why wee make speciall reckoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such things as be our owne which be of three sorts either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goods the goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other bodily discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoast holy and pleasing God By Almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth may be reduced to three principall heads The concupiscence of the flesh that is heacherie which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the bodie Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries speaker A. W. When we giue almes as we ought saith Master Perkins we doe but our dutie You answer that we are not bound to giue all the almes we can Is this to gainsay him We are bound to spare euen from our necessarie vse when the necessitie of our brethren requires it He that hath no more meate than to fill his owne belly is bound to giue his brother part of it if he see him readie to starue As for other giuing when we cannot spare that wee giue and there is no necessitie it is so farre from being a satisfaction for old sins that it is a committing of new But whence comes this distinction It is not either in Cyprian or in Toby or that place thrust into the book of Toby And out of question it was not Daniels meaning that King Nebuchadnezzar should giue to the poore so that he should come into want himselfe by giuing Neither I thinke can you prooue it was our Sauiours meaning when he exhorted the Pharisies to almes deedes But doe you not perceiue that you marre all by this doctrine Who will giue any thing at his death to your Monasteries if he may not by