Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	contain_v	law_n	moral_a	2,485	5	9.8922	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15735	A defence of M. Perkins booke, called A reformed Catholike against the cauils of a popish writer, one D.B.P. or W.B. in his deformed Reformation. By Antony Wotton.	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Perkins, William, 1558-1602. Reformed Catholike.; Bishop, William, 1554?-1624. Reformation of a Catholike deformed: by M. W. Perkins.	1606 (1606)	STC 26004; ESTC S120330	512,905	582

to your owne merits proceeding from your will which grace as you say hath wholy freed But of this also I spake before and must say more hereafter speaker W. P. Now let vs see by what reasons wee iustifie our doctrine and secondly answere the contrarie obiections Our reasons Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the law which saith Doe these things and thou shalt line Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the law but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vs. If any alleage ciuil iustice it is nothing for Christ saith Except your righteousnesse exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Doe this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answere with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the lavv That is he is a Iew and no Chri stian that wuld haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties speaker A. W. He is neither Christian nor Iew but worse than either that abolisheth the moral law by the Gospel The Apostle speakes of ioyning the law with Christ to iustification not of making Christian iustice answerable to Moses law But is there any likelihood that hee which came to bring perfect righteousnes would destroy the law of righteousnes Are you they that finde fault with vs because wee say it is impossible for vs to keepe the Commandements so fully as God requireth Doth Moses law containe any other or greater righteousnes than the perfect loue of God and of our neighbour Is it not your common doctrine that faith makes vs able to keepe the law Nay doe you not teach that our Sauiour hath propounded greater perfection to his followers than was required by the law of Moses Beside is not the law the very law of nature And can any man bee righteous that keepes not the law of nature You must prooue that God by Christ hath either abrogated the morall law or dispensed with Christians for the breaches of it not by pardoning of them as the Apostle teacheth but by freeing them from obedience to it If this be false then whosoeuer will be iustified by any law must fulfill Moses law to which onely the promise is made Doe this and thou shalt liue speaker W. P. What shall we say that workes doe make vs iust that cannot be for all mens workes are defectiue in respect of the iustice of the law Shall we say our sanctification whereby we are renewed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse that also is imperfect and cannot satisfie Gods iustice required in the law as Isai hath said of himselfe and the people All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous cloath speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice vvhich God requires in his lavv and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the wicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainly by the text it selfe For he saith before But loe thou hast been angry for vve haue offended and haue been euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the words be generall and seeme to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lyed when he said There is none that call vpon thy name when as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercy all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alleadged against the vertue of good works Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That which the Prophet spake of some euil men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places speaker A. W. It is no proofe that the Prophet speakes not of himselfe as well as of the people because Preachers sometimes doe not in the like speeches For sometimes also they doe Neither had the Prophet lied as you grosly speake if hee had meant himselfe For it is not his purpose to denie that God had been called vpon but so called vpon as hee ought to haue been The Prophet speakes of their actions which had some shew of goodnes els he would not say our righteousnes besides he speakes not of that which he presently was to doe as a Prophet but of that which ordinarily he and other did with the infirmitie of men Luther and Caluin are of opinion that the place doth not properly belong to the proofe of this doctrine but they denie not that the Prophet speakes of the faithfull and their works Yea Caluin plainly affirmes that he doth speake of them The faithfull saith he goe forward in their complaint And The faithfull must confesse their guiltines So doth Caietan vnderstand the place alluding to it Christ merit is called our righteousnes because it is true righteousnes before Gods iudgement seate to make a difference betwixt it and our righteousnes which at Gods iudgement seate is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman Our humble righteousnes if it be any is true perhaps saith Bernard but not pure vnlesse perchance we thinke our selues better than our fathers who no lesse truly than humbly said All our righteousnes is as the cloutes c. Therefore Bernard and Caietan expound this place of the righteousnes of iustified men as Master Perkins doth speaker W. P. To haue a cleare conscience before God is a principall part of inward righteousnesse and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus I am priuie to nothing by my selfe yet am I not iustified thereby 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therefore nothing can procure vnto vs an absolution and acceptance to life euerlasting but Christs imputed righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But he will amend it in the next where he proues out of S. Paul that a cleare conscience which is a great part of inherent iustice can nothing helpe to our iustification I am priuie to nothing by my selfe and yet J am not iustified

will but to will indeede I say of this as of the former that it is not contrarie to our doctrine for we acknowledge that in our iustification and saluation after election we worke with God but not as I haue often answered by any naturall power of our free will nor by any choyse of our owne to which we are not inclined and brought by Gods spirit We say with S. Austin both in words and meaning that true religion neither denies free will either to a good or bad life nor giues so much to it that it should be of any force without grace and we adde that therefore your religion is false because it affirmes that the will of man can by nature assent to a good motion inspired So to commend free will is indeede to deny grace but to holde them both as I haue proued Austin did out of these very places which you alleage for your opinion and as we doe going not an haires breadth from him in this question is to glorifie Gods mercie and confesse our owne weaknes which is the end of his loue to vs in the whole worke of our saluation III. Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good and therefore will that which is good for none can doe that which hee neither willeth nor thinketh to doe but first wee must will and then doe Now say they men can doe good by nature as giue almes speake the trueth doe iustice and practise other duties of ciuill vertue and therefore will that which is good I answer that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke but not in regarde of the goodnesse of the manner these are two diuers things A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes doe iustice speake the truth c. which bee good things considered in themselues as God hath commaunded them but he cannot doe them well To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes but to thinke good things in a good manner and to doe them well so as God may accept the action done are workes of grace And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart good conscience and faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glory of God speaker D. B. P. Novv in fevv vvords I vvill passe ouer the obiections vvhich he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes do Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore vvill them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue liberty of wil in ciuil and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it An ●his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeined and also in the end w●ich is not the glory of God Ansvvere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the hart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity God his Creator Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed tovvards him vvhen the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto speaker A. W. Master Perkins as any man may see grants a freedome of will in morall actions but denies those actions to be good in regard of the goodnes of the manner and afterward A man may giue almes c. which are good things considered as they are commanded of God but hee cannot doe them wel that is so as God may accept of the action done If you will replie vpon M. Perkins you must proue that such workes of a naturall man will be accepted of God but that you cannot do For the person must be accepted before the worke and without faith he cannot be accepted nor haue faith being a naturall man The summe of the answere is if it be not done as the law requires it is not a good worke if it be it is meritorious and so must be accepted of God speaker W. P. Obiect II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof beeing helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue and repent Ans. This reason is not good for by such commaundements God shewes not what men are able to doe but what they should doe and what they cannot doe Againe the reason is not well framed it ought rather to bee thus because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue therefore they haue power to repent and beleeue either by nature or by grace and then we hold with them For when God in the Gospel commandeth men to repent and to beleeue at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent as also actually to repent and beleeue speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans. M. Perkins ansvvereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commaundeth that vvhich we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he vvill admitte that he vvill enable vs by his grace to doe it or else hovv should vve doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commandement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweet and his burthen easie And S. John vvitnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tye any man by lavv to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the enthymem viz. That therefore men haue free will to beleeue and repent because God commands them to beleeue and repent you to helpe the matter giue a reason of the consequence God being a good Lord will not command any man to do that which he is no way able to do therefore since God commands men to beleeue and repent they haue free will to beleeue and repent Here the

the will and vnderstanding of man and by this meanes they are tainted with sinne as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete yet the streames thereof passing through the filthie channell are defiled thereby Againe they reason thus That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it but we are bound to doe good workes therefore they are perfect Answ. The proposition must be expounded that which we are bound to doe in it selfe according to the intention of the commander hath no fault or that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it hath no fault yet in regard of the intention of the doer or in regard of our manner of doing it may bee faultie speaker A. W. M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully yet could he not ansvvere it but by relying vpon that vvhich is most vntrue that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault vvhith hath bin alreadie confuted and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his Sonne S. Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending of Herode Stephens martyrdome vvith infinite such like in vvhich M. Perkins nor any else vvill be able to shevv in particular vvhat fault there vvas Will this shifting neuer be left What want of skill finde you in propounding the obiection If you could haue told we should haue been sure to heare of it Well let reasonable men iudge There lackes only the proposition which any man may supplie and the assumption wherein the doubt lies is prooued by a further reason speaker D. B. P. What meanes this yet as if he had propounded it vnskilfully that he might answere it the easier Is not his answere plaine and direct to the proofe of the assumption in which the strength of the argument consists But you say his answere hath been alreadie confuted I replie that the confutation hath been alreadie answered And to the instances you now bring I adde further that howsoeuer wee cannot alleage any particular faults in the worthie actions of some extraordinarie men yet we intreat you to remember that they were men hauing the flesh in them lusting against the spirit naturall corruption not wholy abolished to taint their workes and that God can see an error or want where men thinke the thing cannot be bettered Againe our Sauiour saith That if the eye be simple the vvhole body is lightsome not hauing any part of darknes in it and very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect speaker A. W. I would faine heare what you would conclude vpon that place of the eyes simplenes If by the eye you vnderstand the heart and thinke to proue that mens actions are good because the heart is good either your consequence of the proposition is naught if by heart you meane intent for a good intent makes not by and by a good worke or else your assumption will be false imagining such a measure of purenes in the heart as is not in this life to be found Your Glosse vpon the place referres it to the intention but argues not from thence any perfection If thou do good works with as pure intention as thou are able they are the works of light though it seeme not so to the world And another Glosse saith that by the intent works are discerned whether they be works of light or of darkenes not as you say whether they be perfit or vnperfit A third Glosse restraines it more saying it is a metaphoricall speach as if he should haue said as thy bodily eye directs thy bodily actions so the eye of the mind by a right intention directs humane actions as farre as concernes the nature of morall goodnes If the intent of the mind be right the whole heape of thy actions shall be good and belie so that the worke be lawfull for the kind of it I will adde no more let all men iudge what truth there is like to be in that doctrine that can find no better warrant of scripture speaker A. W. It vvas then a very seely shift to say that neuer any man did any one action vvith all his due circumstances Whose shift is this sure not Master Perkins in this answere But why is it a shift because you say that reason teacheth vs that a mans actions for substance and all due circumstances may be perfit I dare not take it for true vpon your word in morall actions according to the light of nature and if it were true in them I should not be resolued that therefore it were also true in them according to the law of God speaker D. B. P. But insteed of that fourth Argument I vvill put this If a greater revvard be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vn-them that do good workes vvhici is euident in reason But a greatot revvard is prouided for them that doe better speaker A. W. He that considers this reason of yours would thinke there was small cause why you should condemne Master Perkins for want of skill in propounding the last argument for you to mend the matter first bring vs out a false syllogisme and then conclude that which we denie not your syllogisme is false because the assumption is not taken out of the proposition as it should be but is a new matter as it were a fourth terme brought in for your assumption should be But a greater reward is due in steed whereof you say a greater is prouided Now to be prouided and to be due is not all one because many things are prouided for meere gifts whch are no way due your conclusion must be Therefore a reward is due to them which do good works who saith otherwise but this due is of promise not of desert speaker D. B. P. As S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods vvord proueth in sundry places nam●ly vpon that For starre dissereth from starre in glory so shall be the resurrection from the dead specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort chastity in vvedlocke after another and holy vviddovvhood yet after another all saith he shall be there but they shine diuersly And of the same vvorke affirmeth That martyrdome shall be higher revvarded then any other vvorke The like doth he vpon those vvords One ground shall yeeld thirty fold another threescore folde another an hundred folde Comparing chastity in vvedlocke to the thirtie in vviddovves to the sixtie and in virgins to the hundred But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon S. Iohns Gospell vpon this verse Jn my Fathers house are many mansions vvhere he saith that albeit some be holier iuster and more valiant then others yet there shall be fit roomes for them all vvhere euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit That peny spoken of by vvhich saith he is signified eternall life shall be giuen to euery man equally because

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