Origenist taught that sinne was not taken away in Baptisme but only couered as is recorded by that holy man and auncient Father Eâ—…anius M. Perâ—ins in the name of the Church of England affirmeth in like manner that originall sinne remaineth still and raigneth in the regenerate albeit it is not imputed vnto them speaker A. W. Neither Methodius out of whom Epiphanius recites Proclus opinions in many leaues together word for word nor Epiphanius himselfe refute that of the remainders of sin after Baptisme rather they both confesse that the sproutes and branches of concupiscence abide in vs yea that sinne dwels in vs by which the diuell preuailes The Apostle saith Methodius Rom. 7. seemes to make a three-fold law The first the law of the minde according to that good that is ingrafted in vs. The second by the assault of the diuell vrging and distracting the minde by imaginations full of passion The third which triumphs in the flesh by sinne which the Apostle calles the law of sinne dwelling in our members That Hierom is of our opinion in this point it appeares in his booke against the Pelagians speaker D. B. P. Iouinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine for defending honest Marriage to be of equall vertue and merite with chaste Virginitie and saith further that this heresie was so sottish and fleshly that it could not deceiue any one learned Priest but onely some few simple and carnall women Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirme that marriage is not only equall but better also in diuers respects than Virginitie speaker A. W. S. Austin was neither so ancient nor so holie as S. Paul hauing him on our side we neede not feare the other But the report you make of him is vntrue For these are his words in English This heresie preuailed so much in the citie of Rome that it is said to haue throwne into the estate of mariage euen some vowed virgins of whose chastitie there had been no suspition before So farre is Augustine from calling them simple and carnall Beside he addes though you will not be knowne of it that he weakned and ouerthrew the holy single life of holie men by rehearsing and commending the Fathers Abraham Isaack Iacob who were married men And whereas he saith it could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests for learned and any one is your glosse besides the text he seemes to attribute it to the short continuance thereof It was saith he quickly opprest and extinguished and could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests speaker D. B. P. The same olde reprobate heretike barked also against approoued feasts and fasting dayes so doe most of our Ministers at this time speaker A. W. Our Ministers doe all generally approoue both of feasts and fasting daies keeping the former more religiously than you doe ordinarily the Sabbath The latter we obserue with reuerence and humilitie whensoeuer they are appointed Fish daies superstitiously abused by you are ciuilly retained by vs with lesse riot than your selues doe vse speaker D. B. P. Vigilantius was sharpely reprooued by S. Hierome in a booke written against him and hath been euer since vnto this day esteemed a wicked heretike for denying prayer to Saints and honour to be done vnto their Reliâ—es And yet what poynt of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants than this speaker A. W. Erasmus not without cause findes want of modestie in that treatise of Hieroms he might haue found want of truth too if Vigilantius held no worse opinion than those you recite But of the former namely praying to Saints neither the one nor the other speakes a word And indeede it was not the manner in those daies to pray to the Martyrs but to pray at their Tombes which custome it should seeme remained till that time according to the former practise of the Christians who assembled ordinarily where the Martyrs were buried before they were suffered to haue any Churches speaker A. W. In like sorte one Aërius to the Arrian heresie added this of his owne That we must not pray for the soules of our friends departed as S. Augustine hath registred And doe not all Protestants imbrace and earnestly defend the same This doctrine of prayer for the dead the deniall whereof is counted an errour in Aërius hath no foundation in the Scripture but was built vpon the tradition of the Fathers as he from whom Austin takes the accusation confesseth speaker A. W. A common custome it was of the Arrians and of other more auncient heretikes to reiect all Traditions and to rely onely vpon the written word as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine Doe not ours the same reiecting all Traditions as Mans Inuention A perilous error no doubt to rest wholy vpon the written word that is to beleeue none but God in matters of his owne worship and religion Ireneus in the places alleaged hath no word of reiecting traditions rather hee speakes the contrarie of Simon Maguâ— who reiected the Scripture to establish his owne deuices S. Austin findes no fault with Maximinus for resting vpon the Scriptures nor indeede reasonably could for it is his own doctrine in that conference with the Heretike and other where speaker D. B. P. Xeaâ—…s a Barbaâ—ous Persian indeed yet in shew a counterfeited Christian is noted for one of the first among Christians that inueyed against the Images of Saints and the worship done by true Christians vnto them as both Nicephorus and Cedâ—… comppenâ—… doe recorde The reprobate Iewes indeede before him and after euen vntill this day the misâ—râ—anâ— Turkes enemies of all Christianitie doe dwell still in the same erâ—…r And yet is not this most vehemently auerâ—ed by our Protestants and all â—aluiâ—â—sts although they cannot denie but that aboue 900. yeares agoe in the second generall Councell holden at Nice they are by the conâ—â—nt of the best and most learned of the world for euer accursed that doe denie reuerence and worshippe to be giuen vnto the Images of Saints speaker A. W. Nicephorus you should haue added Callistus that the reader might haue knowne whom you meant and haue quoted lib. 16. not 10. who liued not 400. yeeres since and Cedrenus who liued as it is thought about the yeere 1058. are neither of antiquitie nor credit to auow a historie not recorded by any of their ancients But how could Xenaias about the yeere 478. be one of the first if the Commentarie vpon Damascen say true That the worshipping of Images was condemned as superstitious by some about the beginning of the Gospell preached Cedrenus saith be was one of the first Callistus after him more then 200. yeeres saith he was the first speaker D. B. P. The second Councel of Nice was a conuenticle of Idolaters neither of the best nor of the most learned and was presently after
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
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
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
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
thereby Here is a very prety peece of cousinage What doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleere conscience nothing lesse but that albâ—it he saw nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification yet God who hath sharper eye-sight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no oâ—her fault in me in Gods 〈◊〉 then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am 〈◊〉 of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our iustification as I haue before shewed speaker A. W. If the Apostle were not iustified by the law who can be That he was not himselfe saith Master Perkins confesseth euen then when he was not pâ—â—uie to himselfe of any grosse breach thereof This is Master Perkins reason to which you answere nothing but frame another argument to your selfe out of the Apostles speech speaker W. P. And this will appeare if wee doe consider how wee must come one day before Gods iudgement seat there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice for then we must bring some thing that may counteruaile the iustice of God not hauing onely acceptation in mercie but also approbation in iustice God being not onely mercifull but also a iust iudge speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins addeth that we must remember that we shall come to iudgement where rigour of iustice shall be shewed We know it well but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sin as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about originall sinne what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had ranne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice laid vp for him by that iust Iudge and not only to him but all them that loue â—Crists comming speaker A. W. Indeede he that is iustified needes not feare condemnation but the question is whether he can be iustified in Gods iust iudgement who brings imperfect righteousnes to iustifie himselfe withall which S. Paul doth not but being iustified by faith in Christ lookes for a reward of his holie labours according to the promise of God speaker D. B. P. And concerning both inherent iustice and the ability of it to fulfill the law And what Iaw heare this one sentence of S. Augustine He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the lavv albeit the lavv be good but he shall fulfill the lavv not by iustice vvhich he hath of himselfe but vvhich is giuen of God for charity is the fulfilling of the lavv and from him is this charity povvred into our barts not certainlie by our selues but by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. speaker A. W. There needes no mans authoritie to prooue that hee which is iustified hath inherent righteousnes For the Apostle saith Christ is made sanctification to vs and that by him we are sanctified neither doe we denie that this inherent righteousnes is such as might enable vs to keepe the law and shall when it is perfect but to keepe the law is not onely to haue charitie or righteousnes but to vse it as the law commands Righteousnes saith Austin is nothing els but not to sinne not to sinne is to keepe the commandements of the law that is as himselfe presently expounds it to do none of those things that are forbidden and to doe all those things that are commanded But the chiefe point is what law he meanes out of doubt the law of Moses which is alwaies meant when it is put alone without any addition or explication as it is here What law vnderstands he when he saith that iustice which is of the law Of the same he saith he shall fulfill the law it selfe besides what law doth charitie fulfill questionlesse the law of Moses the summe whereof is the loue of God and man speaker W. P. Reason II. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him Whence I reason thus As Christ was made sin for vs so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sin or a sinner by imputation of our sinnes he being in himselfe most holy therefore a sinner is made righteous before God in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed and applied vnto him Now if any shall say that maÌ„ is iustified by righteousnes infused then by like reason I say Christ was made sinne for vs by infusion of sinne which to say is blasphemie speaker D. B. P. I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any liklyhood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sin in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of auncient Fathers An host or sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truely made his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation speaker A. W. That there is some comparison of likenes implied by the Apostle it appeares by Austin He therefore was made sinne that we might be made righteousnes not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he made shew of sinne not of his owne but of ours not resting in him but in vs. speaker W. P. That interpretation indeed is generally best liked of because of the Hebraisme but yet the place may also be expounded otherwise as your owne writers shew He made him to be counted a sinner saith Thomas and Catharin more fully He laid vpon him the sinnes of vs all and especially that originall sinne out of which as out of a roote the other spring And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised Christ saith he beeing offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him Not ours nor in vs. If this righteousnesse of God be neither ours nor in vs then it can bee no inherent righteousnesse but must needes be righteousnes imputed And Chrysost on this place saith It is called Gods righteousnes because it is not of workes and because it must be without all staine or want and that cannot bee inherent righteousnes Anselme saith He is made sinne as wee are made iustice not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he is made sinne not his owne but ours not in
Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men impuâ—ed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrary but one may aswell be mande vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easilie and more vvaies then good M. Perâ—… ansvvere is that vve may say Christ vvas a sinner truely not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes vvere laide on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not truly a sinner that paies the debt of sinne vvhich an innocent and most iust person may performe but he that either hath sinne truly in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sins are made his ovvne really and he in all cases to be dealt vvithall as if he sinned himselfe as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice is really in Gods sight iust and is both loued in this life and shall be revvarded in the next as if he vvere truly iust indeed But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the diuel sonne of perdition which is plaine bâ—aâ—â—hemie speaker A. W. He is truly a debtor that bindes himselfe to pay the debt by that meanes taking it vpon him as if hee were hee that principally owes the money It is no blasphemie at all to auow that our Sauiour Christ hauing taken our sinnes vpon him was in that respect to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Doth not the Apostle say that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law becomming a curse for vs speaker W. P. Thus saith the holie Ghost hee which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs and he was counted with sinners Isa. 53. 13. yet so as euen then in himselfe he was without blot yea more holy then all men and Angels On this manner said Chrysostome 2. Cor. 3. God permitted Christ to be condemned as a sinner Again He made the iust one to be a sinner that he might make sinners iust speaker D. B. P. That sentence out of the Prophet He vvas counted â—vith sinners is expounded by the â—uangâ—lists that he was so taken indeede but by a wicked Iudge and a reprohate people And theefore if you allow of their sentence range yourselfe with them asoneof their number S. 〈◊〉 by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one truly Châ—… I know is called sinne by S. 〈◊〉 but by a figure â—…ng that he as a sacrifice for sinne as hath been before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly affirmeth in plaine tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs in all things excepting sinne speaker A. W. The wicked Iewes accounted him to be sinfull in himselfe that blasphemie wee disclaime and hold him to haue been alwaies most pure and holy saue onely for our sinnes charged vpon him as the sinnes of the people were in a type laid on the scape goate speaker W. P. Obiect IV. If a man be made righteous by imputation then God iudgeth sinners to bee righteous but God iudgeth no sinner to bee righteous for it is abhomination to the Lord. Answ. When God iustifieth a sinner by Christ his righteousnes at the same time he ceaseth in regard of guiltinesse to bee a sinner and to whom God imputeth righteousnesse them hee sanctifieth at the very same instant by his holy Spirit giuing also vnto originall corruption his deadly wound speaker D. B. P. If a man be righteous onely by imputation he may together be full of iniquitie vvhereupon it must needs follovv that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and vvicked but that is absurd vvhen Gods iudgement is according to truth Here M. Perkins yeeldeth That vvhen God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing originall sinne a deadly vvound And yet else where he said That originall sinne vvhich remained after iustification in the party did beare such svvay that it infected all the vvorkes of the said party and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he wil abide in it speaker A. W. It is a good shift to multiplie words when you know not what to say Master Perkins obiection and answere are almost in as few words as you make the obiection Is this to pare off superfluitie Here is nothing altered that before was deliuered originall sinne remaines the same it was and so defiles our actions still but it hath not the same strength speaker W. P. Obiect V. That which Adam neuer lost was neuer giuen by Christ but he neuer lost imputed righteousnesse therefore it was neuer giuen vnto him Ans. The proposition is not true for sauing faith that was neuer lost by Adam is giuen to vs in Christ and Adam neuer had this priuiledge that after the first grace should follow the second and thereupon beeing left to himselfe hee fell from God and yet this mercie is vouchsafed to all beleeuers that after their first conuersion God wil stil confirme them with new grace and by this meanes they perseuere vnto the ende And whereas they say that Adam had not imputed righteousnesse I answere that hee had the same for substance though not for the manner of applying by imputation speaker D. B. P. The fift reason is inuerted by M. Perkins but may be rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice vvhich vve lost by Adams fall but by him vve lost inherent iustice ergo By Christ vve are restored to inherent iustice The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul who affirmeth that we receiue more by Christ then we lost by Adam And is Saint Jreneus and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine who say Hovv are vve saide to be renevved if vve receiue not againe vvhich the first man lost c Jmmortality of body vve receiue not but vve receiue iustice from the vvhich he sell through sinne speaker A. W. Master Perkins conclusion was to the purpose though one of the propositions as he hath prooued and you grant by not answering was false But the reason as you frame it is nothing at all against vs for we denie not that we receiue inherent iustice by Christ but that to bee iustified is to bee righteous in Gods fight by inherent righteousnes speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Iustification is eternall but the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse is not eternall for it ceaseth in the ende of this life therefore it is not that which iustifieth a sinner Answ. The imputation of Christs righteousnesse is euerlasting for he that is esteemed righteous in this life by Christ his righteousnes is accepted as righteous for euer and the remission of sinnes granted in this life is for euer continued And though
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
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
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
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
Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope euen hence it followes that he may be vnfalliblie assured therof For the property of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed Rom. 5. 5. And true hope followeth faith and euer presupposeth certeintie of faith neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certeinly assured thereof in some measure Exception I. The Popish Doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner First they say it cannot be proued yâ— a man is as certaine of saluation by faith as he is of the articles of the creed I answere First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certâ—ine of the one as of the other For looke what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith the like we haue inioâ—ning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sins as I haue proued Secondly these arguments proue it to be the nature or essential property of faith as certeinly to assure man of his saluation as it doth assure him of the articles which he beleeueth And howsoeuer commonly men do not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible as they do their articles of faith yet some speciall men doe hauing Gods word applied by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith whereby they beleeue their owne saluation as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith Thus certeinly was AbrahaÌ„ assured of his owne saluation as also the Prophets and Apostles and the Martyrs of God in all ages whereupon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ in whom they were assured to receiue eternall happines And there is no question but there be many now that by long and often experience of Gods mercy and by the inward certificate of the holy Ghost haue attained to full assurance of their saluation II. Exception Howsoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate yet no man is certeine of his perseuerance vnto the end Ans. It is otherwise for in the sixt petition lead vs not into temptation we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation and to this petition we haue a promise answerable 1. Cor. 10. That God with temptation will giue an issue and therefore howsoeuer the diuell may buffit molest and wound the seruants of God yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them Againe hee that is once a member of Christ can neuer be wholy cut off And if any by sinne were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as often be baptized as we fall into any sinne which is absurd Againe Saint Iohn saith 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had been of vs they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for graunted that such as be once in Christ shall neuer whâ—ly bee seuered or fall from him Though our communion with Christ may be lessened yet the vnion and the bond of coniunction can neuer be dissolued III. Exception They say we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part but wee must needes doubt in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance Now we cannot say they be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that indeed which we suppose our selues to haue Answ. I say againe he that doth truly repent and beleeue doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent and beleeue for else Paul would neuer haue said Prooue your selues whether you be in the faith or not and the same Apostle saith 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God which things are not onely life euerlasting but iustification sanctification and such like And as for secret sinnes they cannot make our repentance void for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes repenteth also of such as be vnknowne and receiueth the pardon of them all God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vnknowne sinnes but accepts it as sufficient if we repent of them generally as Dauid saith Psal. â—9 Who knowes the errors of this life forgiue me my secret sinnes And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient I answere that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance stands in the trueth and not in the measure or perfection thereof and the trueth of both where they are is certainely discerned Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church August Of an euill seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion And Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne heart if he finde charitie there he hath securitie for his passage from life to death Hilar. in Matth. 5. The kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his will is that it must be hoped for without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaintie will at all Otherwise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull Bernard in his epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that being loued of God loues him againe which comes not to passe but by the spirit reuealing by Faith the eternall purpose of God of his Saluation to come Which reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by which when the deedes of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen Together receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and also loue againe To conclude the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this poynt For they teach and professe that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation certainely and vnfallibly in respect of God that promiseth Now the thing which hindreth them is their owne indisposition and vnworthinesse as they say which keepes them from being certaine otherwise then in a likely hope But this hinderance is easily remoued if men will iudge indifferently For first of all in regard of our selues and our disposition we cannot be certaine at all but must despaire of saluation euen to the very death We cannot bee sufficiently disposed so long as wee liue in this world but must alwaies say with Iacob I am lesse then all thy mercies Gen. 32. and with Dauid Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for none liuing shall bee iustified in thy sight and with
himselfe but in vs. speaker D. B. P. How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see Saint Augustine One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the saith of Christ Jesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by vvhich Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberality they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of works but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs. And that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to work that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted speaker A. W. The iustice of God is expounded by the Apostle to be the forgiuenes of sinnes especially vpon your interpretation For what is it that Christ procures by his sacrifice but pardon the wrath of God being appeased It is indeed called the righteousnes of God because it is giuen vs by God and chiefly because it is appointed and approoued of God They that make it inherent in vs as it cannot be prooued by this place that S. Austin doth stretch it further than the Apostle vseth to doe and make it comprehend sanctification also It is but a shift to put off Aâ—sâ—lme whom you cannot answere it had been casie for you to conceiue that he meanes his Commentarie vpon that place But how chance Hierome is past ouer too we must haue some other excuse for the place is quoted speaker W. P. Reason III. Rom. 5. 19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous marke here is a comparison betweene the first and second Adam And hence I reason thus As by the disobedience of the first Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of the second Adam are we made righteous Now we are not onely made sinners by propagation of naturall corruption but by imputation For Adams first sinne was the eating of the forbidden fruite which verie acte is no personall offence but is imputed to all his posteritie in whom we haue all sinned The Fathers call this very sinne Adams hand-writing making vs debters vnto God And therefore in like manner the obedience of Christ is made the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer not by infusion but by imputation speaker D. B. P. The comparison I allovv because it is the Apostles and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault And say that euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his ovvn peâ—â—onal iniquity stieking in them which is commonly called Oâ—â—ginal sin and an high point of Pelagiamsme is it to deny it For albeit vve did not 〈◊〉 of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue vve the nature of man polluted vvith that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many vvere made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Novv to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquitie in like manner vve are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice vvhich is povvred into our soules vvhen 〈◊〉 are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penury of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them speaker A. W. Your bare deniall is no sufficient answere especially since greater Clerkes directly affirme the contrarie viz. that that sin of Adams makes vs debters to God whereof we are all guiltie as hauing committed it in his loynes All men saith Austin are vnderstood to haue sinned in the first man because all men were in him when he sinned yea more then that he saith All men committed that sin in him because all were that one man As Leui saith Domingo a soto many yeeres before he was borne paid tithes in Abraham in like sort we sinned in the loynes of Adam We denie not that we receiue from Adam inherent vnrighteousnes by propagation but affirme that Adams sinne is imputed to vs to our iust condemnation speaker W. P. Reason IV. A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires at our hands is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe But Christ obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires as the Papists themselues auouch Therefore this satisfaction is our iustice And me thinks the Papists vpon this consideration haue little cause to dissent from vs. For if they make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not fullie close hands with vs and make it their iustice also speaker D. B. P. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmine I haue read the Chapter and find no such words further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and iustification for satisfaction cannot be done by vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Maiesty and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherfore the infinit valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinners leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it as shal be in his due place declared more at large speaker A. W. Againe a man must needs haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kind of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction There is nothing like in iustification for first to make a man iust in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocency and of all the blessed soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight Neither is it necessary to be infinit for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen which be not infinit as they are enioyed of Men or Angels either who haue all things there in number weight and measure Master Perkins argument is wholy omitted by you and a consectarie which he drawes from it propounded in stead of it The argument is this A
part of our soule but that the renewing of Gods image in vs is the renewing of that part Now this is done by sanctification not by iustification properly taken I can finde no such thing in that booke of Cyrill but if euer he spake so what is that against vs who easily grant that we are inherently righteous as soone as the sanctifying spirit of God hath kindled the fire of loue in our hearts II. Difference about the manner of Iustification speaker W. P. All both Papists and Protestants agree that a sinner is iustified by faith This agreement is onely in worde and the difference betweene vs is great in deede And it may be reduced to these three heads First the Papist saying that a man is iustified by faith vnderstandeth a general or a Catholike faith whereby a man beleeueth the articles of religion to bee true But we hold that the faith which iustifieth is a particular faith whereby we applie to our selues the promises of righteousnesse and life euerlasting by Christ. And that our opinion is the truth I haue proued before but I will adde a reason or twaine Reason I. The faith whereby we liue is that faith whereby we are iustified but the faith whereby we liue spiritually is a particular faith wherby we apply Christ vnto our selues as Paul saith Gal. 2. 20. I liue that is spiritually by the faith of the sonne of God which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ in the very wordes following who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me particularly and in this manner of beleeuing Paul was and is an example to all that are to be saued 1. Tim. 1. 16. and Phil. 3. 15. speaker D. B. P. Ans. The â—aior I admit and deny the Minor and say that the proofe is not to purpose For in the Minor he speaketh of faith vvhereby vve apply Christs merits vnto ourselues making them ours in the proofe S. Paul saith only that Christ died for him in particular He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice and making of it his owne which are very distinct things All Catholikes beleeue with Saint Paul that Christ dyed as for all men in generall so for euery man in particular yea and that his loue vvas so exceeding great tovvards mankind that he vvould vvillingly haue bestovved his life for the redemption of one only man But hereupon it doth not follovv that euery man may lay hands vpon Christs righteousnes and apply it to himselfe or else Tuâ—…s Iovves Heretikes and euill Catholikes might make verie bold with him but must first doe those things vvhich he requires at their hands to be made partakers of his inestimable merits as to repent them hartely of their sins to beleeue and hope in him to be baptized and to haue a full purpose to obserue all his commandements Which M. 〈◊〉 also confesseth that allmen haue not only promised but also â—ovâ—ed in Baptisme Novv because vve are not assured that vve shall performe all 〈◊〉 therefore vve may not so presumptuously apply vnto ourselâ—es Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting although vve beleeue that he died for euery one of vs in particular speaker A. W. That vvhich follovveth in M. Perkins hath no colour of probability that S. Paul in this manner of beleefe that is in applying to himselfe Christs merits vvas an example to all that are saued See the places good Reader and learne to bevvare the bold vnskilfulnes of sectaries For there is not a vvord sounding that vvay but only hovv he hauing receiued mercy vvas made an example of patience Master Perkins prooues his minor thus The faith by which Paul liued was a particular faith whereby he applied Christ to himselfe But the faith by which we liue is the faith by which Paul liued Therefore the faith by which we liue is a particular faith whereby we applie Christ to our selues The proposition Master Perkins prooues by the Apostles testimonie where he doth particularly apply Christ to himselfe as hauing loued him and died for him You answere that S. Paul makes no mention of his apprehending of Christs iustice no more doth Master Perkins in his proposition But the Apostle mentions such a particular faith as Master Perkins speakes of viz. a perswasion that Christs benefits belong to him in particular and that Christ hath particularly loued him which is to apprehend Christ. And this is another manner of matter than to hold that Christ died for euery particular man which the diuels no doubt doe acknowledge The assumption is euident of it selfe for there is no question but that all which are iustified haue and liue by the same faith But Master Perkins sets out the matter by two places of scripture in the former whereof the Apostle propounds himselfe to all men as an example of Gods mercie that they may assure them selues that if they will beleeue in Christ as hee did they should haue forgiuenes of their sinnes as he had In the latter hauing shewed that he cast off all confidence in his owne righteousnes and accounted it as dung resting onely vpon God for his righteousnes by faith in Iesus Christ he exhorts all men to follow his example both in faith and holinesse speaker W. P. Reason 11. That which we are to aske of God in prayer wee must beleeue it shall be giuen vs as wee aske it but in prayer wee are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes and the merit of Christs righteousnesse for our selues therefore wee must beleeue the same particularly The proposition is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euery petition wee bring a particular faith whereby wee beleeue that the thing lawfully asked shall bee giuen accordingly Mark 11. 24. speaker D. B. P. Of the Maior much hath been said before here I admit it all due circumstances of prayer being obserued and deny that vve must pray that our Sauiour Christ Iesus merits may be made ours in particular for that vvere greatly to abase them but good Christians pray that through the infinite value of those his merits our sinnes may be forgiuen and a iustice proportionable vnto our capacity may be powred into our souls vvhereby vve may leade a vertuous life and make a blessed end speaker A. W. It is no abasing of our Sauiours merits that is of his obedience to the morall law and his suffrings that they should be communicated to euery member of his mysticall body for their iustification as long as the worke of redemption remaines proper to him speaker W. P. The minor is also euident neither can it be denied for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner Forgiue vs our debts and to it we say Amen that is that our petitions shall without all doubt bee graunted vnto vs. August serm de temp 182. speaker D. B. P. But it is goodly to behold hovv Master Perkins proueth that vve must pray that Christs righteousnes
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
this recorded in holy writ read the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then loe they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification speaker A. W. Those men S. Luke there speaks of were not yet come to a iustifying faith when they askt the Apostle what they should doe no nor to the knowledge of the Gospell but onely to a sight of their owne sinnes in consenting to the murthering of Christ. speaker A. W. In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God no talke in those daies of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not iustified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three daies passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his iustification as doth euidently appeare by the history of his conuersion speaker D. B. P. The Eunuch had heard the Gospell expounded out of Esay and namely that men were to be iustified by the acknowledging of Christ his desire of baptisme was a proofe of his faith according to that he had learned and baptisme the seale of his pardon or iustification vpon that his beleefe of forgiuenes by Christs sufferings It appeares by the storie that there were three daies betwixt the vision and the baptisme of the Apostle but it is not any way shewed that hee had iustifying faith the first day and yet was not iustified till the third day it is but your conceit that tie iustification to baptisme speaker W. P. The second is that faith being nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which being mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeede is as much as if wee should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely bee inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before wee can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend and applie Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof and the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnesse and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that wee for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this condition is by grace as well as the substance Now then that wee may attaine to saluation by Christ hee must bee giuen vnto vs really as hee is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid Couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeues and the end of the Sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefits to them that come to bee partakers thereof as is most plainely to bee seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot bee effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therfore faith must needs bee an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that wee may finde comfort by this giuing speaker D. B. P. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M Perkins is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath been once before spoken at large in the question of free will speaker A. W. Is not the latter your doctrine also that a man vpon those good motions inspired disposeth himselfe to iustification by the good vse of his free will let the Councill of Trent be iudge as your selfe alleaged it before speaker W. P. The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Reason I. Luke 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Whence they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had alreadie pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Wee are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundrie places of holy write iustification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christs power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercie that hee would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assemblie did so humblie prostrate her selfe at Christs feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to lead a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues meete
though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
for it with losse both of victorie and life Zachary is conuicted of sinne and striken with dumnes for not beleeuing the Angell and yet in all probabilitie he was as holie as his wife Elizabeth both truly but not perfectly righteous To vvill is in mee but I finde not hovv to performe If Saint Paul could not performe that which he would how can others Ans. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not Marry he could wel by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them speaker A. W. Those very motions were no other than sinnes arising from his naturall corruption and preuailing with him so farre that they ouercame him sometimes and led him captiue speaker D. B. P. The like answere we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbours goods his wife or seruants which as they say is impossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commaundement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetousnes and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man euen when he is a sleepe And restifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it speaker A. W. If this be the meaning of it what is it but a needlesse repetition of that which was before forbidden For who knoweth not that consent to those sinnes was condemned in the 7. and 8. Commandements Besides the Apostle might know by nature that consent to lust was sinne but the true meaning of the commandement he knew not but by the law so that withholding consent from these motions is not enough to free vs from sinning by them and yet perhaps that would not seeme so easie if wee did not flatter our selues now and then The quotation out of Austin is false and being of no great moment I passe it ouer speaker D. B. P. VVe doe all offend in many things And if vve say vve haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Ans. I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoide if vve were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the lavv which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing vvith it But of this matter more fully in some other place speaker A. W. It is an idle speculation to imagine a Christian as Tully doth an Orator and Castiglio a Courtier And what else is he whom in this answere you fancie Such an one since the fall of Adam neuer was not in this world euer shall be Doe you not see your selfe what pitifull shifts these be Veniall sinnes disagree with the law but they do not violate the purport and reason of it Are they not against the purenes of Gods image in which we were created are they not in a naturall man damnable Our obedience is to be squared according to the commandement of God neither haue we any warrant from him to excuse our selues by the conceited reason and I know not what purport of the law For my part though I acknowledge a great difference in degrees of sinnes yet I see little reason why it should not be as mortall a sinne to be led away by carelesnes to the committing of those things which we might easily auoide as after a long and tedious fight to be led captiue by the violence of some mightie temptation For this striuing argueth a desire to please and serue God but that needlesse sinning shewes either presumption or want of ordinarie regard speaker D. B. P. Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is straite and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God speaker A. W. Not euery thing for there are many impossible to man that are neuer made possible and easie by the grace of God So farre as it pleaseth God to make things possible so farre they are made possible But this possibilitie is not communicated to any the examples of the most righteous doe make it more than manifest Which made S. Paul to say I can doe all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me speaker A. W. He that confesseth he cannot doe that good he would sheweth plainly that God doth not enable him to all things which in this place are to be restrained according to the text I can doe all things that is saith your glosse I can vse all fortunes and estates well So doe Theodoret and Oecumenius take it So doe other of your Interpreters restraine it shewing that he meaneth not he can do all things but that he could not doe all those things that is be content with any estate were it not for the strength and comfort hee hath from Christ. speaker D. B. P. And the Prophet Dauid after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart and with thy grace let it at liberty I did runne the waâ—es of thy commaundements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our hart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice speaker A. W. The Prophet Dauid ranne indeed and that an excellent race but not without stumbling staying and turning a little out of the way now and then as the last action in his health declareth speaker D. B. P. Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commandements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plaine for it saying That which vvas impossible to the lavv in that it is weakned by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the lavv might be fulfilled in vs vvho vvalke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace
he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of them makes some satisfaction vvhich satisfaction is vnperfect and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all as euery child may see speaker A. W. Satisfaction is a full discharge of the debt so that the bond thereupon is voide but hee that paies halfe or three quarters of his debt if he pay not all in such sort as the bond requireth hath the bond still against him in ful strength and vertue so that though hee hath paid part of his principall debt he hath made no satisfaction at all speaker W. P. Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well together For say they Christs satisfaction is sufficient in it selfe to answere the iustice of God for all sin and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied and it must bee applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can bee no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and conuey his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the worde baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefites The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefits are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therfore is the answere of the Papists that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christ is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can speaker A. W. His second is as vntrue but mans satisfaction is not to supplie the vvant of Christs satisfaction but to applie it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his vvill and ordinance First the speech is beyond any ordinarie mans vnderstanding to make satisfaction is to applie another mans satisfaction to vs. Secondly to make satisfaction is to deserue that because of our satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to our sinnes Christs satisfaction for the eternall may be auailable to vs. Thirdly if mans satisfaction be not to supplie the want of Christs satisfaction either there is no temporall punishment belonging to sinne or Christ hath made satisfaction for that as well as for the eternall and then God cannot require any satisfaction of vs because he is alreadie satisfied both for the eternall and temporall punishment Fourthly if wee doe nothing by our satisfaction but applie Christs satisfaction to vs which is onely for the eternall punishment the temporall remaines wholy without satisfaction made for it speaker D. B. P. God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sinnes and taketh fully avvay all paine due to sinne so that he vvho dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if vve doe aftervvard vngratefully forsake God and contrary to our promise transgresse against his commaundements then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauour But he vpon our repentance pardoning the sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euerie man a temporall satisfaction ansvverable vnto the fault committed not to supplie Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall But that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoide sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Euery man do beare his ovvne burden speaker A. W. Here is a long discourse to little purpose neither answering any part of Master Perkins syllogisme nor defending any point of your owne answere but onely affirming that which before was said that God exacts a temporall satisfaction and affoording vs some reason to confute your opinion by in this sort If Christs satisfaction was sufficient more easily to take away the temporall punishment than the eternall how will you prooue it did not It stands you vpon to shew vs good euidence out of the record of Scripture that God agreed with Christ not to take the full desert of his sufferings and satisfaction but to leaue man still indebted to him though in truth the debt were paid If no such agreement can be shewed for my part I see not how God in iustice can aske the same debt twice being once fully satisfied That which you adde is wholy our doctrine viz. that God by smart and griefe would feare vs from sinning and make vs conformable to his Sonne our Sauiour But you teach that he punisheth vs and so takes satisfaction for sins past as if he were to be reuenged on vs at least by temporall punishment for our sinnes committed You repeate your conclusion but with no dependance vpon your former matter or proofe from that which followes where the Apostle tels the Galathians that they may not be alwaies finding fault with other men and so grow into a conceit of their owne goodnes but looke to themselues because euery man must giue an account to God for his owne sinnes and not for another mans If you will needs abuse the Apostle and applie his words to that he thought not on why doe you not by the same reason lay the eternall punishment vpon vs too for that was our burthen as well as the temporall speaker W. P. Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our workes haue their dignitie and merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our works should satisfie Gods iustice for temporal punishment But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer and a priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinful man his own redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of diuels For the holy Ghost teacheth that the
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
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
he was not to be restored but vpon earnest repentance at Gods good pleasure speaker D. B. P. We deny not but the punishment of one is a warning and admonition vnto another to take heed of the like so may not they deny but that correction is to the party himselfe as an admonition to beware afterward so a correction and punishment of the fault past Which S. Augustine vpon this verse of the Psalme Thou hast loued truth teacheth most plainely saying Thou hast not left their sins vvhom thou didest pardon vnpunished for thou before diddest so shevv mercy that thou mightest also preserue truth thou doest pardon him that confesseth his fault thou doest pardon him but so as he do punish himselfe and by that meanes both mercy and truth are preserued speaker A. W. That punishment of a mans self which Austin speaketh of is not to make satisfaction but to shew repentance as it may well be gathered because it is ioyned to forgiuenes which can haue no place where the debt is paid If I make satisfaction God forgiues me not If God forgiue me what doe I satisfie for Therefore the griefe and humiliation of a sinner is not to satisfie God that he neede not be forgiuen but to repent that hee may be forgiuen So farre is Dauid from pleading satisfaction by punishing himselfe that hee intreates for pardon vpon confession of his fault Because saith the Glosse out of Cassiodorus he had told the truth by confessing which God desires more than sacrifice therefore he intreates for helpe speaker W. P. Obiect IV. The Prophets of God when the people are threatned with the plague famine sword captiuitie c. exhort them to repent and to humble themselues in sackcloth and ashes and thereby they turned away the wrath of God that was then comming forth against them Therefore by temporall humiliation men may escape the temporall punishments of the Lord. Answ. Famine sworde banishment the plague and other iudgements sent on Gods people were not properly punishments of sinne but onely the corrections of a father whereby hee humbled them that they might repent speaker D. B. P. Our fourth reason the Prophets of God when the people were threatned with Famine the Sword the Plague or such lâ—ke punishments for their sinnes did commonly exhort them to works of penance as fasting prayer haire-cloath and the like to appease Gods wrath iustly kindled against them which being performed by them God was satisfied So for example sake the Niniuits at Ionas preaching doing penance in sack-cloath and ashes turned away the sentence of God against them M. Perkins answereth that famine the plague and such like scourgeâ— of God were not punishments of sins but corrections of a Father Reply This is most flat against a thousand expresse texts of the Scripture which declare that for the transgressions of Gods commaundements he hath sent those punishments vpon the people of Israell And what is the correction of a Father but the punishing of a shrewde sonne for some fault committed yet in a milde sort Or doth the Schoolmaster which is Caluins example whip the Scholler or strike him with the fâ—â—ula but to punish him for some fault So that great Rabbins seeme not to vnderstand what they say themselues when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father but not the punishment for a fault As though Fathers vsed to correct those sonnes who neuer offended them Or Masters to beat such Scholers as commit no faults speaker A. W. It is against neuer a one of those places if there were ten thousand of them Sinne was the occasion of those punishments but they were not properly punishments for sinne to any of the people who were pardoned by resting vpon Christs satisfaction through faith and manifested their true repentance by their humiliation And such is the correction of a father oftentimes perhaps more seuere than some punishment of a Magistrate yet not for reuenge and satisfaction but properly for correction and admonition You much mistake the matter when you thinke we denie that they are laid vpon vs for sinne and because of your owne error condemne our writers of not vnderstanding what they say Correction is for the fault but not to satisfie for it speaker W. P. Oâ— thus they were punishments tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins these punishments be tending to correction not seruing for satisfaction what senselesse ryming is this By due correction of the fault the party is satisfied in iustice and when he that hath offended doth abide such punishment as the grieuousnes of his offence did require there is both due correction of the offendour and due satisfaction vnto the party offended speaker A. W. A professed scholler might know how to make difference betwixt rymes figures of Rhetorike Did you neuer heare of Epistrophe when the like sound is repeated in the clauses of sentences It is very like Master Perkins did not regard the figure but hit vpon it as it were by chance Howsoeuer it is not a ryme because the vowels in the syllables which haue the accent are diuers Well for the matter you answer That a punishment may be both for satisfaction and correction What then Therfore these are so I denie the consequence because if I may repeate the same answere as oft as you bring the same obiection satisfaction is in this case made alreadie by Christ for as many as truly beleeue in him speaker W. P. And the punishments of God are turned from them not because they satisfie the iustice of God in their owne sufferings but because by faith they lay hold on the satisfaction of the Messias and testifie the same by their humiliation and repentance speaker D. B. P. As we first grant that all satisfaction hath his vertue from the grace of God dwelling in vs which is giuen vs for Christs sake so to say that Christs satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction is iust to begge the principall point in question and therefore an old triuants tricke to giue that for a finall answere which was set in the beginning to be debated speaker A. W. The answerer is not said to begge the question but the replier For to begge the questioÌ„ is to take that for a proofe which is in question Now it belongs not to the answerer to proue but to the replier whose person in this argument not Master Perkins but you sustaine speaker D. B. P. Looke vpon the forenamed example of the Niniuits of whom it is not certaine that they had any expresse knowledge of the Messias and therefore were farre enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction But most certaine and euident it is in the text that God vpon the contemplation of their workes of penance tooke compassion on them and was satisfied as by turning away the threatned subuersion is most manifest speaker A. W. The example of the Niniuites is
the person against whom it is not directed but against the sinne wherein now lyes the contradiction for sooth because reuenge is a requitall of euill past therefore the sinner in his reuenge punisheth himselfe for his sinne But Master Perkins hath alreadie answered that the reuenge the Apostle speakes of is of an other kind being directed to the reformation of the partie not to the punishing of him It is called reuenge because the Corinthians vsed the same meanes for the reforming of themselues that men commonly do when they reuenge If this word reuenge would not beare this interpretation which you haue not proued nor can prooue yet were not Master Perkins guiltic of contradiction or not vnderstanding his owne words but only of mistaking the sense of the word speaker D. B. P. But this sorrow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chasusement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished For where there is no feare of paines and much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester fort And an emulation and desire to she as farie from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs from that sorrow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of Saint Paul speaker A. W. Let vs put the case to your liking that this reuenge was a requit all of euill past will it follow thereupon that therefore they did it to satisfie God for the temporall punishment which otherwise they were to haue indured I trow not your glosse reserres it to their care to punish sinne not to satisfie by punishing that they might shew they mislikt and hated sinne because saith the Glosse you punish euen your selues when you sinne since you punish saith another Glosse your owne sinnes and especially since you punish other mens But if it were for satisfaction a man would punish his owne especiallie that he might auoid a greater iudgement Your ordinary Glosse applies that reuenge to the sinne of the incestuous person You haue shewed saith the Glosse by punishing him that committed the incest that you were vndefiled so doth Caietan also expound it This saith he was the last effect against the incestuous person for they vsed reuenging iustice in excommunicating him so Chrysostome You punished them that had sinned against the lawes of God so Theophylact so Ierome speaker W. P. Lastly they make three works of satisfaction praier fasting and almes deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to thinke that man by praier can satisfie for his sinnes speaker D. B. P. That praier doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnes saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and J will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without saith in Gods power and hope in his goodnes and therfore must needs be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his omnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testify water his couch with teares making them his food day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his Fathers and prayed and entreated earnestly and God heard his prayer and brought him backe againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome speaker A. W. God pardons sinners that call vpon him for mercie and deliuerance therefore their prayers appease his iustice There is no shew of truth in this consequence What though true prayer please God doth it therefore satisfie his iustice Whom doth it not please that hee which hath offended should craue pardon yet is not this a satisfaction to iustice Dauid and Manasses lamented their sinnes and called vpon God for mercie but what scripture saith they satisfied for their sinnes by so doing It were an easy matter to satisfie iustice if intreating pardon would make satisfaction speaker W. P. It is all one as if they had said that a begger by asking of almes should deserue his almes or that a debter by requesting his creditour to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt speaker D. B. P. A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short fleight one of the Protestants from the lippes outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needie man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goodnes highly esteemeth of a humble and contriâ—e hart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besough est me speaker A. W. Belike then if a begger do intreat an almes from his heart by a set speach as long as one of your Auemaryes he deserues that he asks If he deserue it it is small charitie to giue it and iniustice not to gide it What if the creditor be not a needy man and would be content to be paid his debt by a dayes labour which vpon the mans intreatie he releaseth also doth the detter satisfie by intreating God forgiues vpon intreatie therefore intreating makes satisfaction These loose consequences fall asunder of themselues without touching speaker W. P. Secondly fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking and of it selfe conferreth nothing to the obtainement of the kingdome of heauen no more then eating and drinking doth speaker D. B. P. What an Epicurian and fleshly Doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuits fast put on sack cloath and lie on the ground all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercie if the one had bin as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thinne diet if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Christ saith expressely That if vve fast in secret his heauenly Father vvill repay vs openly Will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of falling we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore Briefely I here conclude that this Doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the Kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweet speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is
the fasting and praying of the holiest Couent Abbey or Nunnerie in the countrie As for their satisfactions they are like a broken reede which will not onely faile him that trusts to it but hurt him also I haue shewed that we neede no other satisfaction being deliuered by our Sauiour Christs sufferings and there are few or none except perhaps the begging Friers that had not more neede to satisfie for their owne idlenesse and gluttonie than ordinarily any other kinde of men whatsoeuer if wee may beleeue either the reports of trauellers or the records of your owne histories Can they be said to be obedient to their Superiours that in the very making of their vow oftentimes wilfully disobey their fathers and mothers Or may they be thought to hurt none who liue idle vpon the sweate of other mens browes and are onely a charge to the state whereof they are vnprofitable members But not to hurt is a kindnes perhaps to be commended in theeues what due praise it can haue in a state of perfection for my part I cannot see Which I speake vpon supposition that they are not so hurtfull to men and women as it is commonly thought speaker W. P. And though we mislike this vow also yet we doe it holding these conclusions First that a man may forsake all his goodes vpon speciall calling as the Apostles did when they were sent to preach the Gospell through the whole world Secondly goodes may bee forsaken yea wife children parents brethren and all in the case of confession that is when a man for the religion of Christ is persecuted and constrained to forsake all he hath For then the second table giues place to the duties of the first Mark 10. 29. II. That for the time of persecution men may withdraw themselues iust occasion offered and goe apart to wildernesses or like places Hebr. 11. 37. yet for the time of peace I see no cause of solitarie life If it bee alleadged that men goe apart for contemplation and spirituall exercises I say againe that Gods grace may as wel be exercised in the familie as in the cloister The familie is indeede as it were a schoole of God in which they that haue but a sparke of grace may learne and exercise many vertues the acknowledgement of God inuocation the feare of God loue bountifulnes patience meekenesse faithfulnes c. Nay here bee more occasions of doing or taking good then be or can be in a cloister III. That wee condemne not the old and ancient Monks though we like not euery thing in them For they liued not like idle bellies but in the sweate of their owne browes as they ought to doe and many of them were married and in their meat drinke apparrell rule vow and whole course of life differed from the Monks of this time euen as heauen from earth speaker D. B. P. After all this wast-wind M. Perkins confesseth that a man may vpon a speciall calling sâ—ll all his goods as the Apostles did What then good Sir shal become of your former arguments May one then Vow a curse of the Law and leaue off prayer for neither pouertie nor riches and say that it is not a blesseder thing to giue then to receiue All these arguments which were whilom of great force must now be nothing worth because it pleaseth M. Perkins the wind now sits in an other corner such weather-cockes surely are to be much respected speaker A. W. Master Perkins speakes not a word of selling all a man hath but of forsaking it when hee hath some calling from God which requireth such a course for the following of it as will not affoord a man leisure to looke to his worldly affaires But this is no wilfull casting away the care of our estate but preferring the duties especially laid on vs by God before our owne businesse Neither is it any vowing of pouertie with a fond conceit of perfection but a faithfull labouring in our necessarie calling with neglect of the world in comparison of our dutie In such a case a man must relie on Gods prouidence and vse the best meanes he can to prouide for himselfe that he may not be chargeable to other but helpfull rather not renouncing all propriety in worldly things but carefully sauing and thriftily spending that which it pleaseth God to send by any good meanes whatsoeuer This ouerthrowes no peece of any argument Master Perkins brought before speaker D. B. P. He faith further in time of persecution a man may also leaue all he should rather haue said he must leaue all or else loose all for the persecutor will not spare him Lastly he doth not condemne old auncient Monks who liued by the sweat of their browes and were married many of them as he saith but his authors cited saith not so neither shall he be able to cite one auncient allowed and approued writer who saith that the auncient Monkes liued with their wiues if perhaps they had been married before But no maruaile if fleshly Ministers thinke it no life without their fleshly mates As for labouring at vacant times it was alwaies and is to this day in practise among many religions If other do in good studies writing or teaching imploy that time of labour no doubt but they do farre better speaker A. W. He may and must leaue all if need be It was sufficient for Master Perkins purpose to shew that our goods in some cases might bee forsaken though pouertie might not bee drawne vpon vs by any proud vow of supposed perfection He doth not condemne those Monkes though he thinks many things they vsed not warrantable The report was as Zozomen saith that Ammon the Monk of Egypt by the importunitie of his friends married a wife though hee neuer companied with her Which how he might with good conscience refuse being married let them iudge that reade what the Apostle writes of this matter yet as they say he liued with her eighteene yeeres in that course before she was brought into the liking of a Monkish life But belike it was lawfull then for them to marrie and no man can excuse this Ammon of great sinne that would aduenture to marrie one of whose continencie and willingnes to conteine hee could haue no knowledge before marriage Other Monkes that were married ere they became Monkes could not vow without consent of their wiues If labouring at vacant times be in practise among many religions as indeed there is a multitude of religions among you Papists it is but a worke of supererogation aboue their calling for their profession is idlenesse But that this will not serue the turne Austin sheweth directly enioyning it as a matter of necessitie speaker D. B. P. In defence of the Catholike party M. Perkins hath not a word wherfore I will briefly supplie his want and proue it to be very gratefull to God to sell all and giue it to the poore I omit the example of our blessed Sauiour who would