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
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
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
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
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
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
euerie sin the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted Hence therefore I reason thus If euery man by nature doth both want originall iustice and be also prone vnto all euill then wanteth he naturall free will to will that which is truely good But euery man by nature wants originall iustice and is also prone vnto all euill Ergo Euery man naturallie wants free will to will that which is good Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse vnto him neither can know them because they are spiritually discerned In these words S. Paul sets downe these points I. that a naturall man doth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell II. that a man hearing and in mind conceiuing them cannot giue consent vnto them and by naturall iudgement approue of them but contrariwise thinketh them to be foolishnesse III. that no man can giue assent to the things of God vnlesse he be enlightened by the spirit of God And hence I reason thus If a man by nature doth not know and perceiue the things of God and when he shall knâ—w them cannot by nature giue assent vnto them then hath he no power to will them But the first is euidently true Ergo. For first the mind must approue and giue assent before the will can choose or will and when the mind hath not power to conceiue or giue assent there the will hath no power to will Reason III. Thirdly the holy Ghost auoucheth Eph. 2. 2. Coloss. 2. 13. that all men by nature are dead in sinnes trespasses not as the Papists say weak sicke or halfe dead Hence I gather that man wanteth naturall power not to will simplie but freelie and frankly to wil that which is truely good A dead man in his graue cannot stirre the least finger because he wants the very power of life sense and motion no more can he that is dead in sinne will the least good nay if he could either will or doe any good he could not be dead in sinne And as a dead man in the graue cannot rise but by the power of God no more can he that is dead in sinne rise but by the power of Gods grace alone without any power of his owne Reason IV. Fourthly in the conuersion and saluation of a sinner the scripture ascribeth all to God and nothing to mans free will Iohn 3. 3. Except a man be borne againe he cannot see the kingdome of God Ephes. 2. 10. We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus to good works And chap. 4. vers 24. The new man is created to the image of God Now to be borne again is a worke of no lesse importance then our first creation and therefore wholy to be ascribed to God as our creation is Indeede Paul Phil. 2. 12. 13. biddeth the Philippians worke out their saluation with feare and trembling not meaning to ascribe vnto them a power of doing good by themselues And therefore in the next verse he addeth It is God that worketh both the will and the deede directly excluding all naturall free will in things spirituall and yet withall he acknowledgeth that mans will hath a worke in doing that which is good not by nature but by grace Because when God giues man power to will good things then he can will them and when he giueth him a power to doe good then he can doe good and he doth it For though there be not in mans conuersion a naturall cooperation of his will with Gods spirit yet is there a supernaturall cooperation by grace enabling man when he is to be conuerted to will his conuersion according to which S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 15. 10. I haue laboured in the faith but least any man should imagine that this was done by any naturall power therefore he addeth yet not I that is not by any thing in me but Gods grace in mee inabling my will to doe the good I doe Reason V. The iudgement of the auncient Church August The will of the regenerate is kindled onely by the holy Ghost that they may therefore bee able because they will thus and they will thus because God workes in them to will And Wee haue lost our freewill to loue God by the greatnesse of our sinne Serm. 2. on the wordes of the Apostle Man when hee was created receiued great strength in his free will but by sinning he lost it Fulgentius God giueth grace freely to the vnworthy whereby the wicked man beeing iustified is inlightened with the gift of good will and with a facultie of doing good that by mercy preuenting him he may begin to will well and by mercie comming after he may doe the good he will Bernard saith It is wholy the grace of God that wee are created healed saued Concil Arausic 2. cap. 6. To beleeue and to will is giuen from aboue by infusion and inspiration of the holy Ghost More testimonies and reasons might bee alleaged to prooue this conclusion but these shall suffice now let vs see what reasons are alleaged to the contrarie speaker D. B. P. And this is all vvhich M. Perkins in his pretended dissent auerreth here and goeth about to proue in his fiue reasons follovving the vvhich I vvill omitte as being all for vs. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose let him read the most learned vvorkes of that famous Cardinall and right Reuerend Archbishop Bellarmine speaker A. W. You should at the least haue propounded his reasons that all men might haue seene whether they make for you or against you but you tooke a wiser course for your own credit Yet giue me leaue to shew that his conclusions are directly against you He that hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspired by God hath naturally free will to will that which is good for to receiue such a motion is to will that which is good But euery man according to Thomas and the Councill of Trent hath naturally free will to receiue a good motion inspiried by God for else he cannot receiue any or must haue some habituall grace to prepare him for the receiuing of it Therefore euery man hath naturally free will to will that which is good This is your conclusion to which his are contrarie viz. Euery man naturally wants free will to will that which is good Secondly Man by nature hath no power to will the things of God Thirdly Men naturally haue no power to will the least good Fourthly Man cannot naturally will his owne conuersion The testimonies alleaged need neither confirmation nor explication Bellarmines disputation shall be examined if it please God to giue leisure and opportunitie speaker D. B. P. Novv the very point controuersed concerning free vvill M. Perkins hath quite omitted vvhich consisteth in these tvvo points expressed in the Councell First vvhether vve doe freely assent vnto the said grace
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne for by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
litle knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience there secret faults in deed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that faculty which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine That sinne is so voluntary an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntary And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chaunce to dreame of vncleannes whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxe of sinning without a mans consent is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth Neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to deny this and greater matters too speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly answered that although men know no sinne but that which is voluntarie because they make all sinne to be in the act yet in Gods iudgement it is otherwise who condemnes all for sinne that is any way against his iust and holy law The place you alleage out of Austin prooues no more but that those actions that are not voluntarie are not sinne which wee easily grant But Master Perkins addes a â—…ond answere which you craftily according to your custome omit because you know not what to say to it The answere is that originall sinne may be called voluntarie because Adams sinne was voluntarie and so ours in him as Austin truly affirmes Those dreames that are occasioned by any fault of ours or by our naturall corruption are our sinnes and to them that are not in Christ damnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth also but after baptisme in the regenerate the forme of originall sinne that is the guilt is quite remoued and therefore sinne ceaseth to be sinne Answ. The guilt or obligation to punishment is not the forme of originall corruption but as we say in schooles an accident or necessarie companion thereof The true forme of originall sinne is a defect and depriuation of that which the law requireth at our hands in our minde will affections and in all the powers both of soule and bodie But they vrge this reason further saying where the guilt and punishment is taken away there is no fault remaining but after baptisme the guilt and punishment is remoued and therefore though originall corruption remaine it is not as a fault to make vs guiltie before God but onely as a weaknes Answ. Guilt is remoued and not remoued It is remooued from the person regenerate which stands not guiltie for any sinne originall or actuall but guilt is not remoued from the sinne it selfe or as some answere there be two kindes of guilt actuall and potentiall The actuall guilt is whereby sin maketh man stand guiltie before God and that is remoued in the regenerate But the potentiall guilt which is an aptnes in sinne to make a man stand guiltie if he sinne that is not remooued and therefore still sinne remaineth sinne To this or like effect saith August We say that the guilt of concupiscence not whereby it is guiltie for that is not a person but that whereby it made man guiltie from the beginning is pardoned and that the thing it selfe is euill so as the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltines of it which we hold to be neither the forme nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it Sâ—e S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of Originall iustice is the forme of Original sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate being by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of originall sinne which consistâ—d in deordination of it is taken quite away by Baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe vvhich cannot be vvithout his proper forme as the argument doth conuince speaker A. W. The forme of originall sinne as I shewed before is not onely the absence of righteousnes but also an habituall inclination to euill which is not wholy taken away in this life but onely by degrees diminished and in death vtterly abolished speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Lastly for our disgrace they alleage that we in our doctrine teach that originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose rootes still remaine in the flesh growing and increasing after they are cut as before Answ. Our doctrine is abused for in the paring of any thing as in cutting of the haire or in lopping a tree the roote remaines vntouched and therupon multiplieth as before But in the mortification of originall sinne after baptisme wee hold no such paring but teach that in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne receiueth his deadlie wound in the roote neuer afterward to be recouered speaker D. B. P. Conferre this last answere with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly vvounded in the roote there it remaineth still vvith all the guiltines of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this he comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it as at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the rootes Indeed they doe him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Original sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his workes and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter speaker A. W. This is a meere cauill of yours and no contradiction of Master Perkins originall sinne hath all these effects and yet is not wholy rooted vp as you falsely make him speake but wounded in the roote so deadly as that it neither shal nor
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
no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and thâ—â— followers speaker A. W. What a bad practise and foolish question are these of yours Master Perkins saith that fasting of it selfe conferres no more to the obtaining of heauen then eating doth You leaue out the principall point in reporting his opinion and then you aske why the Niniuits fasted if eating be as acceptable to God you must adde of it selfe as fasting because though of it selfe it pleased not God yet as part of repentance it doth when it shewes humiliation and sorrow But they might haue fasted long inough without being humbled and haue bin neuer awhit the neerer for it But let it be granted that fasting did please God of it selfe as prayer doth will you thereupon conclude that therefore it satisfies Gods iustice Proue the consequence Iohn Baptist is described to haue liued vpon such meate as the place where he abode did ordinarily afford but it is not said that he vsed a thin diet much lesse is he commended for it as if the thing of it selfe had pleased God It was fit for him by the extraordinarie direction of Gods spirit to follow such an austere course of life not to satisfie for any punishment but to make the Israelites the more carefully attend so extraordinary a mans preaching The reward that God will giue to them that in priuate repent of their sinnes with fasting is not because fasting of it selfe pleaseth him but for that such fasting is part of their repentance speaker W. P. Thirdly and lastly almes deedes cannot be works of satisfaction for sinnes For when wee giue them as we ought wee doe but our dutie whereunto wee are bound And we may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another as to say that by doing his dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes These we confesse be fruits of faith but yet are they no workes of satisfaction but the onely and all-sufficient satisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sins is to bee found in the person of Christ being procured by the merit of his death and his obedience And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared and it is to be learned carefully of our common people because the opinion of humane satisfaction is naturall and sticks fast in the heart of naturall men Hereupon when any haue sinned and feele touch of conscience any way their manner is then to performe some outward humiliation and repentance thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience and by doing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes Yea many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede the Lords prayer and the tenne Commandements so foolish are they in this kinde speaker A. W. A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Bussone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes If the similies were as simple as your answers to them a man should lose both his time and his labour to reade either of them shew their vnfitnes for the purpose if you can speaker D. B. P. That Almesdeeds redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all things clean vnto vs hath bin already proued out of holy scriptures I will ioyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Maityr Saint Cyprian Our frailtie could not tell vvhat to doe vulesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the vvorkes of iustice and mercy had shevved vs a certaine vvay of preseruing our saluation which is that vvith Almesdeeds we might vvash cleane avvay the filth of sins vvhich vve had contracted after Baptisme The holie Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeeds and saith speaker A. W. Cyprian intending to exhort all men to almes deeds is somewhat too farre caried with his earnestnes to perswade especiallie since he ascribes to it the purging of sin whereas it can reach no farther at the vttermost by your doctrine then to satisfie for the temporall punishment His proofe out of scripture is not there to be found for though your vulgar translation haue it yet it is not in the originall nor in your interlinear Bible nor in Montanus nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase nor in Vatablus The Greek seemes to haue had it added out of the Apocryphall speaker D. B. P. Now to M. Perkins Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessarie vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great need vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. Perkins Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to know why wee make speciall reckoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such things as be our owne which be of three sorts either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goods the goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other bodily discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoast holy and pleasing God By Almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth may be reduced to three principall heads The concupiscence of the flesh that is heacherie which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the bodie Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries speaker A. W. When we giue almes as we ought saith Master Perkins we doe but our dutie You answer that we are not bound to giue all the almes we can Is this to gainsay him We are bound to spare euen from our necessarie vse when the necessitie of our brethren requires it He that hath no more meate than to fill his owne belly is bound to giue his brother part of it if he see him readie to starue As for other giuing when we cannot spare that wee giue and there is no necessitie it is so farre from being a satisfaction for old sins that it is a committing of new But whence comes this distinction It is not either in Cyprian or in Toby or that place thrust into the book of Toby And out of question it was not Daniels meaning that King Nebuchadnezzar should giue to the poore so that he should come into want himselfe by giuing Neither I thinke can you prooue it was our Sauiours meaning when he exhorted the Pharisies to almes deedes But doe you not perceiue that you marre all by this doctrine Who will giue any thing at his death to your Monasteries if he may not by
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
which against the commandement of God I painted my body is to be afflicted that hath taken so great pleasure my often laughter is to be recompenced vvith continuall vveeping my silkes and soft cloathing it to be chaunged into rough haire speaker A. W. The like may be said to that of Ierome and this beside that Paula had now resolued as it followeth in that place to giue hir selfe to please Christ and not the world which she could not well doe if she continued in the vanities thereof speaker D. B. P. Read another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium about the preseruing of her virginity and see what penance himselfe did being a most vertuous young man speaker A. W. As for the penance as you call it that Ierome himselfe did it was not to satisfie Gods wrath for his sinnes but to subdue his owne corrupt affections which makes me the rather so expound the former of Paula I subdued saith he in that place the rebelling flesh by fasting diuers weekes And afterward if they suffer this that is as the place shewes if they be so tempted who their body being consumed are assaulted by thoughts only what temptations is a virgin subiect to who liues in the abundance of delights Yea Ieromes whole epistle to hir perswades to the auoyding of courtly temptations by the forsaking of the place of danger not to satisfaction by penance speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine saith He that is truly penitent lookes to nothing else then that he leaues not vnpunished the sinne vvhich he committed For by that meanes not sparing our selues he vvhose high and iust iudgment no contemtuous person can escape doth spare vs. speaker A. W. The argument of the epistle to Macedonius is the anowing of the priests praying for them who hauing sinned promise ecclesiasticall penance The clause you alleage out of it makes nothing against vs who confesse that our looking into our owne faults and condemning our selues for them and if you will afflicting our minds and bodies to became we haue offended is many times an occasion that God withholds his hand from shiking For his end being our reformation by the sight of our sinne and his iudgement due vnto it in the nature of the thing when this effect is alreadie wrought in vs to what purpose should God draw his sword to chastice speaker A. W. And he sheweth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest and receiue of him the measure of his satisfaction The very beginning of the homily sheweth that it is true repentance Austin there intreates of because he proues the necessitie and profit of that which he there requires by those places of scripture which vrge humiliation and amplifies the parable of the Publican who was iustified in his humilitie rather then the Pharisie though he fasted twice a weeke and gaue tithes of all that he possessed The end of comming to the priest Austin makes this that he may iudge whether the sinne require any publike satisfaction to be made to the Church or no that if his sinne saith Austin be not only to his great hurt but also to the offence of other and it seeme expedient to the priest for the benefit of the Church he may not refuse to do penance before many or euen before the whole multitude and not by shamefastnes adde pride to the deadly sore speaker D. B. P. And he saith directly against our Protestants position That it is not sufficient to amend our manners and to depart from the euill vvhich vve haue committed vnlesse we do also satisfie God for those things which vve had done speaker A. W. How is this testimonie of Austin against our position do we say it is inough to leaue sinne though we sorrow not for it nay do we not teach that no man can leaue that sin for which he is not truly and hartily grieued vnlesse perchance he change one sinne into another The satisfaction that God requires is that which Austin there describes out of the Psalme The sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit an humble and contrite heart God will not despise This is all that the Prophet whom he alleageth requires in that place Austin addes almes which we willingly acknowledge as a sacrifice greatly pleasing God and fit to testifie true repentance that hauing found mercy at Gods hands we may also shew mercy to other speaker A. W. S. Gregorie saith That sinnes are not only to be confessed but to be blotted out with the austerity of penance speaker D. B. P. What saith Gregory more then I haue oft acknowledged that we may not thinke it sufficient to confesse we haue sinned but must also bewaile our sinnes committed I will close vp these testimonies with this sentence of our learned country-man venerable Bede Delight saith he or desire to sinne vvhen we doe satisfaction is lightly purged by almesdeeds and such like but consent is not rubbed out vvithout great penance novv custome of sinning is not taken avvay but by a iust and heauie satisfaction speaker A. W. You were ashamed to set downe Beades proofe of these three points least the weakenes of his reasons might lighten the waight of his authoritie Delight in sinne saith Bede is likened to Iairus daughter who was raised to life by the touching of her hand he forgot that Christ bad her rise so is that purged by almes and such like light satisfaction Consent is signified by the yong man that was carying out to be buried and is not wiped out but by heauie penance Will you heare his proofe for our Lord doth not reach out his hand to him but saith to him as it were with a certaine mouing of him and grauitie yong man I say vnto thee arise By Lazarus hauing lien foure dayes in the graue and stincking both the simple act and the custome of sinning is signified which is not taken away and pardoned but by a right and heauie satisfaction which is vnderstood by the lowdnes of our Lords voyce and his groning in spirit at the raising of him As weake as this groundworke is to beare so waightie a building we will not offer to push at it if you will giue vs leaue to make that reasonable interpretation which I haue prooued to be intended by diuers of Beades auncients that he meanes only to teach vs that as sinnes differ in heinousnes so must our ret entance in waight and measure if this like you not whatsoeuer damage this worke of Beade shall haue the fault shall be yours wholie and not ours at all speaker D. B. P. And if you please in few words to heare the Protestants works of penance and satisfaction Insteed of our fasting and other corporall correction they fall to eating and that of the best flesh they can get and take in the Lord all such bodely pleasure as the company of a woman will afford In lieu of giuing almes
to the poore they pill them by fines and vnreasonable rents and by vsury and crafty bargaines are not ashamed to cousen their nearest kinne Finally in place of prayer and washing away their owne sins by many bitter teares they sing meerely a Geneua Psalme and raile or heare a railing at our imagined sinnes or pretended errors And so leaue and lay all paine and sorrow vpon Christs shoulders thinking themselues belike to be borne to pleasure and pastime and to make merry in this world speaker A. W. This spitefull and slanderous inuectiue of yours sauouring neither of conscience nor ciuilitie whereby you charge your soueraigne his counsailers nobles gentrie and all that any where in sinceritie professe the Gospell of Iesus Christ with flat Epicurisme I wittingly omit holding it more Christian like to be railed vpon without cause then to raile vpon desert We vse our libertie with moderation how you priests and Iesuits obserue that which feare of damnation hope of reward the lawes of your superiors and your owne vowes bind you to I had rather euery man should iudge according to his knowledge then suspect by my reporting of that which would not seeme very vnlikely The seuenth point Of Traditions speaker W. P. Traditions are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand either by word of mouth or by writing beside the written word of God Our consent Conclus I. Wee hold that the very worde of God hath beene deliuered by tradition For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth and renewed the same vnto the Patriarkes not by writing but by speech by dreames and other inspirations and thus the worde of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hundred yeeres vnto the time of Moses who was the first pen-man of holy scripture For as touching the prophesie of Enoch we commonly holde it was not penned by Enoch but by some Iew vnder his name And for the space of this time men worshipped God and helde the articles of their faith by tradition not from men but immediately from God himselfe And the historie of the new testament as some say for eightie yeeres as some others thinke for the space of twenty yeeres and more went from hand to hand by tradition till penned by the Apostles or being penned by others was approoued by them speaker D. B. P. Hitherto we agree but not in this which he interlaceth that in the state of nature euery man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion For that God then as euer since vsed the ministerie aswell of good fathers as godly masters as Enoch Noe Abraham and such like to teach their children and seruants the true worship of God and true faith in him otherwise how should the word of God passe by Tradition from Adam to Moses as M. Perkins affirmeth If no child learned any such thing of his Father but was taught immediately from God but M. Perkins seemeth to regard lâ—â—tle such petty contradictions speaker A. W. If you were not more desirous to pick quarrels then to acknowledge truth you would neuer faine such contradictions Master Perkins sayes no such thing as you charge him with but speakes only of the Patriarks by whose ministerie the rest were taught as he shewes otherwhere making it an argument to perswade housholders to the like dutie speaker W. P. Conclus II. We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but either came to vs or to our ancetours onely by tradition As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses now in the books of the olde testament wee shall not finde them once named and therefore it is like that the Apostle had their names by tradition or by some writings then extant among the Iewes So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle recordeth of Moses that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai he said I tremble and am afraide which words are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament In the Epistle of Iude mention is made that the Diuell stroue with Michael the Archangell about the bodie of Moses which point as also the former considering it is not to be found in holy writ it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes That the Prophet Esai was killed with a fullers clubbe is receiued for truth but yet not recorded in Scripture and so likewise that the Virgin Mary liued and died a virgin And in Ecclesiasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded and receiued of vs for truth which neuerthelesse are not set downe in the bookes of the olde or new Testament And many things wee holde for truth not written in the worde if they bee not against the word speaker D. B. P. His 2. Conclus We hold that the Prophets our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the Scriptures but came to vs by Tradition but these were not necessary to be beleeued For one example he puts that the blessed Virgin Marie liued and died a Virgin but it is necessary to saluation to beleeue this for Heluidius is esteemed by S. Augustine an Heretike for denying it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith nothing of the necessitie of beleeuing That point of the virgin Maries perpetuall virginitie we hold to be true but we dare not lay a burthen vpon any mans conscience where the scripture is silent S. Austins iudgement though he were a singular light of the Church is not of waight inough to determine without all warrant of scripture what is heresie and what is not especially since himselfe confesseth that it cannot at all or very hardly be declared by a lawfull definition what makes a man an heretike Besides Austin thus deliuers the matter concerning the Heluidians heresie The Heluidians saith he so gaine said the virginitie of Mary that they confidentlie affirme she had other children after Christ by her husband Ioseph So that it may well be Austin counted them heretikes especially for auouching that peremptorily which they could no way make good by scripture speaker W. P. Conclus III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinances rules or traditions touching time and place of Gods worship and touching order and comelines to bee vsed in the same and in this regard Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditions and Act. 15. the Counceil at lerusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstaine from blood and from things strangled This decree is tearmed a tradition and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained And this kinde of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods