with such or such a carriage of the bodie without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed with other like circumstances I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly may bee said in some good sense to haue deserued the hire that he laboured for though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit But if this man should faile in many or any of these circumstances though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did might he in iustice claime the prize as due to him vpon desert This is our case in the point of merit There is no man but he failes very much and often in his best workes some lesse some more but euery one more or lesse So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice though he should denie all men the reward due to the keepers of his Commandements speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew mercie vpon thousands in them that loue me and keepe my commaundements Hence I reason thus where reward is giuen vpon mercie there is no merit but reward is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law therefore no merit What can we any way deserue when our full recompence must be of mercie speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it speaker A. W. What though he doe not and yet it must needes be implied in the text if your interpretation be true For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance which is neuer without faith to him he will certainly giue the kingdome of heauen But the reason is strong by a comparison from the lesse to the greater For if these outward fauours which God bestowes vpon them that keepe his Commandements be of mercie how should heauen be of debt speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam if hee had stood to this day he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience haue procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand but should only haue continued that happy estate in which he was first created speaker A. W. That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods giftes might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue been otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen this by the way speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose because it prooues the question thus If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot But his could not therefore ours cannot Your answere is little to the purpose For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes but of procuring or rather deseruing a more happie estate whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing And surely vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam For the Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vpon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him and neither makes mention nor giues signification of any reward at all much lesse vpon desert speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said The reward of good works is eternall life if life euerlasting could bee deserued which cannot because it is a free gift speaker D. B. P. True But wee speake of good workes and not of bad which the Astle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God speaker A. W. Nay where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text to shew what the proportion of the argument required namely that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life as the wages of sinne is death And thus without question would the Apostle haue spoken to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall if euerlasting life could be deserued speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaid for workes and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue been done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these words Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred vvere giuen speaker A. W. S. Austin in the places alleaged by you neither expounds that text nor speakes of any proportion betwixt the desert of death by sinne and life by good workes But because I am not ignorant that it is his opinion that euerlasting life is due to good workes if you will giue me leaue I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God not from the dignitie of the worke which I thinke to haue been his meaning because he speakes so often and so much of the imperfection of our workes If to countenance your owne error you will needes haue Austin thought to haue erred which is not impossible at the least shew some good reason why the holie Apostle should forbeare to say Euerlasting life is the wages of good works when it would so fitly haue serued his turne for exhortation and when the nature of the sentence
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
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
you aske where I will shew you God willing in another treatise For the answering of these arguments is nothing to Master Perkins reformed Catholike nor the reason of any moment but as it may well be suspected of your owne deuising that you might make babies to dallie with all speaker D. B. P. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knovv vvho beleeued and vvho was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteined in it selfe fidelitie This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelitie and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with coueâ—ousnesse did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulity opened the Diuell a high way to his hart to negotiate treason in it speaker A. W. First I demaund in what the doctrine of the Sacraments could hinder Iudas from growing rich that the fault of his not beleeuing it should lye vpon his couetousnes Secondly I wonder how it can be proued that Iudas did not beleeue it If you ground your conceipt vpon that of Iohn as it is likly you do first proue that our Sauiour spake there of the Sacrament Thirdly it is not plaine by anie place of Scripture that Iudas vnbeleefe in that doctrine opened the way to the Diuell nay rather the text laies the blame vpon his couetousnes and malice stirred vp by our Sauiours defect of Mary against him when she had bestowed such costlie oyntments vpon him in Bethania speaker D. B. P. 3 They obiect that VVho saith bee knovves God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyar Ans. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knovv ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commandements as Christ himselfe testifieth Jf any loue me he vvill keepe my vvord And he that loueth me not vvill not keepe my vvords Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity speaker A. W. Ans. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by all which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinfull and vniust man without charitie who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bands of charitie And so it remaines most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charitie These obiections were not worth the making neither will I wast time and paper in examining your answeres to them The fifth poynt Of Merits speaker W. P. By merit vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth it to repaie the like speaker D. B. P. Obserue that three things are necessarie to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the worke proceed from grace and be referred to the honor of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes speaker A. W. We charge you and that trulie without ignorance or slaunder and according to your doctrine of merits that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercie for so much of your purchase of euerlasting life as is made by good workes For if your workes be such as that in the rigour of iustice they deserue euerlasting life as wages what neede they either Christs blood or Gods mercie to make them meritorious The vse of Christs blood is to wash away sinne Where there is no sin what should Christs blood doe Now to him that workes the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt speaker D. B. P. I will here set downe what the Councell of Tâ—ent doth teach concerning merits Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that vvorke vvell and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their vvorkes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods gree promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part of the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by truerepentance lise to the same estate againe speaker A. W. The Councell of Trent hath as much as well it could made a shew of some reformation but indeed retained for the most part the former errours of her Antichristian Church you also to mend the matter according to the policie of the craftie Councell picke out a sentence and propound it as the whole doctrine of the Councell concerning merits The same afterward you expound but so as that neithe text nor the glosse are sufficient to make your whole doctrine knowne to vs. For whereas you claime heauen of God as wages due to the deserts of your workes here is no mention but only of reward yet somwhat is slipt from you whereby the Councels dealing may well grow into suspition For whereas that sayes no more but that it is a reward by the promise of God to be faithfully rendred to their workes and merits you tel vs that it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good works Where I would faine know of you how you part this debt what part is due vpon promise what vpon desert For it may wel be though the reward be due vpon promise now God hath promised that it was simplie due for the dignitie of the worke whether God had promised it or no And then it was a small fauour of God to make vs a promise of that to which we had full interest by desert before this promise so that he could not in iustice but pay vs our wages for our
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
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
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
worke though he had not promised it And indeed this is the verie maine point of your doctrine of merits howsoeuer you blaunch it with the name of grace I proue it first by the Councell it selfe then by Andradius the expounder of the Councels meaning Seeing that Christ Iesus sayes the Councell doth continually infuse vertues into them that are iustified as the head into the members which vertue alwaies goes before accompanieth and followeth their good workes and without which they could in no sort be acceptable to God and meritorious we must beleeue that there is nothing else wanting to them that are iustified why they should not be thought fullâ—e to haue satisfied the law of God as farre as the estate of this life requires by those workes that are done in God and to haue truly deserued at their time euerlasting life prouided that they depart in the estate of grace Andradius who was present at the Councill and one that debated matters with other Doctors though he had no voyce in determining because he was not a Bishop yet he could not chuse but perfectly vnderstand the poynts that were agreed vpon otherwise we may be sure he should neuer haue been suffered to vndertake the defence of the Councill as hee hath been if not chosen to it He then thus opens the matter That euerlasting felicitie is no lesse due to the workes of the righteous than euerlasting torments are to their sinnes that obey not the Gospell nor know God that heauenly felicitie which the Scripture calles the rewards and wages of the righteous is not so much freely and liberally bestowed vpon them by God as it is due to their workes Which he proues thus When Paul saith Andradius would shew that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by workes he doth it especially by this reason To him that worketh the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt therefore if Abrahams righteousnes were the wages of his workes it ought to be called debt rather than grace For the nature of wages is directly contrary to the name of grace Vpon this reason he concludes That euerlasting felicitie must not be counted according to grace but according to debt And a little after Therefore if any wages be due to the worthie actions of the righteous there is in them the true and whole nature of merit This then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning merits That the good workes of them that haue the first iustification do truly and wholy deserue euerlasting felicitie of God as wages due to them by debt not by grace Let no man be deceiued because to colour the matter they make mention of vertue comming continually from Christ as from the vine into the branches for this is nothing else but the increase of grace whereby Christians are enabled to doe good workes and added no more worthines to the action than should be in it if this grace were receiued from Christ all at one instant as for the substance of it it is at the time of our iustification speaker D. B. P. In infants baptized there is a kind of merit or rather dignity of adopted Sonnes of God by his grace powred into their soules in baptisme whereby they are made heires of the Kingdome of heauen but all that arriue to the yeares of discretion must by the good vse of the same grace either meritlife or for want of such fruit of it fall into the miserable state of death speaker A. W. Infants baptized if they belong to Gods election haue indeed the prerogatiue to be Gods children and thereby an interest to the kingdome of heauen as their inheritance All that come to yeeres of discretion must bring foorth fruites of faith and shall haue reward for them in heauen not vpon merit because their best workes are defectiue but only vpon Gods gratious promise and mercifull acceptance in Iesus Christ. Our consent speaker W. P. Touching merits we consent in two conclusions with them The first conclusion that merits are so farre forth necessarie that without them there can be no saluation The second that Christ our Mediatour and Redeemer is the roote and fountaine of all merit The dissent and difference The Popish Church placeth merits within man making two sorts thereof the merit of the person and the merit of the worke The merit of the person is a dignity in the person whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting And this as they say is to be found in Infants dying after baptisme who though they want good workes yet are they not voide of this kinde of merite for which they receiue the kingdome of heauen The merit of the worke is a dignitie or excellencie in the worke whereby it is made fitte and inabled to deserue life euerlasting for the doer And workes as they teach are meritorious two waies first by couenant because God hath made a promise of reward vnto them secondly by their owne dignitie for Christ hath merited that our workes might merit And this is the substance of their doctrine From it we dissent in these points I. Wee renounce all personall merits that is all merits within the person of any meere man II. And we renounce all merit of workes that is all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoeuer And the true merit whereby wee looke to attaine the fauour of God and life euerlasting is to bee found in the person of Christ alone who is the storehouse of all our merits whose prerogatiue it is to bee the person alone in whom God is well pleased Gods fauour is of infinite dignitie and no creature is able to do a worke which may counteruaile the fauour of God saue Christ alone who by reason of the dignitie of his person being not a meere man but God-man or Man-God hee can doe such workes as are of endlesse dignitie euery way answerable to the fauour of God and therefore sufficient to merit the same for vs. And though a merit or meritorious worke agree onely to the person of Christ yet is it made ours by imputation For as his righteousnesse is made ours so are his merits depending thereon but his righteousnesse is made ours by imputation as I haue shewed Hence ariseth an other point namely that as Christs righteousnesse is made ours really by imputation to make vs righteous so we by the merit of his righteousnesse imputed to vs doe merit and deserue life euerlasting And this is our doctrine In a word the Papists maintaine the merits of their owne workes but we renounce them all and rest onelie on the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. With the former Catholike Doctrine M. Perkins would be thought to agree in two points First That merits are necessary to saluation 2. That Christ is the roote and fountaine of all merit speaker A. W. Master Perkins in the poynt of our consent with you meant not merits
he doth it by rote and not by skill not caring what their meaning was but gessing what in his conceit it might be If he had lookt for the place here alleaged he would certainly haue answered that Austin hath no such speech vpon that Psalme and then perhaps he might with more reason haue denied that he hath it at all The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence which this bold censurer calles foolish and confidently affirmes that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne Let himselfe iudge whether Austin say so or no. We saith Austin that are ouercome in our selues haue ouercome in him therefore he crownes thee because he crownes his owne gifts not thy merits The sense is that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne as they are weakly performed by vs hee would neuer crowne them but considering that wee striue by his grace he vouchsafes them a reward though on our part altogether vndeserued speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine VVhen God crovvneth thee he crovvneth his gifts not thy merits Which is true being taken in that sense which he himselfe declareth To such a man so thinking that is that he hath merits of himselfe without the grace of God it may be most truly said God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts not thy merits If thy merits be of thy selfe and not from him but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vs then may vve as truly say that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence for the substance of it in many other places and namely in that you alleage though not altogether as you alleage it For after those words If thy merits be of thy selfe it followes in Austin for these if they be such are naught those that are naught God crownes not but if they be good they be the gifts of God The rest and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins but yours yet closely conueied by you as if it were his no lesse than the former speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou hast compassion speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme is not to this purpose but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner as the first word quicken and reuiue me sheweth plainely now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued not for any desert of his owne but of Gods meere mercie speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say It is not to this purpose but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner For Dauid who is held to be the penner of it was truly iustified before the writing of that Psalme yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour and strongly perswaded of his succour But what neede I seeke any proofes Haue you forgotten that a few lines before you confest as much when as you would haue shifted off that place in the second verse of this Psalme by answering that the Prophet prayed onely for veniall and light sinnes How then is the case so suddenly altred Forsooth because he saith Thou shalt quicken me For so indeed he saith and not Quicken me as you write But this quickning is not giuing him grace to iustification but comforting and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of and as Lyra truly expounds it deliuering him from the daunger of death which hung ouer his head by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. In sundrie places of Scripture promise of reward is made to them that beleeue and do good workes therefore our workes doe merit for a reward and merit be relatiues Answ. Reward is twofold of debt and of mercie Life euerlasting is not a reward of debt but of mercie giuen of the good will of God without anything done of man speaker D. B. P. Hauing thus at length answered vnto all that M. Perkins hath alleaged against merittes Let vs see what can be said for them following as neere as I can M. Perkins order First in sundry places of Scripture promise of reward is made vnto good workes If thou doe vvell shalt thou not receiue To him that doth vvell there is a faithfull revvard Feare not to be iustified vnto death because the revvard of God remaineth for euer and. VVhen you are reuiled and persecuted for my sake reioyce for great is your reward in heauen And a hundred such like therefore such workes doe merit heauen for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it M. Perkins answereth first that the reward is of meere mercie without any thing done by men But this is most apparantly false for the Scripture expresseth the very workes whereof it is a reward Againe a reward in English supposeth a former pleasure which is rewarded otherwise it were to be called a gift and not a reward and much more the Latin and Greek word Misthos Merces which rather signifie a mans hire and wages then a gift or reward speaker A. W. M. Perkins saith not that reward is promised to workes but to them that beleeue and doe good workes where if there be any desert it is wholy in the person if not onely Yea all the places you needlesly alleage mention reward to the doer not to the deed To the former part of the place out of Ecclesiasticus I answered before I adde now concerning the latter which belongs to this argument viz. Because the reward of God remaines for euer that it is not in the Greeke copie nor in Caraffas Latin nor in Pagnines Vatablus hath it indeede but within two hookes as a sentence suspected The edition of Complutum and Aâ—â—as Montanus wholy omit it There is nothing done by man that can deserue such a reward though there be something done for which the doer is rewarded A reward supposeth some action which is rewarded but not alwaies vpon desert It may well be called a reward because it is giuen in respect of the worke howsoeuer not for the worth of it The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin merces signifie a reward for somewhat done either vpon couenant or otherwise but prooue not any merit in the worke speaker W. P. Secondly the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child and therefore it is called a reward not properly but by a figure or by resemblance For as a workeman hauing ended his labour receiueth his wages so after men haue lead their liues and finished their course in keeping faith and good
to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as vvorthy penance doth require which vvill be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice speaker A. W. So do we acknowledge the exposition which the auncients giue of it though we thinke the exhortation to be somewhat larger then they seeme in the words alleaged to make it for it comprehends all kind of holie conuersation not only the change of the grosse outward sinnes which we doubt not was their meaning also as it is manifest by Chrysostome in that place you bring who describes the repentance that he speakes of to be not only a leauing of our former sinnes but a fulfilling of good works which he proues by that place of the Psalme Eschue euill and do good and expounding those words bring forth fruits c. It is not enough saith Iohn to flie from naughtines vnlesse we betake our selues to the practice of well doing You see what he saith quoth Theophylact that we must not only auoid euill but also bring forth the fruit of vertue To which he addes for proofe that place of the Psalme Yea we refuse not that of Bede for it is indeed a sacrifice fit for vs in iustice to offer that our repentance be answerable in proportion to our sinnes But what is all this to prooue that there remaines tempo all paine to be endured whereby Gods wrath may be satisfied especially when as Chrysostome saith plainely that Iohn perswading the people to repentance did it not that they might be punished but that being made humble by repenting and condemning themselues because of their sinnes they might come to the gift of pardon speaker W. P. Answ. This text is absurd for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth thus much change your mindes from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes that is by doing the duties of the morall lawe which must bee done not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans fine but because they are fruites of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart speaker D. B. P. Reply His answere is most absurd for we argue out of these words VVorthy fruits of penance And he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleaged speaker A. W. Surely a reasonable man might well thinke that you that hold a necessitie of satisfaction and bring that text did ground your argument vpon Iohns charge to do penance The authors alleaged do not confute that interpretation by bringing another which is not 〈◊〉 â—…ty to it at the least we denie your consequence vpon their words And S. Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escaâ—… wrath of God saying that the 〈◊〉 was set to the â—…ose of the â—rie and vn lesse by worthy fruits of penanâ—… they 〈◊〉 God they 〈◊〉 â—e 〈◊〉 vp and cast into hell fire and 〈◊〉 hâ—… confute the â—aying â—…d on Christs satisfaction by faith saying 〈◊〉 wâ—â—l not helpe you to say thâ—â— yee are the Sonnes of Abraham wâ—o was â—…her of all true beleeueis as much as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the Sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse yee amend your liues and for the euill works which ye haue denoâ—… tofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yâ—â— shall be cast into hell fire speaker A. W. Neither doth Iohn speake of any satisfaction for the temporall punishment after the pardon of the eternall but threatens them with euerlasting damnation except they bring forth the fruits of repentance as well as make a profession of it by being baptised so that if satisfaction be required in those words dâ—â—btles it is that satisfaction which may free them from hell fire but that you confesse is not to be performed by euery man for himselfe but by Christ for all that trust in him To whom seemes he to confute the very matter of all his preaching not to Bede who in the place alleaged by you tels vs that Iohn exhorts the Pharises to humilitie who were so proude because they were Abrahams children that they would not confesse themselues to be sinners nor to Lyra who writes thus Because the Pharises Lawyers refused Abrahams faith of Christ therefore they lost the name of Abrahams sonnes And certainely it had bin against reason for Iohn to haue disswaded the Saduces and Pharises from trusting in Christ as well because it was his especiall commission to perswade men by all meanes to beleeue in Christ as also for that there was not the least cause of suspition that they would be too forward to trust in him who had so strong a perswasion of their owne righteousnes that they could find no want of his help speaker W. P. Obiect VII 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof the last is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes Answ. A repentant sinner must take reuenge of himselfe and that is onely to vse all meanes which serue to subdue the corruption of his nature to bridle carnall affections and to mortifie sinne and these kind of actions are restrainments properly and not punishments and are directed against the sinne and not against the person speaker D. B. P. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth dovvne sundry fruits of repentance vvhereof one is reuenge vvhereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sins M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainements properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments only from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must doe Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his body and mind too as S. Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians speaker A. W. If he vnderstood not his owne words he is like to haue small help of you who either cannot or will not conceiue his meaning aright The reuenge that a sinner must take of himselfe is saith Master Perkins to vse all good meanes which serue to subdue his corruption but this is not properly a punishment of
them and so to comprise vnder it sanctification also In which respect Caluin and Chemnitius say they are the lesse to be receiued But as for iustification they spake ordinarily as you heard before when they speak properly acknowledging euen the charitie of men regenerate as I shewed out of Austin by which the law is fulfilled to be imperfect and vnable to iustifie vs in the sight of God speaker D. B. P. But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant Nothing lesse his words be these The iustice of another is assigned vnto man vvho wanted his own man vvas indebted and man made payment c. But let his owne reason there cited serue for exposition of his former words which is this For vvhy may not iustice be from another aswell as guiltines is from another Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation but euery one contracts his owne by taking flesh from him euen so iustice 〈◊〉 from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost In the second place he saith That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God that is by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestovved vpon vs. speaker A. W. Your answere to the first place of Bernard was refuted before when I prooued that Adams sinne was made ours by imputation How will that agree with the former part of the sentence The iustice of God is not to sinne but the iustice of man is bestowed by Gods free mercie There is a poore difference betwixt these two when as God may bestow such righteousnes vpon a man that he shall be free from sinning But thus stands the opposition not to sinne is Gods righteousnes not to haue sinne imputed through Gods mercie is mans righteousnes speaker D. B. P. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge that we haue no iustice of our owne that is from our selues but from the goodnesse of God through the merits of our blessed Sauiours Passion read his first sermon vpon these words of the Prophet Jsaie Vid◠Dominum c. There you shall see him speake plainely of inherent iustice and how it is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ. speaker A. W. How vaine and sleight an answere this is the very words will shew Thou art made vnto me righteousnes of God he speakes of such a righteousnes as is both his and Christs Shall I feare saith he least that one be not sufficient for vs both It is not a short cloake that cannot couer it will couer both thee and me largely being both a large and eternall iustice In the place by you quoted he speakes not a word of any righteousnes but in the fifth sermon vpon that text he compares the righteousnes of men and Angels with Gods not inherent with imputed But what if he speake of inherent righteousnes as he doth in many places doe we deny it or is there because of that none imputed or is that inherent righteousnes sufficient to iustifie vs in Gods sight Let Bernard speake for himselfe Our humble righteousnes if there be any is true perhaps but not pure vnlesse perchance saith Bernard vpon that very place of Esay we thinke our selues better than our fathers who said no lesse truly than humbly All our righteousnes is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman For how can there be pure righteousnes whereas yet there cannot be fault wanting It is no marueile then if you now make light of Bernard whom otherwise you magnifie His testimonie must needes bee accounted of that is so plaine for vs and against you whereas he was a member of your owne Church and erred with you in many points of Antichristianisme speaker W. P. August on Psal. 22. He prayeth for our faults and hath made our fault his faults that he might make his iustice our iustice speaker D. B. P. Another broken peece of a sentence there is cited out of S. Augustine Christ made his iustice our iustice That is by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs as he expoundeth himselfe What is this the iustice of God and the iustice of man The iustice of God is here called that not whereby God is iust but that which God giueth to man that man may be iust through God speaker A. W. What a forced interpretation is this Christ saith Austin made his iustice our iustice that is say you by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs. He hath made his ours that is he hath by his purchased other for vs. Who can beare such an exposition Sure the words will not nor the sense For how shall we expound the former part of the sentence which you craftily leaue out He hath made our sinnes his sinnes Haue our sinnes merited sinne for him If this be absurd as it is how shall your interpretation be auowed the latter part depending vpon the former As for the exposition you bring out of another place where the iustice of God is said to be that which God giueth man this proues that which before I deliuered that the Fathers sometimes make iustification to comprehend sanctification too but where they speake properly of iustification there they teach as we doe Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiections of the Papists proouing inherent righteousnesse to bee the matter of our iustice before God are these Obiect I. It is absurd that one man should bee made righteous by the righteousnesse of an other for it is as much as if one man were made wise by the wisedome of another Answ. It is true that no man can bee made righteous by the personall righteousnesse of another because it pertaines onely to one man And because the wisedome that is in one man is his altogether wholly it cannot be the wisdom of another no more then the health and life of one bodie can bee the health of 〈◊〉 But it is otherwise with the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 it is his indeede because it is inherent in him as in a subiect it is not his alone but his and ours together by the tenour of the Couenant of grace Christ as he is a Mediatour is giuen to euery beleeuer as really and truely as land is giuen from man to man and with him are giuen all things that concerne saluation they being made ours by Gods free gift among which is Christ his righteousnesse By it therefore as being a thing of our owne wee may bee iustified before God and accepted to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. This answere solueth not the difficulty any whit at all for Christs wisedome power and other giftes are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why then is his iustice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sense all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption and we doe dayly offer them to God that he will for his Sonnes sake more
and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touâ—…d how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another rather then wise by the wisdome of another speaker A. W. The reason why our Sauiour Christs other gifts are not imputed to vs is because we stand not in neede of them for the fulfilling of the law to iustification They also belong to vs as members of his mysticall bodie wee doe not offer them to God but intreate him for his Sonnes sake who was so and so qualified and did such and such things and aboue all who is so beloued to be mercifull vnto vs and to accept vs for his children As for any formall wisedome or iustice which should make any reall change in vs we looke not for it in iustification but in sanctification and that is not Christs but ours personally speaker W. P. Obiect II. If a sinner bee iustified by Christ his righteousnesse then euery beleeuer shall be as righteous as Christ and that can not be Ans. The proposition is false for Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to vs according as it is in Christ neither according to the same measure nor the same manner For his obedience in fulfilling the lawe is aboue Adams righteousnesse yea aboue the righteousnesse of all Angels For they were all but creatures and their obedience the obedience of creatures but Christ his obedience is the obedience or righteousnesse of God so tearmed Rom. 1. 17. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 21. not onely because God accepted of it but because it was in that person which is very God When Christ obeyed God obeyed and when he suffered God suffered not because the God-head suffered or performed anie obedience but because the person which according to one nature is God performed obedience and suffered And by this means his righteousnesse is of infinite value price merit efficacy Hence also it commeth to passe that this obedience of Christ serueth not only for the iustifying of some one person as Adams did but of all and euery one of the elect yea it is sufficient to iustifie many thousand worlds Now to come to the point this righteousnesse ousnesse that is in Christ in this largenes and measure is pertaining to vs in a more narrow skantling because it is onely receiued by faith so farforth as it serueth to iustifie any particular beleeuer But they vrge the reason further saying If Christ his righteousnes be the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer then euery man should be a Sauiour which is absurd Answ. I answer as before and yet more plainely thus Christ his righteousnesse is imputed to the person of this or that man not as it is the price of redemption for all mankind but as it is the price of redemption for one particular man as for example Christ his righteousnes is imputed to Peter not as it is the price of redemption for all but as it is the price of redemption for Peter And therefore Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to any one sinner in that largenesse and measure in which it is in the person of Christ but onely so sarreforth as it serueth to satisfie the lawe for the saide sinner and to make his person accepted of God as righteous and no further speaker D. B. P. That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kinde Or it is not infinite but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs inâ—nâ—t iustice for all the parts of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of in stice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this oâ— that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subiects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a far dâ—mmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sun from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueied into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charity but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which S. Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much difference there is betvveene the light that doth lighten and that vvhich is sightened that is the sun and the starre light so much difference is there betvveene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice vvhich is made by that iustification to wit betvveene the iustice of Christ and that vvhich is in eueâ—… good Christian. speaker A. W. The iustice of Christs humane nature for of that now we speake is not properly infinite but onely in regard of his person Therfore though it were all communicated to some man yet should it not in him be infinite You wholy mistake the matter For Master Perkins doth not meane that there is any part of Christs righteousnes inherently made ours as the light of the starre receiued from the Sunne remaines in it but brings that similitude only to shew that the whole is applied to euery one that is iustified in his seuerall proportion As for inherent righteousnes that is rather an effect than an application of Christs righteousnes It may be also Master Perkins was of opinion that the starres as the Moone haue no light in themselues but only reflect the light of the Sunne shining on them and then it is true that the light which comes from them is the very light of the Sunne varied according to the nature and position of each seuerall starre Austin speakes of iustification and iustice as they are largely taken for sanctification also neither doth hee compare Christs righteousnes as hee is man with ours but shewes how infinitly Gods wisedome and iustice exceede mans as hee doth elsewhere by the same similitude speaker W. P. Obiect III. If we be made righteous by Christ his righteousnesse truly then Christ is a sinner truly by our sinnes but Christ is not indeede a sinner by our sinnes Answ. We may with reuerence to his maiestie in good manner say that Christ was a sinner and that truely not by any infusion of sinne into his most holy person but because our sinnes were laid vpon him speaker D. B. P. The third reason for the Catholike party If men be made truely and really iust by