more to your charge than your owne plaine wordes For are not these wordes plaine Paule neuer continued captiue vnto sinne after his regeneration neither gaue place vnto euill thoughts But now you make a protestation that you haue euer been free from such an heresie and your last writing did testifie much Touching your writing it was both last and first except your bare argument and there is no heede to take what ye say for your matter commeth foorth as the streame doth turne the wheele euen vnto contrary motions When before the rage of the streame turned the wheele to vtter the freedome of the Church then it must bee in such perfection that the regenerate is not partly held captiue vnto sinne nor giueth place vnto euill thoughts Now when the wheele must haue a contrarie motion to purge your selfe there commeth as violent a streame that way For here ye say the children of God after regeneration may commit any sinne except the sin against the holy ghost And you also affirme that they may commit sin of presumption and obstinate sinne In my iudgment you had neede of some fauourable exposition of your speech The regenerate doubtles as we haue examples in the scriptures may fall into grieuous sinnes and doe through frailtie but that it may be of presumption and obstinacie you must declare how filthie incest is not the sinne against the holy ghost nor if a man kill his Father Mother or Children No more is witchcraft and familiaritie with diuels Is it your meaning that the regenerate may of presumption and obstinacie committe these If not why doe you vtter such wordes and not make them plaine I spake vpon the place to the Romaines that the freedome of the Church in this world is but in parte and not perfect he cried out a fleshly libertie If I should haue spoken as he speaketh here what would he haue saide But hee now he is afraide least while hee hath washed himselfe ouer cleane from Anabaptisme he should ouerthrow Brownisme as indeede he doth And that is the cause whie hee tempereth his speech in the wordes following that although in Gods fight obstinat sinners may be regenerate and so his children yet not to men by outward profession but are to be cast foorth which I doe not denie and then for the least bowing downe to a false gouernement they are to be cast foorth This I omite as not the question betweene him and me and leaue his words to be considered of the reader But where he procéedeth in reasoning against me as if I held that obstinate grose sinners are not teo bee cast foorth by excommunication I maruaile from whence he can gather that But let vs come to S. Paule againe and see how master Greenwood excuseth his owne speech and condemneth mine It is out of doubt that as God is immortal doth begette by immortal seede as S. Peter speaketh so all which are borne of GOD and haue therefore receiued the spirite of regeneration can neuer loose that spirit Whosoeuer is borne of God doth not committe sinne because his seede abideth in him neither can he sinne because he is borne of God 1. Iohn 3. v. 9. From hence master Greenwood holdeth himselfe cleered and may well say that S. Paule after regeneration stoode not in any bondage to sinne nor gaue place vnto euill thoughts because he euer repented and the spirit of God in him did not nor could not cōsent or giue place vnto sinne His meaning then is this that the regeneration which is from the spirite cannot be in bondage to sinne and the graces of the spirite cannot consent or giue place vnto euill thoughts This is most true vnlesse a man will be so wicked as to holde that the grace of God may be in bondage and consent to the worke of the deuill If this had been the matter in question betweene vs and he had said no more it could not be reprooued But he proceedeth further and chargeth me with error that when S. Paule reasoneth of the olde man or corruption in him I will needes cōclude it of the new man or inner man or of the whole man My wordes are extant in print let all the Brownists sconne them and see whether they can without falsehood and lying gather from them that I conclude that the new man or inner man which is y e grace of regeneration is in bondage to sin or doth consent vnto euill thoughts the whole course of my wordes doth lay open the contrarie For I shew how Paule touching the inner man consented to the law of God And that in his minde that is in the regeneration he did serue the law of God What is it then which maketh master Greenwood so boldlie to accuse and so falsely Euen the mother of headdy boldnes and much falshood palpable ignorance For where I stand to affirme that paule a regenerate man stood yet in some captiuitie and bondage vnto sinne He doth imagine it will followe that I affirme the regeneration to be in bondage vnto sinne because Paul is the whole man and he that concludeth vpon the whole concludeth vpon euerie part In deede this is it which hath deceiued the Brownist and by which he thus laboureth to seduce others that where the Scripture calleth the regeneration or the graces of the spirit the new man and the inner man as it calleth the corruption of nature the olde man and the bodie of sinne he vnderstandeth it as though the person himselfe who is regenerate were called the new man or the inner man which is farre wide for the graces of the spirite the worke of the spirite the regeneration called the inner man are one thing and the man himselfe which is regenerat another The bodie and soule are Paul the regeneration called the inner man or the graces of the Spirite are not Paul himselfe but in Paul The soule bodie are Paul the corruption through concupiscence called the olde man is not Paul himselfe but is in Paul because the regeneration shall neuer be extinguished the regenerate are reckoned and esteemed after it not that the regeneration itselfe is either the man or a part of the man Dauid was a man regenerate he committed adulterie and murther the soule and bodie of Dauid sinned whole Dauid doth acknowledge himselfe a sinner that is he was a sinner both in bodie and soule and yet the regeneration the seede of God in him the graces of the Spirite which were as coles of fire for the time couered in the ashes did not sinne nor consent vnto euill thought Paul a regenerate man when he saith Autos ego I my selfe in the minde serue the lawe of God but in the flesh the lawe of sinne calleth not the regeneration I my selfe but his soule and bodie which were Paul then the bodie and soule of Paul in the minde that is so farre as they were regenerate did serue the lawe of God The same bodie and soule of Paul in
the flesh that is in the corruption of nature remaining because regeneration is not full and perfect did serue the lawe of sinne for he saith I my selfe for both The flesh in this place is not Paul nor no part of Paul but the corruption of sinne spread ouer the bodie and soule of Paul Euen so the minde is not Paul nor anie part of Paul but the worke of Grace remaining the soule and bodie of Paul Now the Brownist not vnderstanding but as the Apopostle saith They would be Doctors of the law not knowing what they speake nor whereof they affirme 1. Timo 1. would haue vs beleeue him that Paul after regeneration was not in anie respect held captiue vnto sinne nor gaue place vnto euill thoughts because the grace of God in Paul was not in bondage vnto sinne nor consented Saint Paul saith I my selfe in the flesh serue the law of sinne which as I expounded in my former booke doth not prooue that sinne did raigne or that it is to be accounted such a seruice to sinne as is done on the other part to God because this is by violent tyrannie against the will so farre as the grace of regeneration hath reformed it and the seruice to the lawe of God is with delight and willingnesse This is the reason why he saith It is no longer I but the sinne that dwelleth in mee It is not reckened his sinne before God because hee doth hate it but yet it sticketh fast both in his soule and bodie It is no longer I that sinne The Brownistes exposition is to this effect It is no longer I that is the inner man or the graces of the spirit that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me Did the grates of regeneration euer commit sinne or the inner man If not how can it be saide it is no longer I for nothing can be said to do no longer that hath not don before And wheÌ„ he saith but sin that dwelleth in me this in me is not in the regeneratioÌ„ for though sin dwel in man together with the works of grace yet is it no fitte speech to say sinne dwelleth in the regeneration Therefore this I when he saith it is no longer I that do it is not the inner man but the person of Paul consisting of soule and bodie How fondly then doth Maister Greenewood affirme that S. Paul in that place touching his bondage to sinne speaketh but of that which is called the olde man The olde man is the concupiscence and corruption of sinne Where I alleaged that Paul saith he saw a law in his members that did leade him captiue to the law of sinne hee saith I falsefie the text because it is leading me captiue and not did leade me captiue Paul speaketh in the time present least he might seeme to speake of a former estate which he was not in then And it was more effctuall to lay open the bondage to sinne which in some respect the regenerate are in though sinne haue not dominion ouer them for him to say at that instant holding me captiue then to say did leaue me captiue The cause why I put it in the time past is that Paul is deliuered long since The disciples sawe Iesus walking on the water doe I falsefie the text if I say they sawe Iesus did walke vpon the water But this is not all for this Brownist saith holding him captiue but it did not holde him What can bee a more flatte contradiction than this his reason is because there was a stronger that suffered not the law in his members to raigne The matter is not about a full dominion of sinne but whether the body and soule were not so yoaked still with it as to be forced to commit sinne Now let me haue an answere to this eyther from Maister Greenewood or any other Brownist whether the regeneration be perfect in any He will say I do hym great wrong to aske him such a question because he professeth the contrarie Well then answere also whether the freedome of Gods children from sinne while they liue here be perfect or but in part as the regeneration is If ye will say the freedome is perfect shew how there can be a perfect freedome from sinne by a sanctification which is but a part If ye say the freemdome is but in part and vnperfect as ye must needes say vnlesse ye will bee right Annabaptists indeede then tell me how it is possible that where the freedome is but in part that should be no bondage For what is the imperfection of freedome but that it taketh not away all bondage looke how farre the freedome commeth short of perfection so farre bondage doth remaine chuse whether part ye will to affirme eyther the freedome of Gods children from sinne while they liue here to be perfect or else to be vnperfect For if ye shall say the freedome is alreadie perfect as ye haue hetherto by affirming that the regenerate are in no bondage to sinne then shall ye continue in Annabaptistrie If ye denie the freedome of the regenerate to be perfect as yet which in deede is the sound truth then consider that howe much is wanting of perfect freedome so much remaineth of that bondage to sinne which as yet al stand vnder that line and acknowledge your madnes in affirming so directly contrarie to the Scriptures that Paul neuer continued captiue vnto sinne after regeneration nor gaue place vnto euill thoughtes FINIS Matth. 13 Matth. 3. 1. Timo. 5 Matth. 14 â—rgu 7.
carnall wisdome loding him and the faithfull with opprobrious titles It is to no purpose that I should answer againe with words but when men shall once see throughlie into the fowlnes and dangers of Browâ—isme and what filthie geare they spread abroade they will thâ—nke it requisite and necessarie to call a spade a spade Donatisme must bee called Donatisme schisme must bee called schisme and heresies and fantasies must haue their due titles And now touching the defence he maketh it is nothing but certaine ragges which he peeceth together to couer his nakednes which also must be plucked from him It seemeth he doth trust to the ignorance or rashnes of some which either cannot or will not examine things aright God is a spirit to be worshipped in spirit I did do coÌ„fesse y t this scripture doth cut downe all carnall worship as disagreeing from the nature of God therefore may most fitlie be alleaged against such as shall maintaine that the verie bodilie action in reading is the worship of God But it is friuolous to applie it against praying after a prescript forme seeing a man may vpon a booke pray reading or after a prescript forme with sighes and groanes which procéed of faith Master Greenewood termeth this a bodilie distinction Doubtles if it be a bodilie distinction to affirme that the verie bodilie action of reading a prayer is not the worship of God which we maintaine against the Papists in their lippe labour I knowe not what Master Greenwood will allowe to bee spirituall What manner of spirit is his But now that he will put away all my distinctions by his affirming still for those bee his wordes and what Euen the whole matter in question betweene vs who cannot see what a valiant champion he is for how falselie he saith he hath prooued shall appeare Then hauing stoutlie affirmed that which is in question he saith and yet say you to applie this scripture thus against read prayer is friuolous How commeth in this word yet Doth it follow that I do not well in saying so notwithstanding you affirme the contrarie but you haue a reason of great force which is in these words I appeale to all mens consciences for the waight thereof Shall the consciences of all men bee made iudge whether that scripture bee rightlie applied Nay I appeale from the consciences of the Brownists Now in the next words where I affirmed that a man may pray by the Spirite of GOD with sighes and groanes vpon a booke or when he prayeth after a prescript forme and therefore the application of that scripture is friuolous his shiftes are as slender For touching this clause that I say or after a prescript forme he saith I goe about to alter the question at the first steppe For as much as all our prayers ought to be vttered after a prescript forme euen that perfect rule and forme our Sauiour gaue to his disciples and all posterities A great peece of work By vttering after a prescript forme I meane when a man hath learned a prayer eyther of the scripture or framed from thence and can vtter it without the booke as it is written And whereas it can not be denied but that many do pray feruentlie with sighes and grones and teares which reade the prayer vpon the booke or haue it as we vse to say by hart He answereth that I begge the question If a man do proue the cause by the effects which I doe heere it is no begging of the question but a firme proofe Where any thing is burnt there hath beene fire Where there be sighes and grones in prayer with inward comfort there is faith there is Gods spirit but these are in some that reade their prayers vpon the booke or vse prescript forme Maister Greenewood thinketh he hath disputed subtillie and couered himselfe when he can say ye alter the question ye begge the question ye assume the question Nowe touching the defence of his reasons he brought If those sighes and grones saith he were of faith that would minister matter of prayer without a booke This reason as I sayd is by connection drawne from the force and effect of faith and to make it strong and good I said these two things must be added y t faith needeth no outward helpe to minister matter of prayer and that it can not stande or be ioyned with any outward helpes which I said are both hereticall He saith he will lay the wordes againe before me if peraduenture I may haue grace to call my selfe backe I looke vpon them againe and although I did not two yeares as you vainely imagine nor yet two daies consider of that one saying yet can I not call my selfe back vnlesse I be conuinced with the light of truth and that ye say I shal be and will so confirme your sayings by scriptures that no peruerted spirit shal be able to gainesay or resist If the sighes and grones were of faith that would minister matter without a booke for the scripture ye affirme teacheth euerie where that in praying the spirit onely helpeth our infirmities no other helpes mentioned or can be collected in the present action of praier through the scripture He hath seÌ„t into our harts the spirit of his sonne crying Abba father wee beleeue therefore we speake From hence now Maister Greenewood concludeth that I haue erred and from an idle braine godles heart haue coined those heresies because I constraine the proposition of the present action in praying vnto a generall sentence of all times and actions This is the summe of your answere that before prayer there neede helpes and outward meanes but in the present action of prayer onely the spirit doth helpe let vs see howe true this is and how it dooth excuse yee from those hereticall opinions which ye goe about to wipe away with this distinction First whereas yee say that in the verie time and action of prayer it is the spirit alone without any outward means because the scripture saith God hath sent into our heartes the spirit of his sonne crying abba Father I answere that howsoeuer the scripture doth extoll or magnifie outwarde helpes and meanes yet when they are compared with God which worketh all in all by them or when the scripture will set foorth the efficacie and worke to be his alone they are either not meÌ„tioned or else if they be meÌ„tioned so cast down as if they were nothing God buildeth his Church by the ministerie of men yet he saith Paule planteth Appollo watereth but God giueth y e increase So that neither he which plaÌ„teth is any thing nor he that watreth but God that giueth the increase 1. Co. 3. And therfore to gather froÌ„ those sentences of scripture where the spirit of God is only mentioned to work praier because the work is his alone y t there neede or there may be no outward helps or meanes in the verie instant and action of praying is farre awrie For I would haue master