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
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
for it with losse both of victorie and life Zachary is conuicted of sinne and striken with dumnes for not beleeuing the Angell and yet in all probabilitie he was as holie as his wife Elizabeth both truly but not perfectly righteous To vvill is in mee but I finde not hovv to performe If Saint Paul could not performe that which he would how can others Ans. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not Marry he could wel by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them speaker A. W. Those very motions were no other than sinnes arising from his naturall corruption and preuailing with him so farre that they ouercame him sometimes and led him captiue speaker D. B. P. The like answere we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbours goods his wife or seruants which as they say is impossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commaundement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetousnes and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man euen when he is a sleepe And restifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it speaker A. W. If this be the meaning of it what is it but a needlesse repetition of that which was before forbidden For who knoweth not that consent to those sinnes was condemned in the 7. and 8. Commandements Besides the Apostle might know by nature that consent to lust was sinne but the true meaning of the commandement he knew not but by the law so that withholding consent from these motions is not enough to free vs from sinning by them and yet perhaps that would not seeme so easie if wee did not flatter our selues now and then The quotation out of Austin is false and being of no great moment I passe it ouer speaker D. B. P. VVe doe all offend in many things And if vve say vve haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Ans. I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoide if vve were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the lavv which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing vvith it But of this matter more fully in some other place speaker A. W. It is an idle speculation to imagine a Christian as Tully doth an Orator and Castiglio a Courtier And what else is he whom in this answere you fancie Such an one since the fall of Adam neuer was not in this world euer shall be Doe you not see your selfe what pitifull shifts these be Veniall sinnes disagree with the law but they do not violate the purport and reason of it Are they not against the purenes of Gods image in which we were created are they not in a naturall man damnable Our obedience is to be squared according to the commandement of God neither haue we any warrant from him to excuse our selues by the conceited reason and I know not what purport of the law For my part though I acknowledge a great difference in degrees of sinnes yet I see little reason why it should not be as mortall a sinne to be led away by carelesnes to the committing of those things which we might easily auoide as after a long and tedious fight to be led captiue by the violence of some mightie temptation For this striuing argueth a desire to please and serue God but that needlesse sinning shewes either presumption or want of ordinarie regard speaker D. B. P. Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is straite and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God speaker A. W. Not euery thing for there are many impossible to man that are neuer made possible and easie by the grace of God So farre as it pleaseth God to make things possible so farre they are made possible But this possibilitie is not communicated to any the examples of the most righteous doe make it more than manifest Which made S. Paul to say I can doe all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me speaker A. W. He that confesseth he cannot doe that good he would sheweth plainly that God doth not enable him to all things which in this place are to be restrained according to the text I can doe all things that is saith your glosse I can vse all fortunes and estates well So doe Theodoret and Oecumenius take it So doe other of your Interpreters restraine it shewing that he meaneth not he can do all things but that he could not doe all those things that is be content with any estate were it not for the strength and comfort hee hath from Christ. speaker D. B. P. And the Prophet Dauid after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart and with thy grace let it at liberty I did runne the waâ—es of thy commaundements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our hart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice speaker A. W. The Prophet Dauid ranne indeed and that an excellent race but not without stumbling staying and turning a little out of the way now and then as the last action in his health declareth speaker D. B. P. Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commandements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plaine for it saying That which vvas impossible to the lavv in that it is weakned by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the lavv might be fulfilled in vs vvho vvalke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace
away the disease and ease the diseased so doth God lab our by his grace in vs to consume sinne and deliuer man And that it is not onely sinne as it comes from sinne and causeth sinne but also properly as a disobedience Austin shewes euidently by this similitude As blindnes of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne whereby the proud heart is worthily punished and a cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of the heart so that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusteth is both sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the minde and a punishment of sinne because it is laid by desert vpon the disobedient and the cause of sinne by the fault of consent or the contagion of birth Yea Austin doubts not to say as we doe that the guilt of concupiscence yet remaining is pardoned that it may not be imputed for sinne In them which are regenerate saith Austin when they receiue forgiuenes of all sinnes whatsoeuer it must needes be that the guilt also of this concupiscence yet remaining is forgiuen that as I said it may not be imputed for sinne Further it is plaine that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne because he receiues and allowes of Ambrose his opinion who calles it iniquitie because it is vniust that the flesh should lust against the spirit This sinne Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand to be our â—lothfull and corrupt will and a violent inclination to euill And Peter Lombard saith that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault but so that it reignes not in vs. speaker W. P. But by the circumstances of the text it is sinne properly for in the words following S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated And. verse 24. he crieth out O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dvvelling in him made him to doe the euill vvhich he haâ—â—a How proues this that sinne there must be taken properlie it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not be sin properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the vvill But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby vvas so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercomming that euill As vvitnesseth S. Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence vvhich being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned This first circumstance then alleadged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him than for him speaker A. W. The reason lies thus Originall sinne dwelling in the Apostle made him doe that euill he hates therefore it is sin properly You answere it rather prooues the contrarie because yâ— which the Apostle doth with hatred of it is not sin for sinne is not committed but with liking and consent of the will I answere that whatsoeuer a man doth against the law of God it is sinne whether he like or mislike it Secondly that the consent of the will makes it not sinne but our sinne Thirdly the Apostle denies not that he doth this euil with his will for else he would not doe it but affirmes that he doth it against his iudgement as euen naturall men doe that are ouercome of their affections Witnes Medea in Ouid I see what is good and like it and doe that is euill Otherwise such actions of theirs should not be sinne I denie not that the regenerate haue a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into and vpon a better ground but yet the naturall men also oftentimes doe that which they mislike in general though they do it willingly That this was the Apostles meaning he that will reade the chapter may easily perceiue I allow not saith he that I doe that is I know it to bee euill and I would faine leaue it vndone but the strength of my corruption is such that I am carried away to the doing of it and so because I am but in part regenerate in part I serue God and in part sinne As for that you adde out of S. Austin it makes not any whit against vs who acknowledge that reason especially being regenerate oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence shall haue reward for it Yet are not Austins words as you report them but thus Reason sometimes manfullie bridles and restraines concupiscence euen when it is stirred when it so happens we fall not into sin but with some little wrastling are crowned But sometimes againe as the Apostle plainly confesseth it is vanquished by sinne or naturall corruption and drawne to the committing of some actuall sinne inward or outward which being euident Master Perkins reason is not answered as the sight of it may prooue That which dwelling in S. Paul made him doe that he hates is sinne properly Indeede why should he hate it if it be not sinne But originall sinne dwelling in him made him doe that he hates Therefore originall sinne is properly sinne speaker D. B. P. Novv to the second O wretched man that J am who shall deliuer mee from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne hovv this may be dravvne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument vvhere he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text vvhich he can find to proue S. Paul to take sinne there properly speaker A. W. That originall sinne called sinne by the Apostle is sinne properly our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in that chapter It is not good It hinders vs from doing good It drawes vs to the doing of euill It makes the Apostle crie out Oh wretched man that I am To which they adde out of other places It is an euill that doth compasse vs about It fights against the Commandement Thou shalt not lust It is an euill to be crucified and mortified Vpon al these descriptions of it we conclude that it is truly and properly sinne speaker A. W. Novv I vvill proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence Jt is not I that doe it â—lâ— sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is but this vvas not done by S. Paul Ergo. Let vs now see your proofes to the contrarie the first whereof you frame thus All sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is But this was not done by S. Paul Ergo. First your proposition is false secondly your conclusion is either
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope euen hence it followes that he may be vnfalliblie assured therof For the property of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed Rom. 5. 5. And true hope followeth faith and euer presupposeth certeintie of faith neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certeinly assured thereof in some measure Exception I. The Popish Doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner First they say it cannot be proued yâ— a man is as certaine of saluation by faith as he is of the articles of the creed I answere First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certâ—ine of the one as of the other For looke what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith the like we haue inioâ—ning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sins as I haue proued Secondly these arguments proue it to be the nature or essential property of faith as certeinly to assure man of his saluation as it doth assure him of the articles which he beleeueth And howsoeuer commonly men do not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible as they do their articles of faith yet some speciall men doe hauing Gods word applied by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith whereby they beleeue their owne saluation as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith Thus certeinly was AbrahaÌ„ assured of his owne saluation as also the Prophets and Apostles and the Martyrs of God in all ages whereupon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ in whom they were assured to receiue eternall happines And there is no question but there be many now that by long and often experience of Gods mercy and by the inward certificate of the holy Ghost haue attained to full assurance of their saluation II. Exception Howsoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate yet no man is certeine of his perseuerance vnto the end Ans. It is otherwise for in the sixt petition lead vs not into temptation we pray that God would not suffer vs to be wholy ouercome of the diuell in any temptation and to this petition we haue a promise answerable 1. Cor. 10. That God with temptation will giue an issue and therefore howsoeuer the diuell may buffit molest and wound the seruants of God yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them Againe hee that is once a member of Christ can neuer be wholy cut off And if any by sinne were wholy seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptized the second time for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as often be baptized as we fall into any sinne which is absurd Againe Saint Iohn saith 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had been of vs they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for graunted that such as be once in Christ shall neuer whâ—ly bee seuered or fall from him Though our communion with Christ may be lessened yet the vnion and the bond of coniunction can neuer be dissolued III. Exception They say we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on Gods part but wee must needes doubt in regard of our selues because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance Now we cannot say they be assured that we haue true faith and repentance because we may lie in secret sinnes and so want that indeed which we suppose our selues to haue Answ. I say againe he that doth truly repent and beleeue doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent and beleeue for else Paul would neuer haue said Prooue your selues whether you be in the faith or not and the same Apostle saith 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are giuen of God which things are not onely life euerlasting but iustification sanctification and such like And as for secret sinnes they cannot make our repentance void for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes repenteth also of such as be vnknowne and receiueth the pardon of them all God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vnknowne sinnes but accepts it as sufficient if we repent of them generally as Dauid saith Psal. â—9 Who knowes the errors of this life forgiue me my secret sinnes And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient I answere that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance stands in the trueth and not in the measure or perfection thereof and the trueth of both where they are is certainely discerned Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church August Of an euill seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith to acknowledge what thou hast receiued is not pride but deuotion And Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne heart if he finde charitie there he hath securitie for his passage from life to death Hilar. in Matth. 5. The kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his will is that it must be hoped for without any doubtfulnesse of vncertaintie will at all Otherwise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull Bernard in his epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that being loued of God loues him againe which comes not to passe but by the spirit reuealing by Faith the eternall purpose of God of his Saluation to come Which reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by which when the deedes of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen Together receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and also loue againe To conclude the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this poynt For they teach and professe that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation certainely and vnfallibly in respect of God that promiseth Now the thing which hindreth them is their owne indisposition and vnworthinesse as they say which keepes them from being certaine otherwise then in a likely hope But this hinderance is easily remoued if men will iudge indifferently For first of all in regard of our selues and our disposition we cannot be certaine at all but must despaire of saluation euen to the very death We cannot bee sufficiently disposed so long as wee liue in this world but must alwaies say with Iacob I am lesse then all thy mercies Gen. 32. and with Dauid Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for none liuing shall bee iustified in thy sight and with
to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh speaker A. W. I shewed the true meaning of the place before that God by his Sonne hath iustified vs which the law could not doe because we were vnable to keepe it Now the end of this iustification is that wee should walke after the spirit whereby we fulfill the law though not perfectly yet performing the same duties the law requires but not in the same measure speaker D. B. P. Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commandements to be impossible may appeare by that Epistle And his commandements be not heauy Which is takē out of our Sauiours own words My yoke is sweet and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailtie they be very heauy Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our harts by the holy Ghost then loe doe we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charitie is the fulnes of the lavv And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the vvhole lavv and Prophets depend vpon these tvvo commandements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charitie we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it So that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law speaker A. W. You haue giuen the true meaning of S. Iohn for therefore are Gods Commandements said not to be heauie because our loue to God who hath giuen vs the assurance of his loue to vs in Iesus Christ maketh vs goe willingly and cheerefully about them for all those incumbrances wee finde by the world the flesh and the diuell And in that respect we are said to fulfill the law by charitie because the obedience we performe weake and slender though it be proceedeth from the loue of God and of our neighbour which is the very summe of the law vpon which both the law and the Prophets depend And all this prooueth not perfect but onely true obedience which all that are iustified performe howsoeuer they faile much in the particulars of that measure the law exacteth speaker D. B. P. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimony of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly to say that the commandements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That vve must beleeue firmely that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant no true law-maker to commaund his subiects to doe that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe For those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to binde them vp to most assured perdition speaker A. W. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstood according to the Scriptures of possibilitie to performe true obedience which without grace no man can doe not of perfect keeping the law which yet by our creation wee were sufficiently enabled to performe So that God not onely may not but reasonably cannot be suspected of iniustice if hee require that at our hands which he made vs able to doe as with Austin we confesse he did Basil speaketh not of our abilitie to keepe the Commandements but onely sheweth that the charge of looking to our selues belongeth to the contemplation of the minde not to the eyes of the bodie because if it did it were giuen in vaine no man being able to see the hinder parts of his bodie nor his face nor his inwards Therefore the holie Ghost who doth not command things vtterly impossible will haue this precept of looking to our selues to be vnderstood of the searching of our heart not of the viewing of our bodie speaker A. W. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approued Councell of Arausican as an article of faith in these words This also vve beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued vvith the helpe and cooperation of Christ both can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things vvhich belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commandements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements He may doe them without doubt as I haue often said truly and acceptably to God yet not so fully as he ought because our corruption will not suffer vs to labour faithfully without intermission or infirmitie which the Councill requireth and you aduisedly leaue out That speech of our Sauiour is not the voyce of the Gospell though that also requires obedience and allowes a reward for it but of the law fit to be vttered to him that came to our Sauiour full fraught with the conceit of his owne righteousnes not so much with a desire to learne of him saith Hierome as to trie his skill And this our Sauiour spake of the iustification which is of the law without faith As it appeareth by Beda Lyra the ordinarie glosse and Remigius THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT stained with sinne speaker D. B. P. NOw that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I proue first by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob. Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the Diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single harted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocency If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy vvhen you shall fall into diuers temptations knovving that the probation of your faith vvorketh patience And let patience haue a perfect vvorke that you may be perfect and entire fayling in nothing speaker A. W. This as the last point is a matter belike that this man thinkes himselfe well prepared for and therefore he runnes a course of his own in them hauing no such occasion giuen him by Master Perkins yet let vs follow him step by step By Iobs innocencie continued nothing else is meant but that he had not as Satan had affirmed he would vttered any blasphemie against God But by this it cannot be prooued that there was no taint of sinne in his patience As for his sinceritie and vprightnes they are vertues that alwaies accompanie true Christians and without which all is hypocrisie That perfection or perfect worke is the proouing that his faith is perfect because it ouercommeth as your
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
serued and surely if in it selfe it be not sinne why should the Apostle so much complaine of it since by the trouble it put him to it did but occasion him to shew his valour and as you Papists say was a means to make him deserue a crowne of glorie speaker W. P. Reason II. Infants baptized and regenerate die the bodily death before they come to the yeeres of discretion therfore original sin in them is sin properly or els they should not die hauing no cause of death in them for death is is the wages of sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne As for actuall sinne they haue none if they die presently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason or affection speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The cause of the death of such Innocents is either the distemperature of their bodies or externall violence and God vvho freely bestowed their liues vpon them may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting True it is that if our first parents had not sinned no man should haue died but haue bin both long preserued in Paradise by the fruit of the wood of life and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen and therfore is it said most truely oâ— S Paul Death entred into the vvorld by sin But the other place the vvages of sinne is death is fouly abused for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting and by sinne there meaneth not Originall but Actuall sinne such as the Romans committed in their infidelity the wages whereof if they had noâ— repented them had bâ—n hel fire now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death for Originall sinne remaining in them because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne is either to shâ—w great want of iudgement or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture Let this also not be forgotten that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent that the punishment of Originall sin was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate how then doth he here say that he doth die the death for it speaker A. W. Master Perkins reason is thus to be framed That which is the cause of bodilie death to infants Baptised and regenerate is sinne properly But Originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants Baptised and regenerate Therefore it is sinne properly The proposition he proues by two places of Scripture the assumption by shewing that they haue no actuall sinne and therefore since death is not but where sinne is originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants that dye before they come to any vse of reason or affection First you deny the assumption viz. that originall sinne is the cause of bodily death to infants But the reason of your deniall is insufficient For it doth not follow that originall sinne is not the cause of death to them because the meanes of their death is distemperature or externall violence For then the death of many reprobate men were no iudgement of God against sinne and though God of his absolute power may take away any mans life because he gaue it him yet it pleased his Maiestie to binde himselfe to a course in the creation that death should be the consequent of sinne The day thou eatest thou shalt dye so that wheresoeuer we see death we may conclude there is sinne either really as in all Adams posteritie or by imputation as in Christ. Then you come to the proofe of the proposition where you graunt the one place to be rightly alleaged because death indeede had not found any place of entrie had it not been for sinne The other text you say is foâ—lly abused first because the Apostle vnderstands by it eternall damnation he doth so principally but why may not death be taken as largely here as it is there from whence all these phrases of Scripture come But there it signifies both kinds of death Here S. Paul chiefely puts them in minde of the greater hauing shewed before that bodily death came into the world by the meanes of sinne and although the Apostle be occasioned to deliuer that speech by reason of the Romans actuall transgressions it doth not abate but sharpen the edge of his exhortation to expound the place of all sinne whatsoeuer for if there be no sinne no not originall but shall haue death for wages certainely these actuall transgressions shall be punisht with it Master Perkins in the place alleaged speakes of that punishment which is condemnation as the very words following declare in which he prooues that the punishment is taken away by that of the Apostle There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus It is true that bodily death also is chaunged from being a punishment yet the reason of that death is the dwelling of sinne in the regenerate which by the dissoluing of the bodie through death must be abolisht If it had pleased God to haue giuen Master Perkins life that he might haue seene this your exception being better acquainted with your sleights and his owne meaning he would haue answered you more fully as in other poynts so in this also speaker W. P. Reason III. That which lusteth against the spirit and by lusting tempteth and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne is for nature sinne it selfe but concupiscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I haue said Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is inticed then when lust conceiueth it bringeth forth sinne And therefore it is sinne properly such as the fruite is such is the tree speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere The first proposition is not true for not euery thing that intiseth vs to sinne is sinne or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne had been by nature sinne and euery thing in this world one vvay or an other tempteth vs to sinne according vnto that of S. John All that is in the vvorld is the Concupiscence of the flesh and the Concupiscence of the eyes and Pride of life So that it is very grosse to say that euery thing vvhich allureth to sinne is sinne it selfe and as vvide is it from all morall vvisdome to affirme that the first motions of our passions be sinnes For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish betweene sodaine passions of the mind and vices teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason and so made vertues rather then vices And that same text vvhich M. Perkins bringeth to persvvade these temptations to be sinnes proues the quite
many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
onely but of indisposition also which is a reason to make euery one despaire in regard of himselfe though in respect of Gods mercie he may conceiue some hope For if no man should find fauour but he that is disposed or fitted for it perfectly sure wee must needes despaire of attaining to that fitnes how can we in respect of that looke for saluation the worthines which is in them that shall come to heauen is both in Christ by whom they are worthie as members of his mysticall bodie and also in themselues who departing out of this world are made perfectly righteous by inherent righteousnes which before was begun in them speaker D. B. P. If God bidde vs pray that we fall not into temptation and promiseth an issue forth then the assurance depends vpon prayer and not vpon our former faith What then if wee doe not pray so as we should may not the enemy then not only wound but kill vs to it cannot be denied and therein as in diuers other workes of pietie many haue been too too slacke as the pitifull fall of thousands haue taught vs. speaker A. W. Master Perkins doth not say that prayer doth assure vs of perseuerance but that wee resting vpon God by faith and calling on him are vpheld from falling away not because our prayer is for the manner and measure such as it ought to be for all should be perfect but because God-hath promised to keepe his children and that he may fulfill his promise stirres them vp to pray according to his will though with many imperfections speaker D. B. P. Oh saith M. Perkins it cannot be that he vvhich vvas once a member of Christ can euer after be vvholy cut off O shamelesse assertion and contrary to many plaine texts and examples of holy Scriptures Doth not our Sauiour say in expresse words That euery braunch in me not bearing fâ—… he vvill take it avvay And againe If any abide not in me he shall be cast forth as the branch and shall vvither and be cast into the fire which doth demonstrate that some which were members of Christ be wholie cut off and that for euer Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our aduersaries owne confession and doth not our blessed Sauiour say expounding the Parable of the sower That the seed vvhich fell vpon the rocke doth signifie them vvho vvith ioy receiue the vvord and these saith he haue no roote but for a time they beleeue and in time of temptation reuolt Doth not S. Paul in expresse tearmes say That some hauing faith and good conscience expelling good conscience haue made shipvvrack of their faith of whom were by name Hymenaeus and Alexander The like That in the last daies some should reuolt from the faith Againe That some for couetousnes sake had erred from the saith speaker A. W. Doe you call that a shamelesse assertion which is so oft auowed by our Sauiour himselfe He that drinkes of that water that I shall giue him shall neuer thirst but it shall be in him a well of water springing vp to euerlasting life Againe My sheepe heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me and I giue them eternall life and they shall neuer perish neither shall any plucke them out of my hand And in another place I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that beleeues in me shall neuer thirst This is the will of him that sent me that euery one that sees the Sonne and beleeues in him should haue euerlasting life and I will raise him vp at the last day Now the places you alleage prooue no more but that if any man fall away from Christ he shall perish and that some may forsake the truth of doctrine or hauing had some shew of a iustifying faith for a time may afterward manifest themselues not to haue beleeued in Christ to iustification Of the former kinde are those two places of Iohn of the latter all the rest speaker D. B. P. And for example amongst other take Saul the first King of Israell who was at his election as the holy Ghost witnesseth so good a man that there vvas no better then he in Jsraell and yet became reprobate as is in the Scripture signified The like is probable of Salomon and in the new Testament of Judas the traytour and Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith that he also himselfe beleeued and after became an Arch heretike and so died the like almost may be verified of all Arch-heretikes who before they fell were of the faithfull speaker A. W. That you say of Saul is vtterly false for the Scripture neither in that text nor any where else speakes so of him And indeed how could it Samuel being then aliue so holie and good a man But the place you meane is in the ninth chapter where Samuel saith to him whose shall all the best things of Israel be as your translation reades it That is saith your glosse the dignitie of the King who may take the best things of the people subiect to him The goodly things saith the 70. All that is to be desired Pagnin What soeuer is to be desired in Israel saith Vatablus and in his marginall note All the desire of Israel as if he should say Thou shalt be King of Israel And this agrees both with the word and with the context Care not for the asses saith Samuel for they are found and besides whose shall all the wealth of Israel be Thus haue you graced Saul and belied the holy Ghost so haue you disgraced Salomon whom the holy Ghost honored with speaking by his mouth and writing by his penne the great mysteries of God Euery Papist hath not power like the Pope to make whom he will a Saint and whom he list a reprobate Iudas Simon Hymeneus Alexander and the rest beleeued the truth of the Gospell at least in part for a time but neuer any one of these had at any time true iustifying faith to rest vpon Christ for saluation speaker D. B. P. But what neede we further proofe of this matter seeing that this is cosen-german if not the very same with one of that infamous heretike Iouinians erronious articles condemned and registred by S. Hierome and S. Augustine who held that iust men after Baptisme could not sin and if they did sinne they were indeed washed with water but neuer receiued the spirit of grace his ground was that he which had once receiued the spirit of grace could not sinne after which is iust M. Perkins proposition so that to vphold an errour he falleth into an old condemned heresie speaker A. W. We denie not that a man may sinne yea we confesse that the very best men doe sinne but wee say the Lord by his spirit keepes them that are iustified from falling away from Christ either finally or totally He that is
seruant thou art made a good child therefore presume not of thine owne doing but of the grace of Christ. Jt is not arrogancy but faith to acknovvledge vvhat thou hast receiued it is not pride but dâ—uâ—tion What vvord is here of certeinty of saluation but that it belongeth to a faithfullman to confesse himselfe much bound to God for calling of him to be his Which euery Christian must doe hoping himselfe so to be and being most certeine that if he be not in state of grace it is long of himselfe and no vvant on Gods part The second place hath not so much as any shevv of vvords for him thus he speaketh Let no man aske another man but returne to his owne hart and if he find Charity there he hath security for his passage from life to death What need vvas there to seeke charity in his hart fer security of his saluation if his faith assured him thereof therefore this text maketh flat against him speaker A. W. There is this for certaintie of saluation that it is no presumption or a man to know he hath receiued the grace of Christ it is not arrogancie but faith not pride but deuotion whereas you say it is presumption arrogancie and pride Can any thing be more contrarie Not so much as a shew of words yet is there substance of matter for if charitie be a securitie for passage from life to death and if a man may know whether it be in his heart or no doubtlesse there is assurance of saluation to be had But you will say not by faith else what neede he seeke for charitie as if it were amisse to haue more proofes than one He that hath tried the diuels temptations knowes that all is little enough But this assurance by charitie is assurance by faith because it prooues wee haue such a faith as shall certainly bring vs to euerlasting life speaker D. B. P. The next Author he citeth is S. Hilarie in these words The Kingdome of heauen which our Lord professed to be in himselfe his vvill is that it be hoped for vvithout any doubtfulnes of vncertaine vvill at all is an addition othervvise there is no iustification by faith if faith it selfe be made doubtfull First he saith but as we say that the Kingdome of heauen is to be hoped for without any doubtfulnes for we professe certainty of hope and deny only certainty of faith as M. Perkins confesseth before And as for faith we say with him also it is not doubtfull but very certaine What maketh this to the purpose that a man must beleeue his owne saluation when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead Hilary requires such a hope as is grounded vpon faith and hath the same nature with faith but that it particularly respects the time to come whereas faith rests absolutely vpon God for the present also Neither speakes hee of the resurrection from the dead in particular but of euery mans trust concerning his own enioying of all heauenlie felicitie speaker D. B. P. His last Author is S. Bernard VVho is the iust man but he that beâ—â—g loued of God loues him againe vvhich comes not to passâ— but by the sâ—…t reuealing by faith the eternall promise of God of his saluation to come vvhich reuelation is nothing else but the infusion of spirituall grace by vvhich the deeds of the flesh are mortified the man is prepared to the Kingdome of heauen togither receiuing in one spirit that whereby he may presume that he is loued and loues againe Note that he saith the reuelation of the spirit to be nothing else but the infasion of spirituall graces and comfort whereby a man hath some feeling of Gods goodnesse towards him by which as he saith he may presume but not beleeue certainely that he is loued of God But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himself there he speaketh thus as I cited once before It is giuen to men to tast before hand somewhat of the blisse to come c. Of the which knowledge of our selues novv in part perceiued a man doth in the meane season glorie in hope but not yet in security His opinion then is expressely that for all the reuelations of the spirit made by faith vnto vs we are not assured for certainty of our saluation but feele great ioy through the hope we haue hereafter to receiue it speaker A. W. Would Bernard haue a man presume that God loues him without warrant or would he haue him not beleeue the testimonie of the spirit which assures him of that loue by such a pledge Austin taught vs before that it is no arrogancie but faith to know what we haue receiued and Bernard teacheth vs now that the end of receiuing is that we may presume we are beloued of God that is that wee may know it by faith He addes further afterward that this is the holy and secret counsell of God which the Sonne hath receiued from the Father by the holy Ghost and communicates to those that be his so that they begin to know as they are knowne it being granted to them to feele before hand somwhat of their blessednes to come as it hath been hidden from all eternitie in him that did predestinate and shall appeare more fully in him when he shall make vs blessed We beleeue with Bernard that we haue here but a taste of the ioy to come and that our securitie is not ordinarily without doubting So that the certaintie he speakes of and that we say Christians haue is all one speaker D. B. P. This passage of testimonies being dispatched let vs now come vnto the fiue other reasons which M. Perkins produceth in defence of their opinion The first reason is this That in faith there are two things the one is an insallible assurance of those things which vve beleeue This we grant and there hence proue as you heard before that there can be no faith of our particular saluation because we be not so fully assured of that but that we must stand in feare of losing of it according to that Hold that which thou hast least perhaps another receiue thy crovvne speaker A. W. Faith in it selfe is a full assurance but hath not this full worke in euery one that truly beleeues and therefore your proofe is insufficient speaker D. B. P. But the second point of faith puts all out of question For saith M. Perkins it doth assure vs of remissission of our sinnes and of life euerlasting in particular Proue that Sir and we need no more It is proued out of S. Iohn As many as receiued him he gaue them poeer to be made the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name This text commeth much too short he gaue them power to be the sonnes that is gaue them such grace that they were able and might if they would be sonnes of God but did not assure
sanctification be perfect in the world to come yet shall it not iustifie for wee must conceiue it no otherwise after this life but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteousnes of Christ without which it could not be And a good childe will not cast away the first garment because his father giues a second And what if inward righteousnesse be perfect in the ende of this life shal we therefore make it the matter of our iustification God forbid For the righteousnesse whereby sinners are iustified must be had in the time of this life before the panges of death speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall â—uieth after this life and is â—…ned in beaâ—en but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life eigo M. Perkins answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we all haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life in ward righteousnes shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shal be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answere ouerthroweth the other Wherfore I need not stand vpon it but will proâ—eed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers speaker A. W. There are many pitifull shifts in this answere First Master Perkins denies the assumption which you leaue so ouerthrowne and runne to fortifie your owne partie Secondly he giueth the reason of his deniall That acceptation of vs as righteous and forgiuenes of sinnes shall be continued in heauen Thirdly he saith not that wee shall haue no other righteousnes in heauen but the quite contrarie viz. sanctification which is inherent righteousnes here imperfect Fourthly he puts it not to perhaps but resolutly affirmes that sanctification shall be perfect in the end of this life Fiftly there is not in his speech so much as a shew of any contradiction which ariseth wholy from that clause foysted in by you we shall haue no other Lastly as any man may discerne you change Master Perkins conclusion and so his whole reason speaker D. B. P. The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul And these things certes vvere you Dronkers Couetous Fornicators c. But you are VVashed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sins and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and the sake of Christ Iesus speaker A. W. First I answere as before that the Fathers often take iustification for sanctification also Secondly I say Bellarmine out of whom you take this hath deceiued you Chrysostome doth not make iustification consist in those actions of washing c. his words are these God hath washed vs and not that onely but hath sanctified vs neither that onely but hath iustified vs. Now if washing and sanctifying be iustifying in Chrysostoms iudgement how doth he rise from one to another as diuers things Theophylact makes them diuers at least in nature God hath clensed you from them saith Theophylact yea and sanctified you How By iustifying you faith he for he hath washed you then afterward iustifying he hath sanctified you Theodoret expounds the place of forgiuenes of sins in baptisme Your ordinarie glosse applies washing to baptisme sanctifying to the holy Ghost giuen vs that wee may worke well and iustifying to our working well Ambrose saith that in baptisme he that beleeues is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and is adopted a sonne to God by the spirit of our God But neuer a one of these saith that iustification consists in these actions of washing and infusion of Gods gifts speaker D. B. P. The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost vvhom he hath povvred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace vve may be heires in hope and not in certainety of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the â—enewing of oursoules by the infusion of his heauenly giftes vvhich God of his mercy did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Chrsts sake This is but your glosse For the grace of God in that place signifies the fauour of God as otherwhere the same phrase doth or the loue of Christ who as Lyra there saith makes vs the adopted sons of God Caietan makes an opposition betwixt Gods grace and our workes as the Apostle doth If it be of grace it is no more of workes So doth Chrysostom and Theophylact vnderstand it of fauour not of debt For if he saued vs by fauour When we were desperate and cast away much more saith Theophylact shall he giue vs those good things to come now we are iustified as the Apostle saith If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall be saued by his life speaker A. W. Many other places I omit for breuity sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before First S. Augustine saith That this iustice of ours which they call righteousnes is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost And is a beautie of our invvard man It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule And twenty other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers And S. Cyrill for the Greekes who of our iustification writeth thus The spirit is a heate vvho as soone as he hath povvred charity into vs and hath vvith the fire of it inflamed our minds vve haue euen then obtained iustice In the first place alleaged by you there is no such matter onely Austin proues against the Pelagians that we are not sinners from Adam by imitation alone because then we should also be righteous from Christ by nothing but imitation In the Epistle to Consentius he speakes not of that righteousnes whereby wee are iustified but of that which is inherent What other thing saith he is iustice in vs or any other vertue by which we liue orderly and wisely than the beautie of the inward man This is true of those graces we receiue by sanctification He doth not say that the grace by which we are iustified is the renewing of the reasonable
God not of works least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes al and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Now let the Papists tell me what bee the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnlesse they bee the most excellent workes and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholy from the worke of iustification and saluation speaker D. B. P. Ephes. 2. is nothing against our Doctrine of iustification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also vvith S. Austin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our workes which vvent before and might seeme to the simple to haue been some cause vvhy God bestovved his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace speaker A. W. What ignorance or malice there is in alleaging this text against your doctrine of iustification it shal appeare by and by in the meane time I answere concerning Austin first that in the place you name there is neuer a word of the sentence in question Secondly that his scope in that treatise is no more but to shew that they falsely vnderstood such places of the Apostle as speake against iustification by workes who thinke that when once they haue beleeued in Christ they shall be saued by faith though they liue neuer so wickedly Thirdly to refuâ—e that lewd conceit Austâ—… addes that the Apostle rather therefore saith that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law because he would haue no man imagine that he hath obtained iustification by faith vpon the merit of his former workes This we grant to be true but not all that the Apostle intendeth For it cannot be doubted but that he confuteth the opinion of the Iewes and Heathen concerning iustification as it is plaine by the three first chapters Now they did not make account to deserue the grace of iustification at Gods hands by their holy and vertuous liuing but to inherit heauen by it Neither could they that did beleeue so much flatter themselues as to dreame that their good deeds in particular had procured that fauour when it was easie for them to see that many thousands both Iewes and Gentiles as good or better than diuers of themselues for vertuous behauiour notwithstanding attained not to this iustification Besides if we mark the reasons by which the Apostle beates down their pride they are such as generally concerne all both Iewes and Gentiles Adde hereunto that Austin speakes no further for the vse of good works but to shew that they are necessarie for a Christian man as without which his faith is voide and idle and that no man may dreame that if hee beleeue it pertaines not to him to worke well which are the words that immediatly goe before these you bring speaker D. B. P. And therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of vvorkes of grace because in the text follovving he mentioned good vvorkes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betvveene those tvvo kinde of vvorks signifying the first To be of ourselues The second â—o proceede from vs as Gods vvorkmanshâ—o created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth VVorkes simplie the second Good vvorkes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then vvas it to take these tvvo so distinct manner of vvorkes for the same and to ground himself so boldly vpon it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith that the Apostle barres all workes before and after grace He prooues it by the very text it self The reason may be thus more plainly propounded We are not saued by works saith the Apostle that no man may boast His proofe followeth For good workes are appointed by God for vs to walke in for which purpose he hath made vs anew in Iesus Christ. That this tenth verse is a proofe of the former the coniunction for declares But how it can serue to that purpose if the two verses speake of diuers kindes of works some iustifying some not iustifying neither I see nor I thinke you can shew me What though he call the former workes simply the latter good workes are not the former those workes which the law morall and naturall require and are not they in their nature good workes But who knoweth not that by workes without any addition workes of grace after iustification are signified let the Apostle Iames speake who intreating of such workes and naming them almost in euery verse doth not once call them good workes but workes simply speaker W. P. II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circumcised ye are bound to the whole law and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the law hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by works he is bound to fulfil the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the law according to the rigour thereof for the liues and works of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery day to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Again our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh and in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if hee were bound to his owne damnation speaker D. B. P. If he can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo S. Paul onely saith in these vvords That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the vvhole lavv of Moses M. Perkins That if a man vvill be iustified by vvorkes he must fulfill the rigour of the lavv Which are as iust as Germaines lippes as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is S. Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it vvere a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that vvould be circumcided did make himselfe subiect vnto the vvhole lavv of the Ievves Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lavv because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this speaker A. W. Master Perkins vnderstood his owne minde in this and other arguments better than I can doe and so could haue affoorded better answers for his defence Yet thus much I may say that the text of
conscience as dutifull children God giueth them eternall life And hereupon it is termed a reward speaker D. B. P. Wherefore M. Perkins skippes to a second shift that forsooth eternall life is an inheritance but not a reward Reply We know well that it is an inheritance because it is only due vnto the adopted Sonnes of God but that hindereth not it to be a reward for that it is our heauenly fathers pleasure that all his Sons comming to the yeares of discretion shall by their good carriage either deserue it or else for their bad behauiour be disinherited speaker A. W. An inheritance is not due to the sonne onely because none except hee bee a sonne can haue it but is his proper right because he is a sonne And therfore it is vnreasonable both in Diuinitie and Law that the sonne should be bound to purchase that by his labour to which by a naturall right he hath full interest This is our case for though we are not sonnes by nature but by adoption yet being sonnes and heires yea ioynt heires with Christ the naturall sonne of whose bodie we are members the very nature of our sonneship or being sonnes conueies vnto vs a sufficient and certaine title to the inheritance It is indeed the pleasure of God our Father that we should labour to expresse our thankfulnes by all holy obedience to him that hath adopted vs for his children and that we after this labour should receiue the inheritance not deserue that by our labour to which wee haue alreadie a farre better claime by being sonnes speaker W. P. Thirdly if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward it is not for our workes but for Christs merit imputed to vs causing vs thereby to merit and thus the relation stands directly between the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing so good reason to distrust his two former answeres flies to a third and graunteth that eternal life is a reward yet not of our workes but of Christs merits imputed vnto vs This is that Castle wherin he holds himselfe safe from all Canon shotte but he is fouly abused for this answere is the most extrauagant of all the rest as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture examine any one of the places and a babe may discouer the incongruity of it Namely Christ saith that great is their reward who are reuiled and persecuted for his sake Assigning the reward vnto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for Gods sake and not to his owne merits imputed and if you desire a formall sentence fitting this purpose take this Euery man shall receiue his reward according vnto his ovvne proper labour And not according to Christs merits imputed vnto him So a doer of the vvorke shall be blessed in his deed And not in the imputation of anothers deed speaker A. W. Master Perkins did not nor needed mistrust either of his former answers but because he knew that diuers men were moued with diuers reasons he added this third to see if by Gods blessing this might giue satisfaction where the other were not fully vnderstood It is not Master Perkins meaning to say that in these our works there is desert by Christs merit imputed but that if the children of God must needes be thought to receiue euerlasting life as of merit the merit is properly Christs imputed to them speaker W. P. Obiect II. Christ by his death merited that our workes should merit life euerlasting Answ. That is false all we find in Scripture is that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne imputation of righteousnesse and life euerlasting and it is no where said in the word of God that Christ did merit that our workes should merit it is a dotage of their owne deuising He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Thus much saith the Scripture and no more And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs by his owne death it is a sufficient proofe that hee neuer intended to giue vs power of meriting the same vnlesse wee suppose that at some time hee giues more then is needefull Againe Christ in the office of mediation as he is a King Priest and Prophet admitteth no deputie or fellow For he is a most perfect Mediatour doing all thinges by himselfe without the helpe of any And the Ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies but reasonable and voluntarie instruments which he vseth But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happinesse for themselues then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption men doing that by him which hee doth of himselfe in procuring their saluation Nay if this might stand that Christ did merit that our workes should merit then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnesse beeing for this cause not capable of merit should neuerthelesse merit I call it stained because we are partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law though wee bee regenerate Againe for one good worke wee doe wee haue many euill the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes and makes them too light in the ballance of the law speaker D. B. P. Insteed of our second reason blindly proposed by M. Perkins I vvill confirme the first with such texts of holy writ as specifie plainly your good workes to be the cause of eternall life speaker A. W. The second reason is so cleerely set downe that me thinkes you dare not looke vpon it for feare of hauing your eyes dazled by the brightnes of it A sillie shift to auoid an argument which you cannot answere speaker D. B. P. Come vnto me yee blessed of my Father possesse a Kingdome prepared for you And why so For vvhen I vvas hungry yee gaue me meate And so foorth the like is in the same Chapter of the seruants who imployed well their talents for their Lord said vnto them Because you haue been faithfull in fevv things I vvill place you ouer many And many such like where good workes done by the parties themselues are expresly saide to be the very cause why God rewardeth them with the kingdome of heauen Thorefore he must needs be holden for a very vvrangler that doth seeke to peruert such euident speeches and vvould make the simple beleeue that the cause there formally specified is not to be taken for the cause but doth only signifie an order of things speaker A. W. The places you bring to prooue that good workes are the cause of eternall life proue not that the things that were done did truly and wholy deserue such a reward which is the question No more doth Austins exposition Wee are iudged according to our workes so that if any man should wonder why these are receiued into heauen those cast
the will and vnderstanding of man and by this meanes they are tainted with sinne as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete yet the streames thereof passing through the filthie channell are defiled thereby Againe they reason thus That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it but we are bound to doe good workes therefore they are perfect Answ. The proposition must be expounded that which we are bound to doe in it selfe according to the intention of the commander hath no fault or that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it hath no fault yet in regard of the intention of the doer or in regard of our manner of doing it may bee faultie speaker A. W. M. Perkins fourth obiection for vs is proposed vnskilfully yet could he not ansvvere it but by relying vpon that vvhich is most vntrue that forsooth no one action of the best man is vvithout fault vvhith hath bin alreadie confuted and might be by instances of Abrahams oblation of his Sonne S. Iohn Baptists preaching and reprehending of Herode Stephens martyrdome vvith infinite such like in vvhich M. Perkins nor any else vvill be able to shevv in particular vvhat fault there vvas Will this shifting neuer be left What want of skill finde you in propounding the obiection If you could haue told we should haue been sure to heare of it Well let reasonable men iudge There lackes only the proposition which any man may supplie and the assumption wherein the doubt lies is prooued by a further reason speaker D. B. P. What meanes this yet as if he had propounded it vnskilfully that he might answere it the easier Is not his answere plaine and direct to the proofe of the assumption in which the strength of the argument consists But you say his answere hath been alreadie confuted I replie that the confutation hath been alreadie answered And to the instances you now bring I adde further that howsoeuer wee cannot alleage any particular faults in the worthie actions of some extraordinarie men yet we intreat you to remember that they were men hauing the flesh in them lusting against the spirit naturall corruption not wholy abolished to taint their workes and that God can see an error or want where men thinke the thing cannot be bettered Againe our Sauiour saith That if the eye be simple the vvhole body is lightsome not hauing any part of darknes in it and very reason teacheth vs that a mans action for substance and all due circumstances may be perfect speaker A. W. I would faine heare what you would conclude vpon that place of the eyes simplenes If by the eye you vnderstand the heart and thinke to proue that mens actions are good because the heart is good either your consequence of the proposition is naught if by heart you meane intent for a good intent makes not by and by a good worke or else your assumption will be false imagining such a measure of purenes in the heart as is not in this life to be found Your Glosse vpon the place referres it to the intention but argues not from thence any perfection If thou do good works with as pure intention as thou are able they are the works of light though it seeme not so to the world And another Glosse saith that by the intent works are discerned whether they be works of light or of darkenes not as you say whether they be perfit or vnperfit A third Glosse restraines it more saying it is a metaphoricall speach as if he should haue said as thy bodily eye directs thy bodily actions so the eye of the mind by a right intention directs humane actions as farre as concernes the nature of morall goodnes If the intent of the mind be right the whole heape of thy actions shall be good and belie so that the worke be lawfull for the kind of it I will adde no more let all men iudge what truth there is like to be in that doctrine that can find no better warrant of scripture speaker A. W. It vvas then a very seely shift to say that neuer any man did any one action vvith all his due circumstances Whose shift is this sure not Master Perkins in this answere But why is it a shift because you say that reason teacheth vs that a mans actions for substance and all due circumstances may be perfit I dare not take it for true vpon your word in morall actions according to the light of nature and if it were true in them I should not be resolued that therefore it were also true in them according to the law of God speaker D. B. P. But insteed of that fourth Argument I vvill put this If a greater revvard be due vnto them that do better workes then a reward is due vn-them that do good workes vvhici is euident in reason But a greatot revvard is prouided for them that doe better speaker A. W. He that considers this reason of yours would thinke there was small cause why you should condemne Master Perkins for want of skill in propounding the last argument for you to mend the matter first bring vs out a false syllogisme and then conclude that which we denie not your syllogisme is false because the assumption is not taken out of the proposition as it should be but is a new matter as it were a fourth terme brought in for your assumption should be But a greater reward is due in steed whereof you say a greater is prouided Now to be prouided and to be due is not all one because many things are prouided for meere gifts whch are no way due your conclusion must be Therefore a reward is due to them which do good works who saith otherwise but this due is of promise not of desert speaker D. B. P. As S. Augustine grounded vpon Gods vvord proueth in sundry places namâ—ly vpon that For starre dissereth from starre in glory so shall be the resurrection from the dead specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort chastity in vvedlocke after another and holy vviddovvhood yet after another all saith he shall be there but they shine diuersly And of the same vvorke affirmeth That martyrdome shall be higher revvarded then any other vvorke The like doth he vpon those vvords One ground shall yeeld thirty fold another threescore folde another an hundred folde Comparing chastity in vvedlocke to the thirtie in vviddovves to the sixtie and in virgins to the hundred But most directly in his sixtie seauen treatise vpon S. Iohns Gospell vpon this verse Jn my Fathers house are many mansions vvhere he saith that albeit some be holier iuster and more valiant then others yet there shall be fit roomes for them all vvhere euery one is to receiue his place according vnto his merit That peny spoken of by vvhich saith he is signified eternall life shall be giuen to euery man equally because
no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and thâ—â— followers speaker A. W. What a bad practise and foolish question are these of yours Master Perkins saith that fasting of it selfe conferres no more to the obtaining of heauen then eating doth You leaue out the principall point in reporting his opinion and then you aske why the Niniuits fasted if eating be as acceptable to God you must adde of it selfe as fasting because though of it selfe it pleased not God yet as part of repentance it doth when it shewes humiliation and sorrow But they might haue fasted long inough without being humbled and haue bin neuer awhit the neerer for it But let it be granted that fasting did please God of it selfe as prayer doth will you thereupon conclude that therefore it satisfies Gods iustice Proue the consequence Iohn Baptist is described to haue liued vpon such meate as the place where he abode did ordinarily afford but it is not said that he vsed a thin diet much lesse is he commended for it as if the thing of it selfe had pleased God It was fit for him by the extraordinarie direction of Gods spirit to follow such an austere course of life not to satisfie for any punishment but to make the Israelites the more carefully attend so extraordinary a mans preaching The reward that God will giue to them that in priuate repent of their sinnes with fasting is not because fasting of it selfe pleaseth him but for that such fasting is part of their repentance speaker W. P. Thirdly and lastly almes deedes cannot be works of satisfaction for sinnes For when wee giue them as we ought wee doe but our dutie whereunto wee are bound And we may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another as to say that by doing his dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes These we confesse be fruits of faith but yet are they no workes of satisfaction but the onely and all-sufficient satisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sins is to bee found in the person of Christ being procured by the merit of his death and his obedience And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared and it is to be learned carefully of our common people because the opinion of humane satisfaction is naturall and sticks fast in the heart of naturall men Hereupon when any haue sinned and feele touch of conscience any way their manner is then to performe some outward humiliation and repentance thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience and by doing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes Yea many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede the Lords prayer and the tenne Commandements so foolish are they in this kinde speaker A. W. A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Bussone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes If the similies were as simple as your answers to them a man should lose both his time and his labour to reade either of them shew their vnfitnes for the purpose if you can speaker D. B. P. That Almesdeeds redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all things clean vnto vs hath bin already proued out of holy scriptures I will ioyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Maityr Saint Cyprian Our frailtie could not tell vvhat to doe vulesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the vvorkes of iustice and mercy had shevved vs a certaine vvay of preseruing our saluation which is that vvith Almesdeeds we might vvash cleane avvay the filth of sins vvhich vve had contracted after Baptisme The holie Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeeds and saith speaker A. W. Cyprian intending to exhort all men to almes deeds is somewhat too farre caried with his earnestnes to perswade especiallie since he ascribes to it the purging of sin whereas it can reach no farther at the vttermost by your doctrine then to satisfie for the temporall punishment His proofe out of scripture is not there to be found for though your vulgar translation haue it yet it is not in the originall nor in your interlinear Bible nor in Montanus nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase nor in Vatablus The Greek seemes to haue had it added out of the Apocryphall speaker D. B. P. Now to M. Perkins Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessarie vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great need vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. Perkins Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to know why wee make speciall reckoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such things as be our owne which be of three sorts either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goods the goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other bodily discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoast holy and pleasing God By Almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth may be reduced to three principall heads The concupiscence of the flesh that is heacherie which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the bodie Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries speaker A. W. When we giue almes as we ought saith Master Perkins we doe but our dutie You answer that we are not bound to giue all the almes we can Is this to gainsay him We are bound to spare euen from our necessarie vse when the necessitie of our brethren requires it He that hath no more meate than to fill his owne belly is bound to giue his brother part of it if he see him readie to starue As for other giuing when we cannot spare that wee giue and there is no necessitie it is so farre from being a satisfaction for old sins that it is a committing of new But whence comes this distinction It is not either in Cyprian or in Toby or that place thrust into the book of Toby And out of question it was not Daniels meaning that King Nebuchadnezzar should giue to the poore so that he should come into want himselfe by giuing Neither I thinke can you prooue it was our Sauiours meaning when he exhorted the Pharisies to almes deedes But doe you not perceiue that you marre all by this doctrine Who will giue any thing at his death to your Monasteries if he may not by
D. B. P. This conclusion is faultie t Rom. 7. 1â— Vers. 16. Vers. 19. Vers. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. B. P. The flesh and the soule are not contrarie but the flesh and the spirit u Rom. 8. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Eph. 4. 23. Col. 2. 18. x Gal. 5. 20. y Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 14. c. 3 z De amiss gra lib. 5. c. 15 Rom. 6. a Rom. 8. 1. b Rom. 2. 4. 5. c Rom. 6. 7. Jt may consist of 40. poynts and yet but three vvords according to Logick d Rom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 16. 1. Cor. 15. e 1. Cor. 15. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 7. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Reuel 〈◊〉 17. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Iam. 5. 1. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A ridiculous translation VVood is not vvâ—ont to beare fâ—uite Rom. 5. Rom. 6. Euery one baptized is noâ— regeneraâ—e k Rom. 6. 23. 5. 12. l Gen. 2 17. m Rom. 5. 12. n Rom. 6. 23. o Gen. 2. 17. p In our Consent q Rom. 8. 1. 1. Epist. 2. But not from spirituall Iacob 1. r Arist. Ethic. lib. 2. cap. 1. s Rom. 7. 7. Lib. 6. in Iud. cap. 5. Lib. 4. in Iohan cap. 51. t Exod. 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. u Austin Cyril * Glossa ordin Iacob 1. 14. Perducit ad actum August cont Iuâ— lib. 5. cap. 3 Lib. 5. cont Iulianum c. 3. Lib 6. cap. 5. Tract 41. in Iohan. This vvas ansvvered before a Ad Valer. l. 1 c. 24. b Lib. 2. cont Iul. c Tract 42. in Iob. And already ansvvered x August ad Valeâ—ian lib. 1. cap. 24. Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 3. num 10. In some questions of which he did collect their opinions as Caluin expounds himselfe in the former sentence y Videri potest interesse Homil. 11. in epist. ad Rom. Serm. de sex tribul And ansvvered alreadie See my ansvvere to the Epistle dedicatorie and to the Prologue z See my ansvvere to the Epistle dedicatorie and my defence of the Prologue b Quoad imputationem c Quoad existentiam And I hope sufficiently defended A smal summe Ioh. 13. Neither ours nor any Apostle aâ— all Lib. 9. epist. 39 a This Gregory vvas next neighbour to Boniface the third the first Pope in vvhom Antichrist vvas discoueâ—ed Epist. ad Oceanum Psal. 50. b Psal. 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 6 7. 8. Rom. 5. c Rom. 5. 16. Lib. 3. de lib. arb cap. 17. Lib. de vera Relig. cap. 14. d A second ansvvere of Master Perkins omitted e Retract lib. 1. cap. 15. Bellarm. de amiss grat lib. 4. cap. 10. * Contra Iul. lib. 6. c. 6. 1. 2. q. art 3 Originall sinne is in all parts of the â—inde Wounded in the â—ootâ— not plucked vp by the rootes f See 12. Art part 1. art 4. 〈◊〉 * Bellar. lib. 3. pag. 1. 129. cl Here he addes false but what he meanes by it he doth not expresse The Ministers assurance is but conditionall as absolution is if it be true So is he as far as he agrees vvith the truth of the Gospell Luk. 16. 16 Psalm 17. 8. Zach. 13. 6. Ierem. 17. Matth. 22. Iob. 9. g 2. Cor. 13. 5. h Act. 13. 48. Rom. 8. 30. i Marc. 16. 16. Ioh. 1. 12. Rom. 8. 15 16 17. k Rom. 8. 30. Ephes. 1. 〈◊〉 4. Rom 9. 11. l Iob. 9. 10. m Arias Montanus Pagnin ibi n Non cognoscâ—â—us illum per opera 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. B. P. You may be sure of your loue if you â—e sure of your faith 1. Ioh. 3. o 12. Art part 〈◊〉 Art 4. D. p Rom. 8. 9. 10. O lying Pharisie Matth. 19. Vtterly vntrue vve say Adam might haue kept thâ—m and any man may novv by the like measure of grace q Maâ—â— 16. 16. r Matth. â—9 17. s Matth. 1. 21. Act. 10. â—3 t Matth. 19. 21 u Rom. 10. 5. 6 11. Pag. 54. In it selfe because of Gods vvord to vâ— according to the measure of our â—aith Js reuelation from God but for â—…ope and not for assurance In such measure assured of * 12. Art par 〈◊〉 art 1. D. B. P. And been replied vpon A disorderly order Tract 25 in Ioh. B. C. 1. Iob. 5. 14. D. Ioh. 6. 36. E. F. G. H. I. * De verbis Deâ— Serm. 28. * Tract 5. in Epist. Ioh. Luk. 13. Matth 19. 2. Tim. 2. F. Iustifying faith is in the vvill if not vvholy yet principally 2. Cor. 13. x 2. Cor. 13. 5. 1. Cor. 2. 12. In 3. capuâ— Ioh. De cor gra cap. 13. Lib. 9. moral cap. 17. y 1. Cor. 2. 12. Apoc. 3. 4. G. 1. Cor. 10. O â—dle and salse exclamation Ioh. 15. Iâ—ke 8. 1. Tim. 1. 19. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Tim. 6. a Ioh. 4. 13. 14. b Ioh. 10. 27. 28 c Ioh. 6. 35. Vers. 40. There is no such testimonie of him any where 1. Reg. 19. 1. Reg. 15. 16 Act. 8. d 1. Sam. 9. 20. e Cuius enim optima quaeque Israel Lyra ibi f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Expedibile Pagnin Vatablns Heraes 82. li. 2. cont Iouin M. Perkins hath no such proposition h Iac. 3. 9. And that condemned by M. Perkins so far is he from fauouring it M. Perkins saith no such thing you make an absurd collection Time say vve i 12. Art part 2. Art 4. F. 1. Ioh. 2. De bono perse c. 8. k 12. Art part 2. Art 1. C. Rom. 11 20. Phil. 2. 12. l 12. Art part 1. Art 5. part 2. art 1. Eccles. 9. Are Pagnine Vatablus and Arias Montanus heretikes Comment in hunc locum m Paâ—nin Vatablus Arias Mâ—ntanus 1. Cor. Serm 5 in Psalm 1â—8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 moâ—aâ— c. 2. De verb. Dom. Serm. 35. De ciuit Dei lib. 11. c. 12. This is not in Austin quoted by you n Aug. de verbis dom serm 35. misquoted for Aug. homil 50. homil 35. o Aug de ciuit dei lib. 11. c. 12 Serm. 1. de Septuag Eccles. 9. p Serm. 1. in Sepâ—â—ages q Quales sumus nosse possumus vel ex paâ—te r Vt indubâ—… bile sit s Eccles. 9. 1. Lutherans and Caluinists as you tear me them doe not thinke each other damned t Caluin Bullingâ—â— Pag. 57. De verb. Dom. Serm. 28. Tract 5. in Epist. Iohan. Sup. 5. cap. Mat. Of yours not of M. Perkins vvho hath it not u Hilar. in Math. ca. 5. Spes bonorum aeternorum Epâ—â— â—07 * 〈◊〉 saith 〈◊〉 Perkâ—ns out of Bernard * Aug. de verb dom serm 28. x In beatificante A. Apoc. 3. Ioh. 1 Take your relish be not meerely naturall He proues that he brings by the Scriptures alleaged y Ioh. 1. 12. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gal. 3. 26. Gal. 3. This is your glosse b Gal. 3. 2. Tract 25. in Ioh. Luk. 12. Ioh. 15. Meere Pharâ—saisme B. c Rom. 8. 15. 16 Vers. 17. d Rom. 8.
borne of God sinneth not for his seed remaineth in him neither can he sinne because he is borne of God speaker D. B. P. And which is yet more absurd in the next confirmation he letteth slippe at once a brace of other heresies these be his words And if by sin one vvere vvholâ— seuered from Christ for a time in his recouery he is to be baptised the second time Where you haue first rebaptizing which is the principall error of the Anabaptists and withall the heresie of the Nouatians who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptisme there was no remedy left in Gods Church for their recouery but must be left to God so saith M. Perkins for that of rebaptizing he seemes to bring in ex absurdo so that the common saying is verified in him one absurdity being graunted a thousand follovv after But doth he know no other meanes then Baptisme to recouer one cut off from Christ hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet wherwith they begin their common prayer VVhat houre soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinne c. With them repentance and with vs the Sacrament of Penance serue a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ. speaker A. W. Baptisme being the sacrament of imitating and ingrafting men into Christ must needes be equally necessarie for all that are out of Christ. As for repentance vpon which God forgiues a sinner it is common to the baptized with the vnbaptized now you hold it needfull at the first as doubtlesse it is so that the wilfull neglect of it is damnable though a man haue repented why should it be needlesse afterward when a man is wholy out of Christ as in the beginning he was Your superstitious and proud satisfactorie penance wee reiect as Antichristian neither allowing any second baptisme nor excluding them that fall neuer so grieuously either from heauen or the Church in this world if they repent speaker D. B. P. But we must answere vnto that of S. Iohn They vvent out from vs but they vvere not of vs for if they had bin of vs they vvould haue continued vvith vs. I answere If they went out from vs they were before with vs which confirmeth our assertion that men may depart from their faith and Christs profession but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect of which S. Iohn was for then either they would haue continued with them in the Christian faith or else by hartie repentance would haue returned vnto it backe againe which is S. Augustines owne exposition And these be the Arguments for the Catholikes vvhich M. Perkins through his confused order toucheth here and there speaker A. W. Who denies they were with the Church or who can prooue they were of it you grant as much as we desire that they were not of the elect who onely are in case to fall away from Christ because the rest were neuer in him Their returning by repentance is not into Christs mysticall body as if they had been out of it but either into the congregation of the faithfull or into Gods fauour in respect of their owne feeling speaker D. B. P. To which I vvill adde one taken out of the words of S. Paul But thou by faith dost stand be not too highly vvise but feare if God hath not spared the naturall boughes lest perhaps he vvill not spare thee neither And againe VVorke your saluation vvith feare and trembling There be aboue an hundred such texts in holy vvrite vvherein the holy Ghost exhorteth vs to stand in feare of our saluation out of vvhich I thus frame my argument No man must stand in feare of that of vvhich he is by faith assured But the faithfull must stand in feare of their saluation Ergo they bee not assured of it by saith The Minor or second proposition is plainly proued by these places cited before the Maior is manifest there is no feare in faith he that feareth vvhether the thing be assured or no cannot giue a certaine assent thereunto Dubius in side in fidelis est Put the case in another article to make it more euident He that feareth vvhether there be a God or no doe vve esteeme that he beleeueth in God So he that feareth vvhether Iesus Christ be God is he a Christian hath he a true faith You must needs anssvere no. So he that feareth vvhether he shall be saued or no can haue no faith of his saluation speaker A. W. I may grant your conclusion the faithfull are not ordinarily assured of their saluation by such a faith as hath no doubting annexed vnto it Yet is our assertion true that they are assured of it by such a faith as shall neuer deceiue them And againe yet they ought to be assured without doubting But I will answere to your syllogisme first by distinguishing on your proposition no man must nor indeed can stand in feare of that of which he is assured by such a measure of faith as admits no doubt but his faith being weake he may and must for this feare is an especiall meanes to keepe him from falling away In which respect the holy Ghost exhorts to it by reason our faith is not perfect Secondly for your assumption I say the faithfull are not simply willed to be afraid that they shall not be saued but onely are appointed to vse the meanes of securing of themselues by warines because else it will come to passe that they shall fall away in their owne sense and feeling Your example prooues nothing the measure of faith being so diuers and further hee may truly beleeue in God that in some temptation falles into doubting for a time whether there be a God or no as you must needes know if you haue any experience of the temptations which sometimes befall the deare children of God speaker D. B. P. To these inuincible reasons grounded vpon Gods word let vs ioyne some plaine testimonies taken aswell out of the holy Scripture as out of the auncient Fathers First what can be more manifest to warrant vs that the faithfull haue not assurance infallible of their saluation then these words of the Holy Ghost There be iust and therefore faithfull and vvise men and their vvorkes be in the hand of God and neuerthelesse a man doth not knovv vvhether he be worthy of hatred er loue but all things are kept vncertaine for the time to come Where is then the Protestants certainety And because one heretike cauilleth against the Laten translation saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned heare how S. Ierome who was most cunning in the Hebrew text doth vnderstand it The sense is saith he J haue sound the vvorkes of iust men to be in the hand of God and yet themselues not to knovv vvhether they be loued of God or no. speaker A. W. Whether there be cause or no to finde fault with