with such or such a carriage of the bodie without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed with other like circumstances I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly may bee said in some good sense to haue deserued the hire that he laboured for though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit But if this man should faile in many or any of these circumstances though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did might he in iustice claime the prize as due to him vpon desert This is our case in the point of merit There is no man but he failes very much and often in his best workes some lesse some more but euery one more or lesse So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice though he should denie all men the reward due to the keepers of his Commandements speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew mercie vpon thousands in them that loue me and keepe my commaundements Hence I reason thus where reward is giuen vpon mercie there is no merit but reward is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law therefore no merit What can we any way deserue when our full recompence must be of mercie speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it speaker A. W. What though he doe not and yet it must needes be implied in the text if your interpretation be true For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance which is neuer without faith to him he will certainly giue the kingdome of heauen But the reason is strong by a comparison from the lesse to the greater For if these outward fauours which God bestowes vpon them that keepe his Commandements be of mercie how should heauen be of debt speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam if hee had stood to this day he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience haue procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand but should only haue continued that happy estate in which he was first created speaker A. W. That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods giftes might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue been otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen this by the way speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose because it prooues the question thus If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot But his could not therefore ours cannot Your answere is little to the purpose For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes but of procuring or rather deseruing a more happie estate whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing And surely vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam For the Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vpon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him and neither makes mention nor giues signification of any reward at all much lesse vpon desert speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said The reward of good works is eternall life if life euerlasting could bee deserued which cannot because it is a free gift speaker D. B. P. True But wee speake of good workes and not of bad which the Astle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God speaker A. W. Nay where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text to shew what the proportion of the argument required namely that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life as the wages of sinne is death And thus without question would the Apostle haue spoken to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall if euerlasting life could be deserued speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaid for workes and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue been done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these words Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred vvere giuen speaker A. W. S. Austin in the places alleaged by you neither expounds that text nor speakes of any proportion betwixt the desert of death by sinne and life by good workes But because I am not ignorant that it is his opinion that euerlasting life is due to good workes if you will giue me leaue I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God not from the dignitie of the worke which I thinke to haue been his meaning because he speakes so often and so much of the imperfection of our workes If to countenance your owne error you will needes haue Austin thought to haue erred which is not impossible at the least shew some good reason why the holie Apostle should forbeare to say Euerlasting life is the wages of good works when it would so fitly haue serued his turne for exhortation and when the nature of the sentence
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
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
This vowe is necessarie and must bee kept as a part of the true worship of God because it is a promise wherein wee vowe to performe all duties commaunded of God either in the law or in the Gospell It may be demaunded considering wee are bound to obedience how wee binde our selues in baptisme thereto Answ. Though we be alreadie bound partly by nature and partly by the written word yet may wee renew the same bond in a vowe and he that is bound may further binde himselfe so it be for this end to helpe his dulnes for want of zeale and to make himselfe more forward in duties of loue to men and the worship of God to this end Dauid sware to keepe the law of God Psal. 119. 116. though he were bound vnto it by nature and by the written law it selfe The speciall vowe is that which doth not reach to the person of al beleeuers but onely concernes some speciall men vpon some speciall occasions And this kind of vow is twofold The first is the vow of a ceremonial duty in the way of seruice to God and it was in practise in the Church of the Iewes vnder the old Testament examples hereof are two especially the first was the vowe of the Nazarites whereto no kind of men were bound by Gods commaundement but they bound thēselues God only prescribing the maner and order of keeping the same with rites pertaining thereto as abstinence from wine the not cutting of their haire and such like The second example is of the Iewes when of their owne accords they vowed to giue God house or land sheepe or oxen or any like things for the maintenance of the legall worship and of this also God prescribeth certaine rules Leuit. 27. Now these vowes were part of the Iewish pedagogie or ceremoniall law wherein God trained vp the Iewes in the old testament and beeing obserued of them they were parts of Gods worship but now vnder the Gospell they are not beeing all abolished with the ceremoniall law to which Christ put an ende at his death vpon the crosse It is true Paul made a vowe and since kept the same in in the time of the new Testament Act. 18. yet not as a part of Gods worship but as a thing indifferent for the time wherein he only condescended to the weakenes of the Iewes that by this meanes he might bring them the better vnto Christ. And whereas Christ is called a Nazarite Matth. 2. 23. we may not thinke he was of that very order because he did not abstaine from wine but he was so tearmed because hee was the veritie and accomplishment of this order For by it was signified that Gods Church was a peculiar people seuered or chosen out of the world and that Christ in respect of holines was also separated from all sinners And the words in Saint Matthew he shall be called a Nazarite are borrowed from the booke of Iudges cap. 13. where they are properly spoken of Sampson and in type or figure of Christ. For as Sampson saued Israel by his death so did Christ saue his Church And as Sampson killed his enemies more by death then by life so did Christ. It is plaine therefore that this kind of vowe bindeth not vs for there are no more ceremonies to bee kept vnder the Gospell for partes of Gods worship but the outwarde rites of Baptisme and the Lords Supper Vovves concerning meates and drinkes attire touching tasting times place daies were proper to the Iewes The second kinde of speciall vowe is that whereby a man promiseth freely to performe some outward and bodily exercise for some good ende and this vow also if it be made accordingly is lawfull and belongs both to the Church of the olde and new Testament In the olde wee haue the example of the Rekabites Ier. 35. who by the appointment of Ionadab their father abstained from strong drinke and wine from planting vineyardes and orchardes whereby Ionadab intended onely to breake them before hand and to acquaint them with their future condition and state that they should be strangers in a forraine land that so they might prepare themselues to indure hardnes in the time to come And now in the new testament wee haue warrant in like manner to vowe as if a man by drinking of wine or strong drinke finde himselfe prone to drunkennes he may vowe with himselfe to drinke no more wine nor strong drinke for so long time as hee feeles the drinking thereof will stirre vp his infirmitie and minister occasion of sinning Of this kind also are the vowes in which we purpose and promise to God to keepe set times of fasting to taske our selues in prayer and reading of holy Scriptures and to giue set almes for special causes knowne to our selues and to doe sundrie like duties And that wee be not deceiued in making such vowes certaine rules must be remembred I. that the vowe be agreeable to Gods will and word for if it be otherwise the making as also the keeping thereof is sinne Vowes must not bee the bondes of iniquitie II. It must so be made that it may stand with Christian libertie For wee may not make such things necessary in conscience which God hath made free Now Christian liberty allowes vnto vs the free vse of all thinges indifferent so it be out of the case of offence Hence it followes that vowes must be made and keept or not keept so farreforth as in conscience they may stand or not stande with our libertie purchased by Christ. III. The vowe must be made with consent of superiors if we be vnder gouernment Thus among the Iewes the vowe of a daughter might not stand vnlesse the consent of Parents came thereunto IV. It must bee in the power and abilitie of the maker thereof to do or not to doe A vowe made of a thing impossible is no vowe V. It must be agreeable to the calling of him that maketh it that is both to his generall calling as he is a Christian and to that particular calling wherein he liueth If it bee against either one or both it is vnlawfull VI. It must be made with deliberation no better things performed then God by his lawe hath bound vs to else man could deuise better obedience or more acceptable seruice to God then he himselfe hath appointed If by better good you meane be a greater measure of obedience then is commonly performed I doubt whether any man can do more then the law of God hath required of him which is the rule of perfect obedience If you vnderstand the meanes of stirring vp our selues to the doing of our dutie to God Master Perkins acknowledgeth that and compriseth it in the later part though he do not expresse it Secondly you say that it must proceede from our owne free choise and libertie The promise doubtlesse must haue our owne will for the ground of it and so much the word imports but the good must be a dutie commanded or at
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
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
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
with S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ He in I know not what place the quotation is so doubtfull saith Those things vvhich vve call merits are the vvay to the Kingdome but not the cause of raigning speaker A. W. You that twight vs so much with ignorance and brag so much of your owne knowledge especially in the old writers should haue all these places at your fingers ends but this answere if it were true must needs be more by gesse then by cunning Bernard sayes merits are the way not the cause if he had meant as you would haue him he should and would haue said that they were not the whole cause but the party or ioint cause but he denyes them altogether the nature of causes by giuing them another place to be the way to heauen speaker A. W. I answere that merits be not the whole cause but the promise of God through Christ and the grace of God freely bestowed on vs out of which our merits proceed Which is Bernards owne doctrine What is Bernards owne doctrine your whole answer or only the later part of it let the reader iudge These are Bernards words As it is inough to merit not to presume of merit so to want merits is inough to condemnation If he speake of merits properly taken what presumption is it for a man to demand his right But because our good works which he as other auncient writers calls merits are imperfit therefore our greatest merit is to know we merit not for the later part of his sentence we graunt that it is inough to damnation for a man to be without good works It followes in Bernard No infants regenerate want merits but haue Christs whereof notwithstanding they make themselues vnworthie if they had opportunitie to add their owne and neglected it which is the danger of riper yeares Infants sayes Bernard haue Christs merits but if they come to yeares they must also haue some of their owne What merits to deserue heauen then were Christs insufficient but they must haue good works without which they make themselues vnworthie of any benefit by Christ. Is not this whollie our doctrine let vs heare his conclusion Haue a care sayes Bernard to haue merits hauing them know they were giuen thee hope for the fruite of them by the mercy of God and thou hast auoided all danger of pouertie vnthankefulnes and presumption We must haue good workes else wee are poore we must know they are not of our selues else we are vnthankfull we must looke for reward of mercie not of debt else we are presumptuous So that Bernard requires good workes not as the cause but as the way betwixt Gods promise and performance of giuing euerlasting life to them that are iustified and sanctified speaker W. P. August Manual cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit my merit is the passion of the Lord. I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting speaker D. B. P. Secondly he citeth Saint Augustine All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit True in a good sense that is by the vertue of his death and passion my sinnes are pardoned and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes and so to merit speaker A. W. You leaue out the better halfe of that which was alleaged out of Austin which indeede ouerthrowes your answere That Christ hath procured pardon and grace for you to merit by but Austin saith that the death and passion of the Lord are his merit that is by your interpretation his merit of grace not of glorie For that he must merit by well vsing the grace which Christ hath deserued for him to cut off this Austin addes I shall not be voide of merits so long as Gods mercies are not wanting Haue those works the true and whole nature of merit which receiue their worth from Gods mercie If you will answere that by Gods mercie he meanes not his accepting of the worke but his supplying vs with grace to worke I replie that he may for all that mercie want merits because it depends vpon his own free will when God hath done his vttermost whether hee will worke or no. But that which followes in Austin shewes that all is in Gods mercie If saith he the mercies of the Lord be many I am much in merit the mightier he is to saue the more am I secure So that Austin takes all from himselfe and giues it to God speaker W. P. Basil. on Psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them which haue striuen lawfully in this life not for the merits of their doings but vpon the grace of the most bountifull God in which they trusted speaker D. B. P. These words are vntruly translated for first he maketh with the Apostle eternall life to be the prize of that combate and then addeth that it is not giuen according vnto the debt and iust rate of the works but in a fuller measure according vnto the bounty of so liberall a Lord Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence That God punisheth men vnder their deserts but rewardeth them aboue their merits speaker A. W. Wherein lies the error of the translation You take too much vpon you as if all the world were bound to allow your word without any further proofe But let vs examine the translation Eternall rest saith Basil is reserued for them who in this life haue striuen lawfully not as a debt paid them for their worke but giuen them vpon the most bountifull grace of God in whom they haue hoped He is desirous to picke quarrels that findes fault with such translations What one word hath Master Perkins left out or misinterpreted that might be any thing to your aduantage But the testimonie was too plaine to admit any cauill else the translation had been good enough But your proofe is at least as bad as your accusation To prooue the words are vntruly translated you tell vs that Basil makes eternall life the prize of the combat what is this to the purpose where is the fault of the translation But let vs take your interpretation of his meaning If the reward be not giuen according to debt but in a fuller measure and yet no greater thing giuen than euerlasting life doubtlesse our workes deserue not truly and wholy the reward of euerlasting life that God bestowes on them of bountie speaker W. P. August on Psal. 120. He crowneth thee because he crowneth his owne gifts not thy merits speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne What congruity is in this He crowneth thee because he crowneth his ovvne gifts not thy merits It had been better said He crowneth thee not c. speaker A. W. It may be apparant to all men who consider this mans course in answering the testimonies of the Fathers that
of men when they are wronged All these we maintain as necessary for neither Church nor common-wealth can well bee without them considering they are notable meanes to vphold ciuill peace and otherwhiles they are fruits of true faith as the satisfaction of Zacheus was speaker A. W. This is wittily acknowledged by him but little exercised among Pro testants for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting there men vse very seldome to recompence so much as onefold for their extorsion bribes vsury and other craftie ouer-reaching of their neighbours Whatsoeuer our practice be and yet if it did not exceed yours we had good cause to be ashamed of it the question is now of our doctrine which Master Perkins hath truly deliuered As for the helpe you would haue imagined to come from Auricular confession to the exercise of satisfaction who is so ignorant of your courses in appointing penance that he knowes not how little you inioyne this satisfaction and how easily it may be bought out if it be enioyned with some contribution to some of your Abbeyes Frieries Churches Chappels and such like speaker D. B. P. But of this kind of Satisfaction which we commonly call restitution vve are not here to treate nor of that publike penance which for notorious crimes is done openly speaker A. W. There was reason to mention this publike penance as well that all men might the better vnderstand what is in question as also because the testimonies which in this case your men alleage are wholy or principally of that kinde of satisfaction speaker D. B. P. But of such priuate penance which is either enioyâ—ed by the confessor or voluntarily vndertaken by the penitent or else sent by Gods visitation to purge vs from that temporall paine which for sinnes past and pardoned we are to endure either in this life or in Purgatorie if we die before we haue fully satisfied here speaker A. W. Your speech and matter are both very strange who would speak so By visitation that is by punishment to purge men from paine that should be endured May a man satisfie against his will or without his knowledge for both these fall out in Gods visitations that a man is visited against his will wholy if hee could helpe it and that hee doth not so much as once thinke vpon satisfying for his sinnes by it yea sometimes if he should he should thinke amisse for all visitations of God are not chastisements for sinne but speciall trials and meanes of Gods glorie speaker W. P. Conclus II. Wee acknowledge Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction and that is when any hauing giuen offence to the Church of God or any part thereof doe make an open publike testimonie of their repentance Mirian for murmuring against Moses was stricken with leprosie and afterward by his prayer shee was clensed and yet for all that shee must goe seuen daies out of the tent and congregation that shee might make a kinde of satisfaction to the people for her trespasse And in the old testament sackcloth and ashes were signes of their satisfaction Conclus III. We hold that no man can be saued vnlesse he make a perfect satisfaction to the iustice of God for all his sinnes because God is infinite in iustice and therefore will either exact an euerlasting punishment or satisfaction for the same The dissent and difference The points of our difference and dissent are these The Church of Rome teacheth and beleeueth that Christ by his death hath made a satisfaction for all the sinnes of men and for the eternall punishment of them all yet so as they themselues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment of their offences either on earth or in purgatorie Wee teach and beleeue that Christ by his death and passion hath made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for the whole punishment thereof both eternall and temporall Thus wee differ and herein wee for our parts must for euer stand at difference with them so as if there were no more points of variance but this one it should bee sufficient to keepe vs alwaies from vniting our religions and cause vs to obey the voyce of Christ Come out of her my people For as in the former points so in this also the papists erre not in circumstance but in the very foundation and life of religion speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins in his third conclusion decreeth very solemnely That no man can be saued vnlesse bs make a perfect satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for all his sinnes Yet in the explication of the difference betvveene vs defineth as peremptonly that no man is to satisfie for any one of all his sinnes or for any temporall paine due to them Which be flat contradictorie propositions and therefore the one of them must needs be false But such odde broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground vvorke of his questions and therupon raiseth the tottering building of his nevv doctrine and lets not like a blind man to make an outcrie that in this matter the Papists erre in the very foundation and life of religion speaker A. W. Is it contradiction to say that euery man must make satisfaction and that Christ hath made satisfaction Might you not easily haue vnderstood if you did not that the satisfaction which Christ hath made is made by euery one that beleeues in him So then the latter proposition doth not contradict the former but shew by what meanes that satisfaction is made which in the former was required Euerie man must satisfie and euery man doth satisfie by and in Christ are not contradictorie propositions as a man with halfe an eye may see The very foundation and life of religion is the acknowledging of full redemption by the sacrifice of Iesus Christ. But how can that be acknowledged where satisfaction remaines to be made by perhaps many thousand yeeres punishment Our reasons speaker W. P. I. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is indeede no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they doe adde a supply by humane satisfactions and thus much a learned schooleman Biel in plaine words confessed Although saith he the passion of Christ be the principal merit for which grace is conferred the opening of the kingdome and glory yet is it neuer the alone and totall meritorious cause it is manifest because alwaies with the merit of Christ there concurreth some worke as the merit of congruitie or condignity of him that receiueth grace or glorie if hee bee of yeeres and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason For that which admitts a supply by another is imperfect in it selfe Therefore humane satisfactions cannot stand speaker D. B. P. This is a substantiall argument to raise the cry vpon vvhich hath both propositions false The first is childish for