in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
into hell rather than those into heauen these into hell our Sauiour tels them that hee doth not erre in the difference hee makes which must be according to workes These haue done well and therefore are they that must be saued Those euill and therefore are the men that must be condemned So that his iudgement is right because it is according to works though workes bee not the meritorious cause of life trulie and wholie speaker D. B. P. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it Let him read S. Augustine Where he thus briefly handleth this text Come yee blessed of my Father receiue VVhat shall vve receiue A Kingdome For vvhat cause Because I vvas hungrie and you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there vvas no tydings in those daies And that iudicious Doctor found that good vvorkes vvas the cause of receiuing the kingdome of heauen speaker A. W. In this and such like sentences of the Fathers we must remember that obseruation of Sixtus Senensis a learned Papist and not presse their words to the vttermost It followes in Austin immediatly what is so little worth what so earthly as to breake bread to the hungry That is the price of the kingdome of heauen Now will any man be so absurd as to imagin that Austin thought that the giuing of a peece of bread to a poore body was in deede the price of heauen by which it might be truly and wholie bought If it be of no greater value it was scarse worth the purchasing with the blood of the Sonne of God The reuerend Father rhetorically amplifies the point to inforce his exhortatiō to works of charity which is also our Sauiours reason in that parable Now that the reward we receiue is not truly and wholie deserued by the works there mentioned it may appeare because Chrysostome and Theophylact stand so precisely vpon the manner of speach He saith not Take it say they but possesse it as an inheritance whereas you say it is both an inheritance and a reward Besides another saith That God did not make the kingdome of heauen of no greater value then mans righteousnes could deserue and after not according to the narrownes of mans righteousnes And lastly God saith he appointed not the reward of the saincts according to the reward of men but according to his owne bountie speaker D. B. P. Here by the vvay M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that vve take avvay a part of Christs mediation For saith he if Christs merits vvere sufficient vvhat need ours It hath been often told them but they vvil neuer learne to vnderstand it I vvil yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings vvhich hath or shall be bestovved vpon all men from the beginning of the vvorld vnto the end of it yet his diuine vvill and order is that all men of diseretion hauing freely receiued grace from him doe merit that crovvne of glorie vvhich is prepared for them not to supply the vvant of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mystical body he vvould haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good vvorkes he best knevv that there could be no better spurre to pricke our dull nature forvvard then to ordaine and propose such heauenly revvards vnto all them that vvould diligently endeuour to deserue them speaker A. W. Master Perkins truly chargeth you to make your selues partners with Christ in the worke of your saluation for he that is by his owne works a deseruer of euerlasting life is in some part at least a sauiour of himselfe so that howsoeuer you magnifie in words the infinitnes of Christs satisfaction and merits yet in truth you make it either not sufficient or not effectuall to the sauing of them who must by their works truly and wholie merit euerlasting life and receiue it not as ioint heirs with Christ by the right of sonnes but as hirelings for wages due to their works If you would graunt vs an assured interest to heauen by vertue of our being sonnes and claime no more of God but increase of glorie vpon his promise according to our works without pleading desert you and we should agree in this point neither should we be driuen either to ouer valew our owne righteousnes by thinking it deserues heauen or to despaire altogether of saluation because we cannot do such works as do truly and fully merit heauen That God would haue vs like vnto his Sonne in true obedience and patient suffering we finde in the scriptures and beleeue that we should also be like him in meriting when you prooue by the same authoritie we will beleeue In the meane while giue vs leaue rather to rest vpon Christ only and his merits the sufficiencie whereof we certainely know then to trust to our owne deserts which when they are at the best seeme to vs worthie of damnation rather then reward which notwithstanding we assuredly looke for vpon Gods promise and acceptation not vpon our desert or perfection which comes alwayes short of that which is inioyned vs. But it is Gods purpose to traine vs vp in good works it is so out of question for we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them And is there no sufficient meanes thinke you to prick vs forward to do good works vnlesse we may perswade ourselues we shal merit heauen by them See the difference betwixt children and seruants And yet forsooth you would beare the world in hand that you do all of pure loue to God whereas indeed you would do nothing at all but that your pride is satisfied for the present by the perswasion of the good vse of your free will and your hope fed with opinion of euerlasting life to be paid you hereafter as the deserued hire of your worthie works we on the other side being led with the affection of children pricked on with the feeling of Gods incomprehensible mercie incouraged by his gratious promises of accepting our poore indeuours to do him seruice rauisht with the expectatiō of such a reward as is assured vs though without desert ashamed in our selues euery day of our vnkindnes and vnthankfulnes in doing no more yea condemned in our owne hearts for doing our best works so vnperfitly yet by the blessing of God and assistance of his spirit presse forwards to the reward that is prepared for vs through the way of good works which our father hath set vs in I haue bin caryed on in this course farther then I purposed Let euery man that hath a true desire to glorifie God more than himselfe iudge betwixt vs and you
to the most reuerend letters of Adrian most holy Pope of old Rome I confesse and hold Images to be holy and worthy of worship neuer laying them away but adoring them perfectly them that confesse otherwise I accursse The othet most holy Bishops and venerable Monkes cried out And we all together receiue and embrace and adore Images with very great honour Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon said I receiue embrace and honour Images as being the pledges of my saluation Peter Bishop of Nichor said I receiue venerable Images and adore them and will alwaies teach the doctrine that I may one day giue account to God our Iudge in the world to come Iohn the most religious Priest Lieue-tenant of the Apostolike thrones said Therefore an Image is greater then prayer And this is come to passe by the prouidence of God for ignorant mens sakes The same man counteth the denying of worship to Images the worst of all heresies as that which ouerthrowes the gouernment of our Sauiours house I forbeare to set downe their reasons which are taken from Tradition miracles and some places of Scripture so ridiculously applied that it is little better then blasphemie to make the holy Ghost president of so Idolatrous and sottish a Councell Constantine hauing subscribed to this Councell by his mothers perswasion and example in his none-age after he came to yeeres of discretion and his owne gouernment by the aduise of diuers learned men repealed the decrees of it concerning Images and ere long after tooke the whole sway of the Empire from his mother who had vsurped it as protectrix into his owne hands which dealing of his did incense the ambitious and idolatrous woman that shee caused certaine traitours first to plucke out his eyes and afterward to murder him yea so great was her malice and feare that shee ceased not till shee had made his sonnes her grand-childrens or neuewes eyes to be pulled out also such an author and patrones had that Idolatrous and wicked Councell the chiefe foundation of Popish Images Such as it was notwithstanding the decrees of it were sent by Pope Adrian the first to the Emperour Charlemaine that he might allow of them But he held another Councell at Franckfort wherin it was concluded that the second Councell of Nice whereof we haue spoken should not be held either for generall or for the seauenth or for a thing of any worth The decrees of that Councell condemning Images were by this repealed and a book written by expresse commandement of the Councell of Franckfort and published in the name of Charlemaine in which as the Councell of Constantinople is reproued for taking away all vse of Images euen for history and memory so that second Councell of Nice is particularly confuted and condemned The like entertainment found the decrees of that Councell amongst our countri-men here in England as you shall see by the testimony of a Monke that writ 300. yeeres agoe The same yeere saith Mathew of Westminster Charles King of the French-men sent into Britaine a booke of decrees wherin many things were found contrary to the true faith and that especially that it was determined by the ioynt consent of almost all the Doctors of the East That Images are to be adored which the Catholike Church vtterly detests Against this Albinus writ an Epistle wonderfully endited according to the authority of the holy Scriptures â—â—d carried together with that booke of decrees to the King of Frâ—…ce in the name of the Bishops and Nobles Yet was not this Councell of Franckfort nor the Epistle written by Albinus nor the booke set out in Charlemaines name of sufficient strength to stop the course of Idolatry so violent it is where it finds any way made for it whereupon Claudius Bishop of Turin hauing bin brought vp and preferred by Charlemaine opposed himselfe by writing afresh against it and as Ionas Bishop of Orleans saith who writ against him proceeded farther to cast them out of all the Churches of his dioces This opinion and fact of his Ionas writ against yet so as that he wholy agreed with him about the vnlawfulnes of adoring Images against the second Councell of Nice But in the East the quarrels about Images were more hot and dangerous which mooued the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus to send their Embassadors into France to the Emperour Lewis the curteous sonne of Charlemaine about the yeare 823 to signifie to him that the superstitious abuse of Images in their dominions had made them assemble a Councell about the matter in which it was decreed that they should not be worshipped with incense lights kneeling prayers songs and seruice before them all which notwithstanding that some of their clergy refusing to yeeld obedience had withdrawne themselues to the Pope of old Rome complaining to him and slandering the East Church that they therefore had sent their Ambassadors both to him and to the Pope for the clearing of themselues of all such false imputations and that they might vnderstand what the iudgement of their Churches was in those points Hereupon Lewis the Emperour called a nationall Councel at Paris the yere following 824. wherein the conclusion was as in the Councell of Franckfort against both pulling downe and worshipping of Images as appeareth by an Epistle sent from the said Synode to Lewis and Lotharius by two Bishops Italitgarius and Flamarius and according thereunto answere was returned to the Emperours Michaell and Theophilus Thus much I thought good to set downe as briefely as I could hee that would reade of these matters more at large may finde enough to content him in that excellent treatise of the Lord Plessy against the Masse in the second booke the second third and fourth Chapters The iudgement of all these matters I leaue to all men whatsoeuer that will vouchsafe to waigh things by the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the hand of true reason Others that had rather beleeue what is told them then try that they beleeue I commit and commend to the mercy of God Whom I beseech according to his good pleasure to enlighten our hearts and incline our affections euery day more and more that we may discerne and acknowledge his most holy truth to his glory the good of his Church and our owne euerlasting saluation through his Sonne Iesus Christ. To whom with the Father and holy Spirit one God immortall inuisible and only wise be all glorie power obedience and thanksgiuing for euer and euer Amen FINIS Errata Pag. 11. lin 1. read in our time p. ead l. 29. r. yes p. 17. l. 11. r. were not dedicated p. 36. l. 22. r. out p. 44. l. 10. in the margin r. Popes breast p. 45 l. 21. r. and that p. 57. l. 17. r. c. p. ead l. 35. r. them Cardinall p. 68. lin 18. r. is moued p. cad l. 22. dele as p. 87. l. 4. in the margin r.
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
this recorded in holy writ read the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then loe they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification speaker A. W. Those men S. Luke there speaks of were not yet come to a iustifying faith when they askt the Apostle what they should doe no nor to the knowledge of the Gospell but onely to a sight of their owne sinnes in consenting to the murthering of Christ. speaker A. W. In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God no talke in those daies of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not iustified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three daies passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his iustification as doth euidently appeare by the history of his conuersion speaker D. B. P. The Eunuch had heard the Gospell expounded out of Esay and namely that men were to be iustified by the acknowledging of Christ his desire of baptisme was a proofe of his faith according to that he had learned and baptisme the seale of his pardon or iustification vpon that his beleefe of forgiuenes by Christs sufferings It appeares by the storie that there were three daies betwixt the vision and the baptisme of the Apostle but it is not any way shewed that hee had iustifying faith the first day and yet was not iustified till the third day it is but your conceit that tie iustification to baptisme speaker W. P. The second is that faith being nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which being mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeede is as much as if wee should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely bee inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before wee can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend and applie Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof and the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnesse and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that wee for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this condition is by grace as well as the substance Now then that wee may attaine to saluation by Christ hee must bee giuen vnto vs really as hee is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid Couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeues and the end of the Sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefits to them that come to bee partakers thereof as is most plainely to bee seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot bee effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therfore faith must needs bee an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that wee may finde comfort by this giuing speaker D. B. P. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M Perkins is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath been once before spoken at large in the question of free will speaker A. W. Is not the latter your doctrine also that a man vpon those good motions inspired disposeth himselfe to iustification by the good vse of his free will let the Councill of Trent be iudge as your selfe alleaged it before speaker W. P. The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Reason I. Luke 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Whence they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had alreadie pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Wee are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundrie places of holy write iustification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christs power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercie that hee would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assemblie did so humblie prostrate her selfe at Christs feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to lead a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues meete
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
Hilary expounding that exhortation of our Sauiour seeke ye first the kingdome of God and his righteousnes counsailes men to seeke it with the labour of their life and this saith he is the reward for there is but one word merces of them that liue well and perfitly he saith not that any mans worke is perfit inough truly and wholie to deserue it speaker A. W. Saint Ambrose Is it not euident that there remaineth after this life either revvard for merits or punishment Ambrose speakes not of the valew of good works but labours to take away that offence that commonly troubles men when they see that euill men fare better then good in this world he answers that in the world to come the case shall be altered the one shall be rewarded and the other punished for their works which he calls merits speaker D. B. P. Saint Hierome Novv after Baptisme it appertaineth to our trauailes according vnto the diuersity of vertue to prepare for vs different rewards speaker A. W. You might as well haue left out Ieromes testimonie as you do the quoting of it for it makes nothing for you nor against vs that wee are to prepare different rewards for our selues according to the diuersitie of vertue what if he had said merit do we not graunt it But where is deseruing euerlasting life in Ieromes words speaker A. W. Saint Bernard Prouide that thou haue merits for the vvant of them is a pernitions pouertie Penury of works saith Bernard is dangerous pouerty who denyes it it followes but presumption of spirit is deceitfull riches who presumes if he do not that thinks himselfe absolutely worthie of heauen as wages speaker D. B. P. Briefly that this was the vniuersall Doctrine of all good Christians aboue a thousand yeares past is declared in the Councell of Arausicane Revvard is debt vnto good vvorkes if they be done but grace vvhich vvas not debte goeth before that they may be done These testimonies of the most auncient and best learned Christians may suffice to batter the brasen forehead of them that affirme the Doctrine of merits to be a Satanicall inuention and to settle all them that haue care of their saluation in the most pure doctrine of the Catholike Church The Councell of Orenge saith nothing that was not said before in the testimonies of the Fathers neither needs any other answer The doubt is not whether reward be due to good works but by what right it is due whereof the Councell saith nothing expresly The doctrine of merits as it was held and taught by the auncient Christians before the discouerie of your Romish Antichrist we acknowledge and embrace howsoeuer perhaps some particular men may haue gon a little too farre in their amplifications But the doctrine that is maintained by your Church and Councell of Trent we disclaime and detest as the principall meanes next to direct Pelagianisme to puffe vp the pride of mans heart and to take away true thankfulnes and trust in God that is to ouerthrow the Gospell the end whereof is beleeuing in Christ to iustification and saluation For if as by your doctrine it must needs be man do at the first by the good vse of his freewill receiue grace and by the same freewill though in both cases inlightened and inspired merit his saluation truly and wholie as the day labouring man doth his wages what glory can God haue or what thanks doth Christ deserue for any particular mans saluation he prouided the meanes you will say that Peter for example might be saued if he would So did he that Iudas might be He offered the meanes to Peter to Iudas too How chance Peter receiued this grace and Iudas did not you answer because Peter would and Iudas would not But how came it to passe that Peter would and Iudas would not Here is the first difference was it because God of his loue to Peter wrought in his heart by his spirit so that it could not come to passe but he should beleeue and left Iudas to himselfe who so left would neuer beleeue so we teach according to the truth of the Gospell But you perswade your people that it was Peter that made the difference betwixt himselfe and Iudas not God who left the matter to the free will of both alike that either or neither of them might be saued as pleased them But what is Peter by this beleeuing in Christ an heire of heauen no only he is now in such an estate as that he may if he will earne euerlasting life as the hire and wages of his works I appeale now to any Christian soule that hath but the least desire to aduance Gods glory aboue his owne to giue sentence of this matter out of the truth of his heart what doth God by the doctrine of popery but only prouide that men may come to heauen if they will And how forsooth vpon our Sauiour Christs deserts he is content to giue men grace whereby they may be able to merit their owne saluation But he will giue this grace to no man who shall not first vpon good motions inspired prepare himselfe of his owne free will by faith feare hope loue repentance to the receiuing of it hauing receiued it he must now by good works to which he is enabled deserue euerlasting life so fully as that God should be vniust if he should not giue it him for the worthines of the worke he hath done For whereas he made a promise of a reward it was no more then he was bound to do in true iustice our works without his promise deseruing the reward truly and wholie This is the doctrine of your Church touching faith and works which Master Perkins iustly calls a satanicall inuention because it ouerthrowes the glory of Gods mercy to establish the pride of mans free will Now whereas we teach that our works do not by their worth deserue euerlasting life what hurt is it if it were false but only that it were false to make men thinke themselues wholie bound to God for their iustification and glorification for we vrge necessitie of works and assurance of reward as well as you though not to merit euerlasting glory by them If any man be so thankeles or so proude that he will not worke vnlesse he may merit by working he neuer felt himselfe to be a sonne and shall receiue the wages of seruants the iust hire of his sinnes damnation The sixth poynt Of Satisfaction Our consent speaker W. P. Conclus I. First we acknowledge and hold Ciuill or Politike satisfaction that is a recompence for iniuries and damages offered any way to our neighbours This Zacheus practised when at his conuersion he restored foure-fold things gotten by forged cauillation Againe by ciuill satisfaction I vnderstand the imposition of fines mulcts and penalties vpon offenders and the inflicting of death vpon malefactors For all these are satisfactions to the lawe and societies