euerlasting for the righteousnesse and merit of Christ. Rule II. That iustification stands in two things first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death secondly in the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse which is another action of God whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousnesse which is in Christ as the righteousnesse of that sinner which beleeueth in him By Christ his righteousnesse we are to vnderstand two things first his sufferings specially in his death and passion secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law both which goe together for Christ in suffering obeyed and obeying suffered And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed must not onely bee considered as it is passiue that is a suffering but also as it is actiue that is an obedience in which hee shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sins as they doe Rule III. That iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace procured onely by the merit of Christ. Rule IV. That man is iustified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy Ghost whereby a sinner lâ—ieth hold of Christ his righteousnesse and applieth the same vnto himselfe There is neither hope nor loue nor any other grace of God within man that can do this but faith alone The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall free will whereby a man disposeth himselfe to his owne future iustification In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification and things proceeding from it The ground is saith which they define to bee a generall knowledge whereby wee vnderstand and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true Things proceeding from this faith are these a sight of our sinnes a feare of hell hope of saluation loue of God repentance and such like all which when men haue attained they are then fully disposed as they say to their iustification This preparation being made then comes iustification itselfe which is an action of God whereby he maketh a man righteous It hath two parts the first and the second The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man And to effect this two things are required first the pardon of sinne which is one part of the first iustification secondlie the infusion of inward righteousnesse whereby the heart is purged and sanctified and this habit of righteoutnes stands specially in hope and charitie After the first iustification followeth the second which is when a man of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this say they may proceed from works of grace because he which is righteous by the first iustification can bring forth good works by the merit whereof hee is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. speaker D. B. P. Because M. Perkins sets not downe well the Catholikes opinion I wil helpe him out both with the preparation and iustification it selfe and that taken out of the Councell of Trent Where the very words concerning preparation are these Men are prepared and disposed to this iustice vvhen being stirred vp and helped by Gods grace they conceiuing faith by hearing are freely moued to vvard God beleeuing those things to be true vvhich God doth reueale and promise namely that he of his grace doth iustifie a sinner through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus And vvhen knowledging themselues to be sinners through the feare of Gods iudgments they turne themselues to consider the mercy of God are lifted vp into hope trusting that God vvill be mercifull vnto them for Christs sake and beginning to loue him as the fountaine of all iustice are thereby moued vvith hatred and detestation of all sinnes Finally they determine to receiue baptisme to begin a nevv life and to keepe all Christs commaundements After this disposition or preparation followeth Iustification and for that euery thing is best knowne by the causes of it all the causes of Iustification are deliuered by the Councell in the next Chapter vvhich briefly are these The finall cause of the iustification of a sinner is the glory of God the glory of Christ and maas ovvne iustification the efficient is God the meritorious Christ Jesus Passions the instrumentall is the Sacrament of Baptisme the only formall cause is inherent iustice that is Faith Hope and Charitie vvith the other gifts of the Holy Ghost povvred into a mans soule at that instant of iustification Of the iustification by faith and the second iustification shall be spoken in their places So that we agree in this point that iustification commeth of the free grace of God through his infinite mercies and the merits of our Sauiours Passion and that all sinnes vvhen a man is iustified be pardoned him speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly deliuered the summe of that which you set down out of the Councill of Trent and that more plainly for euery mans vnderstanding than it is in the Councill I. Our consent and difference speaker W. P. Now let vs come to the points of difference betweene vs and them touching iustification The first maine difference is in the matter thereof which shall bee seene by the answere both of Protestant and Papist to this one question What is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God and to be accepted to life euerlasting wee answer Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ which consisteth partly in his sufferings and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law And here let vs consider how neere the Papists come to this answere and wherein they dissent Consent I. They graunt that in iustification sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ and that none can be iustified without remission of sinnes and that is well II. They graunt that the righteousnes whereby a man is made righteous before God commeth from Christ and from Christ alone III. The most learned among them say that Christ his satisfaction and the merit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth heleeue for his satisfaction before God and hitherto we agree The very point of difference is this wee hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death and obedience to the law is imputed to vs and becomes our righteousnesse They say it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righteous before God because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect Now the answer of the Papist to the
sanctification be perfect in the world to come yet shall it not iustifie for wee must conceiue it no otherwise after this life but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteousnes of Christ without which it could not be And a good childe will not cast away the first garment because his father giues a second And what if inward righteousnesse be perfect in the ende of this life shal we therefore make it the matter of our iustification God forbid For the righteousnesse whereby sinners are iustified must be had in the time of this life before the panges of death speaker D. B. P. The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall â—uieth after this life and is â—…ned in beaâ—en but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life eigo M. Perkins answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we all haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life in ward righteousnes shall be perfect and then without perhaps it shal be most perfect in heauen So that one part of this answere ouerthroweth the other Wherfore I need not stand vpon it but will proâ—eed to fortifie our partie with some authorities taken both forth of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers speaker A. W. There are many pitifull shifts in this answere First Master Perkins denies the assumption which you leaue so ouerthrowne and runne to fortifie your owne partie Secondly he giueth the reason of his deniall That acceptation of vs as righteous and forgiuenes of sinnes shall be continued in heauen Thirdly he saith not that wee shall haue no other righteousnes in heauen but the quite contrarie viz. sanctification which is inherent righteousnes here imperfect Fourthly he puts it not to perhaps but resolutly affirmes that sanctification shall be perfect in the end of this life Fiftly there is not in his speech so much as a shew of any contradiction which ariseth wholy from that clause foysted in by you we shall haue no other Lastly as any man may discerne you change Master Perkins conclusion and so his whole reason speaker D. B. P. The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul And these things certes vvere you Dronkers Couetous Fornicators c. But you are VVashed you are Sanctified you are Iustified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the spirit of our Lord Here iustification by the best interpreters iudgement is defined to consist in those actions of washing vs from our sins and of infusion of Gods holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name and the sake of Christ Iesus speaker A. W. First I answere as before that the Fathers often take iustification for sanctification also Secondly I say Bellarmine out of whom you take this hath deceiued you Chrysostome doth not make iustification consist in those actions of washing c. his words are these God hath washed vs and not that onely but hath sanctified vs neither that onely but hath iustified vs. Now if washing and sanctifying be iustifying in Chrysostoms iudgement how doth he rise from one to another as diuers things Theophylact makes them diuers at least in nature God hath clensed you from them saith Theophylact yea and sanctified you How By iustifying you faith he for he hath washed you then afterward iustifying he hath sanctified you Theodoret expounds the place of forgiuenes of sins in baptisme Your ordinarie glosse applies washing to baptisme sanctifying to the holy Ghost giuen vs that wee may worke well and iustifying to our working well Ambrose saith that in baptisme he that beleeues is washed is iustified in the name of the Lord and is adopted a sonne to God by the spirit of our God But neuer a one of these saith that iustification consists in these actions of washing and infusion of Gods gifts speaker D. B. P. The like description of our iustification is in S. Paul Of his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost vvhom he hath povvred into vs abundantly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace vve may be heires in hope and not in certainety of faith of life euerlasting Where the Apostle inferring that being iustified by his grace declareth that in the words before he had described the same iustification to consist in our new birth of Baptisme and the â—enewing of oursoules by the infusion of his heauenly giftes vvhich God of his mercy did bestow vpon vs for his Sonne Chrsts sake This is but your glosse For the grace of God in that place signifies the fauour of God as otherwhere the same phrase doth or the loue of Christ who as Lyra there saith makes vs the adopted sons of God Caietan makes an opposition betwixt Gods grace and our workes as the Apostle doth If it be of grace it is no more of workes So doth Chrysostom and Theophylact vnderstand it of fauour not of debt For if he saued vs by fauour When we were desperate and cast away much more saith Theophylact shall he giue vs those good things to come now we are iustified as the Apostle saith If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall be saued by his life speaker A. W. Many other places I omit for breuity sake and will be content to cite few Fathers because the best learned of our aduersaries do confesse that they be all against them as I haue shewed before First S. Augustine saith That this iustice of ours which they call righteousnes is the grace of Christ regenerating vs by the holy Ghost And is a beautie of our invvard man It is the renuing of the reasonable part of our soule And twenty other such like whereby he manifestly declareth our iustice to be inherent and not the imputed iustice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers And S. Cyrill for the Greekes who of our iustification writeth thus The spirit is a heate vvho as soone as he hath povvred charity into vs and hath vvith the fire of it inflamed our minds vve haue euen then obtained iustice In the first place alleaged by you there is no such matter onely Austin proues against the Pelagians that we are not sinners from Adam by imitation alone because then we should also be righteous from Christ by nothing but imitation In the Epistle to Consentius he speakes not of that righteousnes whereby wee are iustified but of that which is inherent What other thing saith he is iustice in vs or any other vertue by which we liue orderly and wisely than the beautie of the inward man This is true of those graces we receiue by sanctification He doth not say that the grace by which we are iustified is the renewing of the reasonable
may be made our particular iustice because saith he VVe are taught in the Pater noster to pray in this manner forgiue vs our debts and to this vve must say Amen vvhich is as much to say as our petition is graunted I thinke the poore mans vvits vvere gone a pilgrimage vvhen he vvrote thus Good Sir cannot our sins or debts be forgiuen vvithout vve applie Christs righteousnes to vs in particular vve say yes Doe not then so simplâ—… begge that vvhich is in question nor take that for giuen vvhich vvill neuer be graunted speaker A. W. Our sins cannot be forgiuen without that part of Christs merits be applied to vs by which sinne is satisfied for As all men sinned in Adam so all men satisfie for sin in Christ namely all men that by faith are one with Christ. speaker D. B. P. But a vvord vvith you by the vvay Your righteous man must ouerskippe that petition of the Pater nosâ—er sorgiue vs our debts for he is wel assured that his debts be alreadie pardoned For at the very first instant that he had faith he had Christs righteousnes applied to him and therby assurance both of the pardon of sinnes and of life euerlasting Wherfore he cannot vvithout infidelity distiust of his former iustification or pray for remission of his debts but follovving the famous example of that formall Pharisie in lievv of demaunding pardon may vvellâ—ay O God 〈◊〉 giue thee thankes that I am not as the rest of men extortioners vâ—â—ust aduoâ—tâ—reâ—s as also these Papists Fearing the remission of my sins or the certainty of my saluation but am vvel assured therof and of Christs ovvne righteousnes too and so forth speaker A. W. How false and idle this obiection is it hath appeared alreadie we haue not assurance either at the first or at all ordinarily but with some doubting now and then speaker W. P. And here note that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts off the principal partand propertie thereof For in iustifying faith two things are required first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues which some call affiance Now the first they acknowledge speaker D. B. P. So then by M. Perkins ovvne confession Catholikes haue true knowledge of the means of saluation dâ—en hâ— and his fellovves erre miserably speaker A. W. Papists acknowledge in generall the meanes of saluation namely the mercie of God in Christ but they faile much both in the true vnderstanding of that they hold and in diuers particulars necessarily belonging to the truth of that doctrine speaker W. P. But the second which is the very substance and principall part thereof they denie speaker A. W. Catholikes teach men also to haue a firme hope and a great confidence of obtaining saluation through the mercy of God and meâ—â—ts of Christs Passion So they performe their duty towards God and their neighbour or else die with true repentance But for a man at his first conuersion to assâ—…e himselfe by saith of Christs righteousnes and life euerlasting without condition of doing those things he ought to doe that we Catholikes affirme to be not any gift of faith but the haynous crime of presumption which is a sinne against the Holy Ghost not pardonable neither in this life nor in the world to come Neither doe we teach any such assurance as this man so oft harps vpon and if wee did it cannot be a sinne against the holy Ghost being of ignorance and not of malice speaker W. P. Reason III. The iudgement of the auncient Church * August I demaund now dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner Thou saist I beleeue What beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely bee pardoned by him Thou hast that which thou hast beleeued speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins third reason is drawne from the consent of the auncient Church of which for fashion sake to make some shew he often speaketh but can seldome find any one sentence in them that fâ—â—s his purpose as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine cited by him Augustine saith J demaund novv dost thou beleeue in Christ O sinner thou saâ—…st J beleeue vvhat beleeuest thou that all thy sinnes may freely be pardoned by him thou hâ—st that vvhich thou beleeuest See here is neither applying of Christs righteousnes vnto vs by faith nor so much as beleeuing our sinnes to be pardoned through him but that they may be pardoned by him So there is not one word for 〈◊〉 Perkins speaker A. W. There is this for Master Perkins though you will not see it that hee which beleeues in Christ for the pardon of sins hath that which he beleeues that is vpon this faith is pardoned speaker W. P. Bernard The Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot bee remitted but by him alone against whom they were committed but go further and beleeue this too that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee speaker D. B. P. But S. Bernard saith plainly That vve must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned vs. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousnes of Christ. Againe he addeth conditions on our part which M. Perkins crastelie concealeth For S. Bernard graunteth that we may beleeue our sinnes to bee forgiuen if the trueth of our conuersion meete with the mercy of God preuenting vs for in the same place he hath these words So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth that is the grace of God in our soules if mercy and truth meete together if iustice and peace embrace and kisse each other Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it if we stirred vp by the grace of God doe truely bewaile our sinnes and confesse them and afterward follow holinesse of life and peace All which M. Perkins did wisely cut off because it dashed cleane the vaine glosse of the former words speaker A. W. The point in question is not whether wee must beleeue that our sinnes are pardoned which is all you gather out of that testimonie but whether the faith which iustifieth be a particular faith whereby wee applie to our selues the promises of righteousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. Master Perkins prooues it to be such a faith by the iudgement of Bernard in citing wherof first the Printer did him wrong by leauing out these words Thou doest well which are the consequent part of the sentence and without which there is no sense in it as any man may see that reades it This which is strange in a man so desirous to cauill you passe ouer and omitting the principall matter for which this place of Bernard was alleaged goe about to answere that which Master Perkins vrgeth not namely that we are not iustified by the imputed
Hitherto S. Augustine Note first that he defineth the iustice which we haue in this life to be true iustice which is pure from all iniustice and iniquitie Then that it is also perfect not fayling in any dutie which we be bound to performe Lastly that it bringeth forth good workes such as merit life euerlasting True it is also that this iustice although perfect in it self so farre as mans capacity in this life doth permit yet being compared vnto the state of iustice which is in heauen it may be called imperfect not that this is not sufficient to defend vs from all formall transgression of Gods law but because it keepeth not vs sometimes from veniall sinne and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath speaker A. W. You may wel think we make no small account of works that make them the way to heauen that require them as necessary of euery man that looketh to be saued that allow them no small reward in heauen that ground part of our assurance of saluation vpon them First giue me leaue to obserue by the way that the life Austin heare speaketh of is not iustification but holines of conuersation Then to your first note the righteousnesse we haue in this life is true righteousnes in regard of the author thereof the spirit of God who cannot deceiue nor be deceiued It is also called perfect in some men not as you say without Austins authoritie because it faileth not in any dutie which we are bound to performe but in comparison of the imperfection of it in other men and the vncapablenes that by our corruption is in euery one of vs. By merits he meaneth good workes as your selfe also expound them and as the manner of speech that the auncient Church vsed requireth the reason whereof is not because they deserue euerlasting life Augustine hath no such word but because they shall haue a reward though not vpon desert but fauour It cannot be called imperfect because it doth not keepe vs from sinning If it be true that it is sufficient to keepe vs from all formall transgression of Gods law else we must say that Adams righteousnes was imperfect yea it may well be held That the Angels now and we hereafter in heauen shall be kept from sinning not by any strength of inherent righteousnes but by the speciall grace of God continually vpholding vs. That it may be proper to God that possiblie he cannot sinne by reason of goodnesse resting in him that I may so speake which cannot be lesse then infinite And sure it is to me somewhat strange that this perfection of righteousnes should be able to keepe vs free from deadly sinnes as you call them and not much more easily preserue vs from veniall speaker D. B. P. Saint Augustine hath the like discourse vvhere he saith directly that it appertaines to the lesser iustice of this life not to sinne So that vve haue out of this oracle of Antiquitie that many works of a iust man are without sinne speaker A. W. The other place of Austin rather maketh against you For if it belong to this lesse righteousnes not to sin and for al that measure of it we haue we are not kept from sinning it may seeme that this righteousnes is not perfect So haue you nothing out of this register of Antiquity to proue that any workes of a iust man are without sinne speaker D. B. P. To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures and partly out of the record of Antiquitie let vs ioyne one or tvvo dravvne from the absurdity of our aduersaries doctrine vvhich teacheth euery good vvorke of the righteous man to be infected vvith mortall sinne Which being granted it vvould follovv necessarily that no good vvorke in the vvorld vvere to be done vnder paine of damnation thus No mortall sinne is to be done vnder paine of damnation for the vvages of sinne is death but all good vvorkes are stained vvith mortall sinne ergo no good vvorke is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker A. W. Your Syllogisme is naught because it hath foure termes as they are called your assumption not being taken out of your proposition nor your conclusion sutable to the premisses it should be thus framed No mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation But all good workes are mortall sinnes Therefore no good workes are to be dono vnder paine of damnation Now the syllogisme is true but the assumption euidently false You chose craftily rather no make a false syllogisme which you thought euery one could not spie then a false assumption manifest to the eyes of the simplest If you should alter the proposition that would be as apparantly false as the assumption is Nothing stained with mortall sin is to be done vnder paine of damnation speaker D. B. P. It follovveth secondly that euery man is bound to sinne deadly For al men are bound to performe the duties of the first second table but euery performance of any dutie is necessarily linked vvith some mortall sin therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes and consequently to be damned These are holy and comfortable conclusions yet inseperable companions if not svvorne brethren of the Protestants doctrine Novv let vs heare vvhat Arguments they bring against this Catholike verity speaker A. W. Your other Reason is thus to be framed He that is bound to performe the duties of the first and second table is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But euery man is bound to performe all such duties Therefore euery man is bound to commit many mortall sinnes The proposition is thus proued according to your collection If the performance of such duties be neerely linked with mortall sinne then he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes But the performance of such duties as the Protestants say is neerely linckt with mortall sinne Therfore he that is bound to performe such duties is bound to commit many mortall sinnes I deny the consequence of your proposition This onely followeth vpon the antecedent that he which is bound to performe such duties is bound to performe that which is neerely linckt with some mortall sinne And this we grant to be true we are bound to the performance of those duties in the doing whereof by our corruption there will be some sinne annexed which in it owne nature is deadly speaker D. B. P. First they alleadge these vvords Enter not O Lord into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shall be iustified in thy sight If none can be iustified before God it seemes that none of their vvorkes are iust in his sight speaker A. W. Ans. There are tvvo common expositions of this place among the auncient Fathers both true but farre from the Protestants purpose The commonnesse of an exposition is a presumption but not a proofe of the truth thereof for all these two there may be a
you aske where I will shew you God willing in another treatise For the answering of these arguments is nothing to Master Perkins reformed Catholike nor the reason of any moment but as it may well be suspected of your owne deuising that you might make babies to dallie with all speaker D. B. P. 2 There are among you that beleeue not for he knovv vvho beleeued and vvho was to betray him Opposing treason to faith as if he had said faith conteined in it selfe fidelitie This Argument is farre fetched and little worth For albeit faith hath not fidelitie and loue alwaies necessarily ioyned with it yet falling from faith may well draw after it hatred and treason yea ordinarily wickednes goeth before falling from faith and is the cause of it which was Iudas case whom our Sauiour there taxed for he blinded with coueâ—ousnesse did not beleeue Christs Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament and by incredulity opened the Diuell a high way to his hart to negotiate treason in it speaker A. W. First I demaund in what the doctrine of the Sacraments could hinder Iudas from growing rich that the fault of his not beleeuing it should lye vpon his couetousnes Secondly I wonder how it can be proued that Iudas did not beleeue it If you ground your conceipt vpon that of Iohn as it is likly you do first proue that our Sauiour spake there of the Sacrament Thirdly it is not plaine by anie place of Scripture that Iudas vnbeleefe in that doctrine opened the way to the Diuell nay rather the text laies the blame vpon his couetousnes and malice stirred vp by our Sauiours defect of Mary against him when she had bestowed such costlie oyntments vpon him in Bethania speaker D. B. P. 3 They obiect that VVho saith bee knovves God and doth not keepe his commandements is a lyar Ans. He is then a lyar in graine who professing the only true knowledge of God yet blusheth not to say that it is impossible to keepe his commandements but to the obiection knowing God in that place is taken for louing of God as I knovv ye not that is I loue you not Our Lord knowes the way of the iust that is approues it loues it so he that knowes God keepes his commandements as Christ himselfe testifieth Jf any loue me he vvill keepe my vvord And he that loueth me not vvill not keepe my vvords Lastly they say with S. Paul That the iust man liueth by faith But if faith giue life then it cannot be without charity speaker A. W. Ans. That faith in a iust man is not without hope and charity by all which conioyned he liueth and not by faith alone But faith is in a sinfull and vniust man without charitie who holding fast his former beleefe doth in transgressing Gods commaundements breake the bands of charitie And so it remaines most certaine that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charitie These obiections were not worth the making neither will I wast time and paper in examining your answeres to them The fifth poynt Of Merits speaker W. P. By merit vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth it to repaie the like speaker D. B. P. Obserue that three things are necessarie to make a worke meritorious First that the worker be the adopted Sonne of God and in the state of grace Secondly that the worke proceed from grace and be referred to the honor of God The third is the promise of God through Christ to reward the worke And because our aduersaries either ignorantly or of malice do slaunder this our Doctrine in saying vntruly that we trust not in Christs merits nor need not Gods mercy for our saluation but will purchase it by our owne workes speaker A. W. We charge you and that trulie without ignorance or slaunder and according to your doctrine of merits that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercie for so much of your purchase of euerlasting life as is made by good workes For if your workes be such as that in the rigour of iustice they deserue euerlasting life as wages what neede they either Christs blood or Gods mercie to make them meritorious The vse of Christs blood is to wash away sinne Where there is no sin what should Christs blood doe Now to him that workes the wages is not counted of fauour but of debt speaker D. B. P. I will here set downe what the Councell of Tâ—ent doth teach concerning merits Life euerlasting is to be proposed to them that vvorke vvell and hope well to the end both as grace of mercy promised to the Sonnes of God through Christ Iesus and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendred vnto their vvorkes and merits So that we hold eternall life to be both a grace aswell in respect of Gods gree promise through Christ as also for that the first grace out of which they issue was freely bestowed vpon vs. And that also it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part of the dignity of good workes Vnto the worker if he perseuere and hold on vnto the end of his life or by truerepentance lise to the same estate againe speaker A. W. The Councell of Trent hath as much as well it could made a shew of some reformation but indeed retained for the most part the former errours of her Antichristian Church you also to mend the matter according to the policie of the craftie Councell picke out a sentence and propound it as the whole doctrine of the Councell concerning merits The same afterward you expound but so as that neithe text nor the glosse are sufficient to make your whole doctrine knowne to vs. For whereas you claime heauen of God as wages due to the deserts of your workes here is no mention but only of reward yet somwhat is slipt from you whereby the Councels dealing may well grow into suspition For whereas that sayes no more but that it is a reward by the promise of God to be faithfully rendred to their workes and merits you tel vs that it is a reward in iustice due partly by the promise of God and in part for the dignitie of good works Where I would faine know of you how you part this debt what part is due vpon promise what vpon desert For it may wel be though the reward be due vpon promise now God hath promised that it was simplie due for the dignitie of the worke whether God had promised it or no And then it was a small fauour of God to make vs a promise of that to which we had full interest by desert before this promise so that he could not in iustice but pay vs our wages for our
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
man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly speaker D. B. P. But originall sinne doth all these Ergo. Novv to Master Perkins Argument in forme as he proposeth it That vvhich vvas once sinne properly and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and makes him miserable that is sinne properly But Originall sinne doth all these ergo speaker A. W. The Maâ—or vvhich as the learned knovv should consist of three vvords containes foure seuerall points and vvhich is vvorst of all not one of them true If you meane three words as Grammar speaks of words that you say is false for any proposition may containe three hundred such words and yet not offend against Logike If you vnderstand three words as a Logician there may be fourtie seuerall points in a proposition and yet but three words viz. The antecedent part or subiect secondly the consequent part predicate or attribute and thirdly the bond by which they are coupled together So that herein you haue shewed either little skill or little honestie to blame him for foure seuerall points in stead of three words as if his syllogisme had as Logicians speake foure termes and so were false in the forme of it The foure seueral points are these 1. That which was once sinne properly 2. makes him to sinne 3. intangles him in the punishment of sinne 4. makes him miserable all which make the first word or antecedent of the proposition the consequent is sinne properly the 3. bond that ties these two together the verbe is Now let both learned and vnlearned iudge whether the fault be in Master Perkins or in your ignorance or cauilling speaker D. B. P. To the first that vvhich remaineth in man after Baptisme commonly called Concupiscence vvas neuer a sinne properly but only the materiall part of sinne the formall and principall part of it consisting in the depriuation of Originall iustice and a voluntary auersion from the lavv of God the vvhich is cured by the Grace of God giuen to the baptised and so that vvhich vvas principall in Originall sinne doâ—h not remaine in the regenerate speaker A. W. It hath alreadie been prooued that it is sinne properly euen after Baptisme if you meane that concupiscence the Apostle speakes of against the commandement If you do not what haue we to doe with it in this question Concupiscence or the facultie of desiring is no otherwise affected to sinne than reason is but the blindnes of the vnderstanding and the vitiousnes of the will which the Apostle cals concupiscence are part of originall sinne The naturall faculties are not the parts but rather the seate of it or the subiect which in some respect may be said to be the matter Sure the forme is as of all sinnes in general the aberration from or the contrarines of it to the law of God The depriuation you should say the absence of originall iustice is comprised in the aberration I spake of and so is that voluntarie auersion from God and goodnes besides which there is also an euill qualitie I know not how else to call it whereby we incline to that which is against the law of God This we call originall sinne or naturall corruption because we haue it from Adam the originall of all mankinde and that from our first being together with our nature and in our nature though by creation it was not in our nature This is helped by the power of Gods spirit through the grace of sanctification both in the principall point and in the accessories yet is not the concupiscence wholy taken away but being deadly wounded dies by little and little in the children of God as they are assured it shall by the outward and inward baptisme through the power of Christs death and resurrection Notwithstanding as long as wee liue in this world it remaines the same thing it was before baptisme euen sinne properly but the hurt it hath is vnrecouerable and the strength abated speaker D. B. P. Neither doth that vvhich remaineth make the person to sin vvhich vvas the second point vnlesse he vvillingly consent vnto it as hath bin proued heretofore it allureth and intiseth him to sin but hath not povver to constraine him to it as Master Perkins also himselfe before confessed speaker A. W. I deny your consequence it makes him to sinne though it doe not constraine him as the spirit of God makes vs beleeue though he inforce vs not to it speaker D. B. P. Novv to the third and intangleth him in the punishment of sinne hovv doth Originall sinne intangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin if all the guiltines of it be remoued from his person as you taught before in our Consent Mendacem memorem esse oportet Either confesse that the guilt of Original sinne is not taken avvay from the regenerate or else you must vnsay this that it intangleth him in the punishment of sinne speaker A. W. This doubt is alreadie answered that it intangles him because it makes him doe that by which he is guiltie of sin and deserues punishment howsoeuer the Lord pardons his sinne in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Novv to the last clause that the reliques of Originall sinen make a man miserable a man may be called vvretched and miserable in that he is in disgrace vvith God and so subiect to his heauy displeasure and that which maketh him miserable in this sense is sin but S. Paul taketh not the vvord so here but for an vnhappie man exposed to the danger of sinne and to all the miseries of this vvorld from vvhich vve should haue been exempted had it not been for Originall sinne after vvhich sort he vseth the same vvord If in this life only we vvere hoping in Christ we were more miserable then all men not that the good Christians were farthest out of Gods fauour and more sinfull then other men but that they had fevvest vvorldly comforts and the greatest crosses and thus much in confutation of that formall argument speaker A. W. It is strange you should so confidently set downe an vntruth in writing whereof you may so easily and certainely be conuinced The Apostle doth not vse the same word but another that signifies to be pitied We were of all men most to be pitied But that the Apostle complaines of miserie in respect of sinne by that word the vse of it otherwhere may prooue The holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea that she was miserable and wretched the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there either the miserie of sinne or pitie for that miserie and beggerly and blinde and naked Houle yee rich men saith S. Iames for the miseries that shall come vpon you The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries as you expound him but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne which he
litle knowes this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience there secret faults in deed be examined but nothing is taken for sinne by any one learned in that faculty which is done without a mans free consent all of them holding with S. Augustine That sinne is so voluntary an euill that it cannot be sinne which is not voluntary And to say with M. Perkins that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sinne is so absurd that a man might if that were true be damned for a dreame how well soeuer disposed he went to sleepe if he chaunce to dreame of vncleannes whereupon doth ensue any euill motion in his flesh This paradoxe of sinning without a mans consent is so contrarie vnto both naturall and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth Neither any of the small number of the learned nor of the multitude of the vnlearned doe hold that a man can sinne without his consent What vnlearned learned men then are start vp in our miserable age that make no bones to deny this and greater matters too speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath truly answered that although men know no sinne but that which is voluntarie because they make all sinne to be in the act yet in Gods iudgement it is otherwise who condemnes all for sinne that is any way against his iust and holy law The place you alleage out of Austin prooues no more but that those actions that are not voluntarie are not sinne which wee easily grant But Master Perkins addes a â—…ond answere which you craftily according to your custome omit because you know not what to say to it The answere is that originall sinne may be called voluntarie because Adams sinne was voluntarie and so ours in him as Austin truly affirmes Those dreames that are occasioned by any fault of ours or by our naturall corruption are our sinnes and to them that are not in Christ damnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. Where the forme of any thing is taken away there the thing it selfe ceaseth also but after baptisme in the regenerate the forme of originall sinne that is the guilt is quite remoued and therefore sinne ceaseth to be sinne Answ. The guilt or obligation to punishment is not the forme of originall corruption but as we say in schooles an accident or necessarie companion thereof The true forme of originall sinne is a defect and depriuation of that which the law requireth at our hands in our minde will affections and in all the powers both of soule and bodie But they vrge this reason further saying where the guilt and punishment is taken away there is no fault remaining but after baptisme the guilt and punishment is remoued and therefore though originall corruption remaine it is not as a fault to make vs guiltie before God but onely as a weaknes Answ. Guilt is remoued and not remoued It is remooued from the person regenerate which stands not guiltie for any sinne originall or actuall but guilt is not remoued from the sinne it selfe or as some answere there be two kindes of guilt actuall and potentiall The actuall guilt is whereby sin maketh man stand guiltie before God and that is remoued in the regenerate But the potentiall guilt which is an aptnes in sinne to make a man stand guiltie if he sinne that is not remooued and therefore still sinne remaineth sinne To this or like effect saith August We say that the guilt of concupiscence not whereby it is guiltie for that is not a person but that whereby it made man guiltie from the beginning is pardoned and that the thing it selfe is euill so as the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins shifteth in assigning a wrong forme affirming vs to say that the forme of Originall sinne is the guiltines of it which we hold to be neither the forme nor matter of it but as it were the proper passion following it Sâ—e S. Thomas who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne the priuation of Originall iustice which iustice made the will subiect to God The deordination then of the will Mistres and commaunder of all other points in man made by the priuation of Originall iustice is the forme of Original sinne and the deordination of all other parts of man which by a common name is called concupiscence as that learned Doctor noteth is but the materiall part of that sinne so that the will of the regenerate being by grace through Christ rectified and set againe in good order towards the law of God the forme of originall sinne which consistâ—d in deordination of it is taken quite away by Baptisme and so consequently the sinne it selfe vvhich cannot be vvithout his proper forme as the argument doth conuince speaker A. W. The forme of originall sinne as I shewed before is not onely the absence of righteousnes but also an habituall inclination to euill which is not wholy taken away in this life but onely by degrees diminished and in death vtterly abolished speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Lastly for our disgrace they alleage that we in our doctrine teach that originall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared like the haire of a mans head whose rootes still remaine in the flesh growing and increasing after they are cut as before Answ. Our doctrine is abused for in the paring of any thing as in cutting of the haire or in lopping a tree the roote remaines vntouched and therupon multiplieth as before But in the mortification of originall sinne after baptisme wee hold no such paring but teach that in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner sinne receiueth his deadlie wound in the roote neuer afterward to be recouered speaker D. B. P. Conferre this last answere with his former Doctrine good Reader and thou maist learne what credit is to be giuen to such Masters no more constant then the wind Here sinne is deadly vvounded in the roote there it remaineth still vvith all the guiltines of it although not imputed there it still maketh the man to sinne intangleth him in the punishment of sinne and maketh him miserable All this he comprehended before in this first reason and yet blusheth not here to conclude that he holdeth it as at the first Neither clipped nor pared but pulled vp by the rootes Indeed they doe him a fauour who say that he holdeth sinne to be clipped and as it were razed for albeit haire razed grow out againe yet is there none for a season but this Original sinne of his is alwaies in his regenerate in vigour to corrupt all his workes and to make them deadly sinnes But let this suffice for this matter speaker A. W. This is a meere cauill of yours and no contradiction of Master Perkins originall sinne hath all these effects and yet is not wholy rooted vp as you falsely make him speake but wounded in the roote so deadly as that it neither shal nor
former question is on this manner The thing saith hee that maketh vs righteous before God and causeth vs to bee accepted to life euerlasting is remission of sinnes and the habite of inward righteousnes or charitie with the fruites thereof We condesend and graunt that the habite of righteousnesse which wee call sanctification is an excellent gift of God and hath his reward of God and is the matter of our iustification before men because it serueth to declare vs to be reconciled to God and to bee iustified yet wee denie it to bee the thing which maketh vs of sinners to become righteous or iust before God speaker D. B. P. The point of difference is this that the Protestants hold that Christs Passion and obedience imputed vnto vs becommeth our righteousnes for the words of iustice and iustification they seldome vse and not any righteousnes vvhich is in our selues The Cathòlikes affirme that those vertues povvred into our soules speaking of the formall cause of iustification is our iustice and that through that a man is iustified in Gods sight and accepted to life euerlasting Although as you haue seene before vve hold that God of his mecre mercy through the merits of Christ Iesus our Sauiour hath freetie beâ—lovved that iustice on vs. speaker A. W. The word iustification wee vse continually the cauill about our not vsing iustice but righteousnes for our aduantage is sufficiently answered by Doctor Fulke against Gregory Martin and the Rhemists The true reason why our translators chose rather to say righteous and righteousnes than iust and iustice was because the former words are more generall the latter for the most part restrained in common vse to one particular vertue betwixt man and man We denie not that Christians being iustified are truly righteous by inherent righteousnes but that wee are to pleade our owne imperfect righteousnes before God to our iustification speaker D. B. P. Note that M. Perkins comes to short in his second rule vvhen he attributeth the merits of Christs sufferings to obedience vvhereas obedience if it had been vvithout charity vvould haue merited nothing at Gods hands speaker A. W. Master Perkins comes as neere the marke as you acknowledging the loue of Christ in his obedience distinctly both to God and vs. And indeed it were ridiculous to imagine obedience without loue though the Apostle mentions the one without the other speaker W. P. And this is the first point of our disagreement in the matter of iustification which must be marked because if there were no more points of difference betweene vs this one alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our religions for hereby the Church of Rome doth race the very foundation speaker D. B. P. And vvhereas M. Perkins doth say that therein vve raze the foundation that is as he interpreteth it in his preface vve make Christ a Pseudochrist vve auerre that herein vve doe much more magnifie Christ then they do for they take Christs merits to be so meane that they do but euen serue the turne to deface sinne and make men vvorthie of the ioyes of heauen Nay it doth not serue the turne but onely that God doth not impute sinne vnto vs. We contrarivvise doe so highly esteeme of our Sauiours inestâ—mable merits that vve hold them vvell able to purchase at Gods hands a farre inferiour iustice and such merits as mortall men are capable of and to them doe giue such force and value that they make a man iust before God and vvorthy of the Kingdome of heauen as shall be proued speaker A. W. This slander was answered before We acknowledge the power of Christs death as to iustification for the forgiuenes of sinnes so to sanctification for inherent righteousnes and that such righteousnes as is sufficient to make vs pure and holie in the sight of God though we attaine not to the perfection of it as long as we liue in this mortall bodie speaker D. B. P. Againe they do great iniurie to Gods goodnes wisdome and iustice in their iustification for they teach that inward iustice or sanctification is not necessary to iustification Yea their Ring-leader Luther saith That the iustified can by no sinnes whatsoeuer except he refuse to beleeue lose their saluation Wherein first they make their righteous man Like as our Sauiour speaketh to sepulchers vvhited on the out side with an imputed iustice but within full of iniquitie and disorder Then the wisdome of God must either not discouer this masse of iniquitie or his goodnes abide it or his iustice either wipe it away or punish it But say they he seeth it well enough but couereth it vvith the mantle of Christs righteousnes Why can any thing be hid from his sight it is madnes to thinke it speaker A. W. We doe God no wrong in maintaining his truth that sanctification followes iustification in nature though in time they come together Luther saith as the truth is that he which beleeues shal be saued and that faith is not destroyed by any sinne but infidelitie A man iustified as I haue said often is righteous by inherent righteousnes and therefore not like a whited sepulchre Our corruptions and sins God seeth and mislikes but hauing punisht them in Christ he laies them not to our charge speaker D. B. P. And why doth he not for Christs sake deface it and wipe it cleane away and adorne with his grace that soule whom he for his sonnes sake loueth and make it worthy of his loue and kingdome What is it because Christ hath not deserued it So to say were to derogate from the infnite value of his merits Or is it for that God cannot make such iustice in a pure man as may be worthy of his loue and his kingdome And this were to deny Gods power in a matter that can be done as we confesse that such vertue was in our first Father Adam in state of innocency And M. Perkins seemes to graunt That man in this life at his last gaspe may haue such righteousnes If then we had no other reason for vs but that our iustification doth more exalt the power and goodnesse of God more magnifie the value of Christs merits and brigeth greater dignity vnto men our doctrine were much better to be liked then our aduersaries who cannot alleadge one expresse sentence either out of holy Scriptures or auncient Fathers teaching the imputation of Christs righteousnes vnto vs to be our iustification as shall be seene in the reasons following and doe much abase both Christs merits and Gods power wisdome and goodnes speaker A. W. It is enough for vs to know what God doth without inquiring curiously into the reason of it Yet in this case wee may answere that God doth not make vs perfectly righteous at once that wee may continually depend vpon him and not thinke too highly of our selues as you by reason of that conceit doe ascribing the best part of your second iustification
thereby Here is a very prety peece of cousinage What doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleere conscience nothing lesse but that albâ—it he saw nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification yet God who hath sharper eye-sight might espie some iniquitie in him and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified as if he should say if there be no oâ—her fault in me in Gods 〈◊〉 then I can find by mine owne insight I am iustified because I am 〈◊〉 of nothing and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our iustification as I haue before shewed speaker A. W. If the Apostle were not iustified by the law who can be That he was not himselfe saith Master Perkins confesseth euen then when he was not pâ—â—uie to himselfe of any grosse breach thereof This is Master Perkins reason to which you answere nothing but frame another argument to your selfe out of the Apostles speech speaker W. P. And this will appeare if wee doe consider how wee must come one day before Gods iudgement seat there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice for then we must bring some thing that may counteruaile the iustice of God not hauing onely acceptation in mercie but also approbation in iustice God being not onely mercifull but also a iust iudge speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins addeth that we must remember that we shall come to iudgement where rigour of iustice shall be shewed We know it well but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sin as he confesseth himselfe the Apostle to teach in our consents about originall sinne what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust That he had ranne a good race c. and therefore there vvas a crowne of iustice laid vp for him by that iust Iudge and not only to him but all them that loue â—Crists comming speaker A. W. Indeede he that is iustified needes not feare condemnation but the question is whether he can be iustified in Gods iust iudgement who brings imperfect righteousnes to iustifie himselfe withall which S. Paul doth not but being iustified by faith in Christ lookes for a reward of his holie labours according to the promise of God speaker D. B. P. And concerning both inherent iustice and the ability of it to fulfill the law And what Iaw heare this one sentence of S. Augustine He that beleeueth in him he hath not that iustice which is of the lavv albeit the lavv be good but he shall fulfill the lavv not by iustice vvhich he hath of himselfe but vvhich is giuen of God for charity is the fulfilling of the lavv and from him is this charity povvred into our barts not certainlie by our selues but by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. speaker A. W. There needes no mans authoritie to prooue that hee which is iustified hath inherent righteousnes For the Apostle saith Christ is made sanctification to vs and that by him we are sanctified neither doe we denie that this inherent righteousnes is such as might enable vs to keepe the law and shall when it is perfect but to keepe the law is not onely to haue charitie or righteousnes but to vse it as the law commands Righteousnes saith Austin is nothing els but not to sinne not to sinne is to keepe the commandements of the law that is as himselfe presently expounds it to do none of those things that are forbidden and to doe all those things that are commanded But the chiefe point is what law he meanes out of doubt the law of Moses which is alwaies meant when it is put alone without any addition or explication as it is here What law vnderstands he when he saith that iustice which is of the law Of the same he saith he shall fulfill the law it selfe besides what law doth charitie fulfill questionlesse the law of Moses the summe whereof is the loue of God and man speaker W. P. Reason II. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him Whence I reason thus As Christ was made sin for vs so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him but Christ was made sin or a sinner by imputation of our sinnes he being in himselfe most holy therefore a sinner is made righteous before God in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed and applied vnto him Now if any shall say that maÌ„ is iustified by righteousnes infused then by like reason I say Christ was made sinne for vs by infusion of sinne which to say is blasphemie speaker D. B. P. I denie both propositions the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our iustification with the sinne which Christ was made for vs for in the text of the Apostle there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne as we are made iust That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse without any liklyhood in the text The other proposition is also false for Christ was not made sinne by imputation for sin in that place is taken figuratiuely and signifieth according to the exposition of auncient Fathers An host or sacrifice for sinne Which Christ was truely made his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne and not by imputation speaker A. W. That there is some comparison of likenes implied by the Apostle it appeares by Austin He therefore was made sinne that we might be made righteousnes not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he made shew of sinne not of his owne but of ours not resting in him but in vs. speaker W. P. That interpretation indeed is generally best liked of because of the Hebraisme but yet the place may also be expounded otherwise as your owne writers shew He made him to be counted a sinner saith Thomas and Catharin more fully He laid vpon him the sinnes of vs all and especially that originall sinne out of which as out of a roote the other spring And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised Christ saith he beeing offered for our sinnes tooke the name of sinne that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him Not ours nor in vs. If this righteousnesse of God be neither ours nor in vs then it can bee no inherent righteousnesse but must needes be righteousnes imputed And Chrysost on this place saith It is called Gods righteousnes because it is not of workes and because it must be without all staine or want and that cannot bee inherent righteousnes Anselme saith He is made sinne as wee are made iustice not ours but Gods not in vs but in him as he is made sinne not his owne but ours not in
himselfe but in vs. speaker D. B. P. How these words of the Apostle Iustice of God are to be vnderstood see Saint Augustine One place I will cite for all The iustice of God saith he through the saith of Christ Jesus that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ for as that faith is called Christs not by vvhich Christ beleeues so that Iustice is called Gods not whereby God is iust both of them faith and iustice be ours but therefore they are tearmed Gods and Christs because through their liberality they are giuen to vs. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome which M. Perkins citeth saying It is called Gods Iustice because it is not of works but of his free gift So that it is not that which is in God himselfe but such as he bestoweth vpon vs. And that iustice of it selfe is pure and wanteth no vertue to work that for which it is giuen to wit to make a man righteous S. Anselme a right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered when the place is quoted speaker A. W. The iustice of God is expounded by the Apostle to be the forgiuenes of sinnes especially vpon your interpretation For what is it that Christ procures by his sacrifice but pardon the wrath of God being appeased It is indeed called the righteousnes of God because it is giuen vs by God and chiefly because it is appointed and approoued of God They that make it inherent in vs as it cannot be prooued by this place that S. Austin doth stretch it further than the Apostle vseth to doe and make it comprehend sanctification also It is but a shift to put off Aâ—sâ—lme whom you cannot answere it had been casie for you to conceiue that he meanes his Commentarie vpon that place But how chance Hierome is past ouer too we must haue some other excuse for the place is quoted speaker W. P. Reason III. Rom. 5. 19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous marke here is a comparison betweene the first and second Adam And hence I reason thus As by the disobedience of the first Adam men were made sinners so by the obedience of the second Adam are we made righteous Now we are not onely made sinners by propagation of naturall corruption but by imputation For Adams first sinne was the eating of the forbidden fruite which verie acte is no personall offence but is imputed to all his posteritie in whom we haue all sinned The Fathers call this very sinne Adams hand-writing making vs debters vnto God And therefore in like manner the obedience of Christ is made the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer not by infusion but by imputation speaker D. B. P. The comparison I allovv because it is the Apostles and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault And say that euery one descended of Adam by natural propagation hath his ovvn peâ—â—onal iniquity stieking in them which is commonly called Oâ—â—ginal sin and an high point of Pelagiamsme is it to deny it For albeit vve did not 〈◊〉 of the forbidden fruit in proper person yet receiue vve the nature of man polluted vvith that infection really and not by imputation And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne but beareth very strongly against him it being thus framed As by Adams disobedience many vvere made sinners euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified This is his Maior Novv to the Minor But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners by drawing from him euery one his owne proper inherent iniquitie in like manner vve are iustified by Christ not by imputation of his iustice but by our inherent iustice vvhich is povvred into our soules vvhen 〈◊〉 are in Baptisme borne a new in him See what penury of poore arguments they haue that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them speaker A. W. Your bare deniall is no sufficient answere especially since greater Clerkes directly affirme the contrarie viz. that that sin of Adams makes vs debters to God whereof we are all guiltie as hauing committed it in his loynes All men saith Austin are vnderstood to haue sinned in the first man because all men were in him when he sinned yea more then that he saith All men committed that sin in him because all were that one man As Leui saith Domingo a soto many yeeres before he was borne paid tithes in Abraham in like sort we sinned in the loynes of Adam We denie not that we receiue from Adam inherent vnrighteousnes by propagation but affirme that Adams sinne is imputed to vs to our iust condemnation speaker W. P. Reason IV. A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires at our hands is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe But Christ obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires as the Papists themselues auouch Therefore this satisfaction is our iustice And me thinks the Papists vpon this consideration haue little cause to dissent from vs. For if they make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not fullie close hands with vs and make it their iustice also speaker D. B. P. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmine I haue read the Chapter and find no such words further I say there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes and iustification for satisfaction cannot be done by vs for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite being against an infinite Maiesty and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it wherfore the infinit valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment due to sinners leaueth vs his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it as shal be in his due place declared more at large speaker A. W. Againe a man must needs haue his sinnes pardoned and grace giuen him before he can make any kind of due satisfaction for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction There is nothing like in iustification for first to make a man iust in Gods sight requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocency and of all the blessed soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight Neither is it necessary to be infinit for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen which be not infinit as they are enioyed of Men or Angels either who haue all things there in number weight and measure Master Perkins argument is wholy omitted by you and a consectarie which he drawes from it propounded in stead of it The argument is this A
satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands is accepted of God as iustice it selfe But Christs obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires Therefore Christs obedience is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe Vpon this he concludes yet further If the Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction why should they not make it their iustice The reason of the proposition is because God accepts such satisfaction for iustice But they make Christs obedience their satisfaction Therefore why should they not make it their iustice Your answere must be applied to the consequence of the proposition the proofe whereof as I haue shewed is fetcht from the former syllogisme to which you answer nothing at all But let vs take it as it is and it is thus much in effect that you haue neede of Christs satisfaction but no neede of his iustice So then belike you will not accept of his righteousnes as yours because you are loth to be any more beholding to him than needs you must That you need it not you prooue because a meere man is capable of sufficient lighteousnes to iustification But that will not serue the turne vnlesse also he haue as much as he is capable of to which estate no man attaines in this life by your confession who admit an increase of iustice euery day speaker D. B. P. Briefly it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on an other and not credible that God whose iudgement is according to truth will repute a man for iust who is full of iniquity no more then a simple man will take a Black moore for white although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell speaker A. W. Secondly you take it not as yours because Christ cannot bestow it on you What not so much as to haue it imputed to you why not as well as Adams sinne is mads ours by imputation But God you say whose iudgement is according to truth will not repute a man iust who is full of iniquitie Indeede God cannot be deceiued to hold a man not to be wicked that is wicked but God can iustifie that is forgiue and acquite him though he know him to be wicked and can take him for righteous in Christ of whom he is a member though in himselfe he be not righteous So may the man that will not take a blacke Moore for white accept of him as if he were white without any error speaker W. P. Reason V. The consent of the auncient Church Bernard saith epist. 190. The iustice of an other is assigned vnto man who wanted his owne man was indepted and man made paiment The satisfaction of one is imputed to all And why may not iustice be from an other as well as guiltinesse is from another And in Cant. serm 25. It sufficeth me for all righteousnesse to haue him alone mercifull to me against whom I haue sinned And Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifullnesse of God And serm 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnesse Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse alone for it is mine also in that euen thou art made vnto me righteousnesse of God What shall I feare least that one bee not sufficient for vs both it is a short cloke that cannot couer two it will couer both thee and me largely beeing both a large and eternall iustice speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins last reason is taken from the consent of the auncient Church And yet citeth sauing one two lines nothing out of any auncient writer not out of any other but out of only S. Bernard who liued 1000. yeares after Christ so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in Antiquity speaker A. W. What reliefe there is for vs touching this point in the Fathers shall appeare more fully hereafter if it please God in another treatise In the meane while take a taste by these who acknowledge their righteousnes imperfect and vnable to abide Gods iudgement This saith Basil is perfect and sound reioycing in God when a man doth not bragge no not of his righteousnes but knowes himselfe vnworthie of true righteousnes and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. And in another place Euerlasting rest remaines for them which in this life haue striuen lawfully not for the desert of their workes but by the fauour of the most bountifull God in whom they haue hoped Charitie saith Austin in some is greater in some lesse in other none at all but so great charitie as cannot be increased is in no man so long as he liues here Now so long as it may be increased surely that which is lesse than it should be is faultie By reason of which fault there is not a righteous man vpon earth that doth good and sinnes not by reason of which fault no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God because of this fault if we say we haue no sinne the truth is not in vs and for this also how much soeuer we haue done it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts were forgiuen in baptisme I will not boast saith Ambrose because I am righteous but because I am redeemed I will boast not because I am voide of sinnes but because my sinnes are forgiuen me speaker D. B. P. Which Caluin declareth more plainely for he commonly setting light by all other in this question reiecteth also S. Augustine saying Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter vvho attributeth our samctification to grace wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councell of â—rent saith VVe contend not how the Fathers take iustification and a little after I am not ignorant that they spake othervvise then we doe of it Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later vvriters speaker A. W. Caluin doth not commonly reiect the Fathers in this point but both he and Chemnitius alleage diuers things out of them in this question of iustification For Chemnitius looke in the place you haue named in his disputation of iustification Caluins words will cleere him sufficiently if they be truly reported Yea not the sentence of Austin himselfe or at the least not his manner of speech is in all sorts to be receiued For although he notably spoyle man of all commendation of righteousnes and passe ouer all to Gods grace yet he referres grace to sanctification whereby we are regenerate into newnes of life through the spirit Indeed it is vsuall with Austin and the Latin Fathers to speake of iustification as the word seemed to leade
them and so to comprise vnder it sanctification also In which respect Caluin and Chemnitius say they are the lesse to be receiued But as for iustification they spake ordinarily as you heard before when they speak properly acknowledging euen the charitie of men regenerate as I shewed out of Austin by which the law is fulfilled to be imperfect and vnable to iustifie vs in the sight of God speaker D. B. P. But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant Nothing lesse his words be these The iustice of another is assigned vnto man vvho wanted his own man vvas indebted and man made payment c. But let his owne reason there cited serue for exposition of his former words which is this For vvhy may not iustice be from another aswell as guiltines is from another Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation but euery one contracts his owne by taking flesh from him euen so iustice 〈◊〉 from Christ powred into euery man that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost In the second place he saith That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God that is by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestovved vpon vs. speaker A. W. Your answere to the first place of Bernard was refuted before when I prooued that Adams sinne was made ours by imputation How will that agree with the former part of the sentence The iustice of God is not to sinne but the iustice of man is bestowed by Gods free mercie There is a poore difference betwixt these two when as God may bestow such righteousnes vpon a man that he shall be free from sinning But thus stands the opposition not to sinne is Gods righteousnes not to haue sinne imputed through Gods mercie is mans righteousnes speaker D. B. P. With S. Bernard in the third place we acknowledge that we haue no iustice of our owne that is from our selues but from the goodnesse of God through the merits of our blessed Sauiours Passion read his first sermon vpon these words of the Prophet Jsaie Vid◠Dominum c. There you shall see him speake plainely of inherent iustice and how it is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ. speaker A. W. How vaine and sleight an answere this is the very words will shew Thou art made vnto me righteousnes of God he speakes of such a righteousnes as is both his and Christs Shall I feare saith he least that one be not sufficient for vs both It is not a short cloake that cannot couer it will couer both thee and me largely being both a large and eternall iustice In the place by you quoted he speakes not a word of any righteousnes but in the fifth sermon vpon that text he compares the righteousnes of men and Angels with Gods not inherent with imputed But what if he speake of inherent righteousnes as he doth in many places doe we deny it or is there because of that none imputed or is that inherent righteousnes sufficient to iustifie vs in Gods sight Let Bernard speake for himselfe Our humble righteousnes if there be any is true perhaps but not pure vnlesse perchance saith Bernard vpon that very place of Esay we thinke our selues better than our fathers who said no lesse truly than humbly All our righteousnes is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman For how can there be pure righteousnes whereas yet there cannot be fault wanting It is no marueile then if you now make light of Bernard whom otherwise you magnifie His testimonie must needes bee accounted of that is so plaine for vs and against you whereas he was a member of your owne Church and erred with you in many points of Antichristianisme speaker W. P. August on Psal. 22. He prayeth for our faults and hath made our fault his faults that he might make his iustice our iustice speaker D. B. P. Another broken peece of a sentence there is cited out of S. Augustine Christ made his iustice our iustice That is by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs as he expoundeth himselfe What is this the iustice of God and the iustice of man The iustice of God is here called that not whereby God is iust but that which God giueth to man that man may be iust through God speaker A. W. What a forced interpretation is this Christ saith Austin made his iustice our iustice that is say you by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vs. He hath made his ours that is he hath by his purchased other for vs. Who can beare such an exposition Sure the words will not nor the sense For how shall we expound the former part of the sentence which you craftily leaue out He hath made our sinnes his sinnes Haue our sinnes merited sinne for him If this be absurd as it is how shall your interpretation be auowed the latter part depending vpon the former As for the exposition you bring out of another place where the iustice of God is said to be that which God giueth man this proues that which before I deliuered that the Fathers sometimes make iustification to comprehend sanctification too but where they speake properly of iustification there they teach as we doe Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiections of the Papists proouing inherent righteousnesse to bee the matter of our iustice before God are these Obiect I. It is absurd that one man should bee made righteous by the righteousnesse of an other for it is as much as if one man were made wise by the wisedome of another Answ. It is true that no man can bee made righteous by the personall righteousnesse of another because it pertaines onely to one man And because the wisedome that is in one man is his altogether wholly it cannot be the wisdom of another no more then the health and life of one bodie can bee the health of 〈◊〉 But it is otherwise with the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 it is his indeede because it is inherent in him as in a subiect it is not his alone but his and ours together by the tenour of the Couenant of grace Christ as he is a Mediatour is giuen to euery beleeuer as really and truely as land is giuen from man to man and with him are giuen all things that concerne saluation they being made ours by Gods free gift among which is Christ his righteousnesse By it therefore as being a thing of our owne wee may bee iustified before God and accepted to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. This answere solueth not the difficulty any whit at all for Christs wisedome power and other giftes are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why then is his iustice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sense all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption and we doe dayly offer them to God that he will for his Sonnes sake more
and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his mysticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touâ—…d how one man may formally be made iust by the iustice of another rather then wise by the wisdome of another speaker A. W. The reason why our Sauiour Christs other gifts are not imputed to vs is because we stand not in neede of them for the fulfilling of the law to iustification They also belong to vs as members of his mysticall bodie wee doe not offer them to God but intreate him for his Sonnes sake who was so and so qualified and did such and such things and aboue all who is so beloued to be mercifull vnto vs and to accept vs for his children As for any formall wisedome or iustice which should make any reall change in vs we looke not for it in iustification but in sanctification and that is not Christs but ours personally speaker W. P. Obiect II. If a sinner bee iustified by Christ his righteousnesse then euery beleeuer shall be as righteous as Christ and that can not be Ans. The proposition is false for Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to vs according as it is in Christ neither according to the same measure nor the same manner For his obedience in fulfilling the lawe is aboue Adams righteousnesse yea aboue the righteousnesse of all Angels For they were all but creatures and their obedience the obedience of creatures but Christ his obedience is the obedience or righteousnesse of God so tearmed Rom. 1. 17. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 21. not onely because God accepted of it but because it was in that person which is very God When Christ obeyed God obeyed and when he suffered God suffered not because the God-head suffered or performed anie obedience but because the person which according to one nature is God performed obedience and suffered And by this means his righteousnesse is of infinite value price merit efficacy Hence also it commeth to passe that this obedience of Christ serueth not only for the iustifying of some one person as Adams did but of all and euery one of the elect yea it is sufficient to iustifie many thousand worlds Now to come to the point this righteousnesse ousnesse that is in Christ in this largenes and measure is pertaining to vs in a more narrow skantling because it is onely receiued by faith so farforth as it serueth to iustifie any particular beleeuer But they vrge the reason further saying If Christ his righteousnes be the righteousnesse of euery beleeuer then euery man should be a Sauiour which is absurd Answ. I answer as before and yet more plainely thus Christ his righteousnesse is imputed to the person of this or that man not as it is the price of redemption for all mankind but as it is the price of redemption for one particular man as for example Christ his righteousnes is imputed to Peter not as it is the price of redemption for all but as it is the price of redemption for Peter And therefore Christ his righteousnesse is not applyed to any one sinner in that largenesse and measure in which it is in the person of Christ but onely so sarreforth as it serueth to satisfie the lawe for the saide sinner and to make his person accepted of God as righteous and no further speaker D. B. P. That which is applied of Christs iustice to this or that man is either infinite and then the man is as iust as Christ for there can be no greater then infinite in the same kinde Or it is not infinite but in a certaine measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs inâ—nâ—t iustice for all the parts of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remaineth then that a certaine limited portion of in stice is deriued out of Christs infinit iustice and powred into this oâ— that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subiects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a far dâ—mmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sun from whence it came Euen so in our iustification from the Sonne of iustice Christ Iesus certaine beames of particular iustice are conueied into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lightned by faith and inflamed by charity but there is exceeding difference betweene their two iustices more then there is betweene the light of the Sunne and the light of a starre which S. Augustine in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much difference there is betvveene the light that doth lighten and that vvhich is sightened that is the sun and the starre light so much difference is there betvveene the iustice that doth iustifie and that iustice vvhich is made by that iustification to wit betvveene the iustice of Christ and that vvhich is in eueâ—… good Christian. speaker A. W. The iustice of Christs humane nature for of that now we speake is not properly infinite but onely in regard of his person Therfore though it were all communicated to some man yet should it not in him be infinite You wholy mistake the matter For Master Perkins doth not meane that there is any part of Christs righteousnes inherently made ours as the light of the starre receiued from the Sunne remaines in it but brings that similitude only to shew that the whole is applied to euery one that is iustified in his seuerall proportion As for inherent righteousnes that is rather an effect than an application of Christs righteousnes It may be also Master Perkins was of opinion that the starres as the Moone haue no light in themselues but only reflect the light of the Sunne shining on them and then it is true that the light which comes from them is the very light of the Sunne varied according to the nature and position of each seuerall starre Austin speakes of iustification and iustice as they are largely taken for sanctification also neither doth hee compare Christs righteousnes as hee is man with ours but shewes how infinitly Gods wisedome and iustice exceede mans as hee doth elsewhere by the same similitude speaker W. P. Obiect III. If we be made righteous by Christ his righteousnesse truly then Christ is a sinner truly by our sinnes but Christ is not indeede a sinner by our sinnes Answ. We may with reuerence to his maiestie in good manner say that Christ was a sinner and that truely not by any infusion of sinne into his most holy person but because our sinnes were laid vpon him speaker D. B. P. The third reason for the Catholike party If men be made truely and really iust by
Christs iustice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vniust by the iniquitie and sinnes of men impuâ—ed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrary but one may aswell be mande vniust by imputation as iust especially considering that euill is made more easilie and more vvaies then good M. Perâ—… ansvvere is that vve may say Christ vvas a sinner truely not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes vvere laide on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not truly a sinner that paies the debt of sinne vvhich an innocent and most iust person may performe but he that either hath sinne truly in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sins are made his ovvne really and he in all cases to be dealt vvithall as if he sinned himselfe as they hold that one iustified by imputation of Christs iustice is really in Gods sight iust and is both loued in this life and shall be revvarded in the next as if he vvere truly iust indeed But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the diuel sonne of perdition which is plaine bâ—aâ—â—hemie speaker A. W. He is truly a debtor that bindes himselfe to pay the debt by that meanes taking it vpon him as if hee were hee that principally owes the money It is no blasphemie at all to auow that our Sauiour Christ hauing taken our sinnes vpon him was in that respect to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Doth not the Apostle say that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law becomming a curse for vs speaker W. P. Thus saith the holie Ghost hee which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs and he was counted with sinners Isa. 53. 13. yet so as euen then in himselfe he was without blot yea more holy then all men and Angels On this manner said Chrysostome 2. Cor. 3. God permitted Christ to be condemned as a sinner Again He made the iust one to be a sinner that he might make sinners iust speaker D. B. P. That sentence out of the Prophet He vvas counted â—vith sinners is expounded by the â—uangâ—lists that he was so taken indeede but by a wicked Iudge and a reprohate people And theefore if you allow of their sentence range yourselfe with them asoneof their number S. 〈◊〉 by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one truly Châ—… I know is called sinne by S. 〈◊〉 but by a figure â—…ng that he as a sacrifice for sinne as hath been before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly affirmeth in plaine tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs in all things excepting sinne speaker A. W. The wicked Iewes accounted him to be sinfull in himselfe that blasphemie wee disclaime and hold him to haue been alwaies most pure and holy saue onely for our sinnes charged vpon him as the sinnes of the people were in a type laid on the scape goate speaker W. P. Obiect IV. If a man be made righteous by imputation then God iudgeth sinners to bee righteous but God iudgeth no sinner to bee righteous for it is abhomination to the Lord. Answ. When God iustifieth a sinner by Christ his righteousnes at the same time he ceaseth in regard of guiltinesse to bee a sinner and to whom God imputeth righteousnesse them hee sanctifieth at the very same instant by his holy Spirit giuing also vnto originall corruption his deadly wound speaker D. B. P. If a man be righteous onely by imputation he may together be full of iniquitie vvhereupon it must needs follovv that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and vvicked but that is absurd vvhen Gods iudgement is according to truth Here M. Perkins yeeldeth That vvhen God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing originall sinne a deadly vvound And yet else where he said That originall sinne vvhich remained after iustification in the party did beare such svvay that it infected all the vvorkes of the said party and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he wil abide in it speaker A. W. It is a good shift to multiplie words when you know not what to say Master Perkins obiection and answere are almost in as few words as you make the obiection Is this to pare off superfluitie Here is nothing altered that before was deliuered originall sinne remaines the same it was and so defiles our actions still but it hath not the same strength speaker W. P. Obiect V. That which Adam neuer lost was neuer giuen by Christ but he neuer lost imputed righteousnesse therefore it was neuer giuen vnto him Ans. The proposition is not true for sauing faith that was neuer lost by Adam is giuen to vs in Christ and Adam neuer had this priuiledge that after the first grace should follow the second and thereupon beeing left to himselfe hee fell from God and yet this mercie is vouchsafed to all beleeuers that after their first conuersion God wil stil confirme them with new grace and by this meanes they perseuere vnto the ende And whereas they say that Adam had not imputed righteousnesse I answere that hee had the same for substance though not for the manner of applying by imputation speaker D. B. P. The fift reason is inuerted by M. Perkins but may be rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice vvhich vve lost by Adams fall but by him vve lost inherent iustice ergo By Christ vve are restored to inherent iustice The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul who affirmeth that we receiue more by Christ then we lost by Adam And is Saint Jreneus and Saint Augustines most expresse doctrine who say Hovv are vve saide to be renevved if vve receiue not againe vvhich the first man lost c Jmmortality of body vve receiue not but vve receiue iustice from the vvhich he sell through sinne speaker A. W. Master Perkins conclusion was to the purpose though one of the propositions as he hath prooued and you grant by not answering was false But the reason as you frame it is nothing at all against vs for we denie not that we receiue inherent iustice by Christ but that to bee iustified is to bee righteous in Gods fight by inherent righteousnes speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Iustification is eternall but the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse is not eternall for it ceaseth in the ende of this life therefore it is not that which iustifieth a sinner Answ. The imputation of Christs righteousnesse is euerlasting for he that is esteemed righteous in this life by Christ his righteousnes is accepted as righteous for euer and the remission of sinnes granted in this life is for euer continued And though
third of more certainty speaker D. B. P. The former is S. Augustines S. Hieromes S. Gregories in his Commentaries vpon that place who say that no creature ordinarily liueth without many veniall sinnes for the which in iustice they may be punished sharpely either in this life or else afterward in Purgatory Wherfore the best men do very prouidently pray vnto God not to deale with them according vnto their deserts for if he should so doe they cannot be iustified and cleared from many veniall faults And therefore they must all craue pardon for these faults or else endure Gods iudgements for them before they can attaine vnto the reward of their good deeds speaker A. W. Austin hath not a word in that place of any veniall sinne but deliuereth the latter exposition of comparison with Gods righteousnes Iudge me not saith Austin according to thee who art without sinne and that which shall be in the world to come That which he saith shall not be iustified he referres to that perfection of righteousnes which is not in this life Neither saith Ierome any such thing but speaketh absolutely of all sinne as the other places alledged by him to the same purpose manifestly shew God hath shut vp all vnder sinne All haue sinned If they sin against thee for there is no man that sinneth not c. Neither doth Gregory make that interpretation vnlesse we shall say that there are no sinnes in the heart but veniall Many saith he though they sinne not in deed yet slip now and then by vaine and peruerse thoughts After he concludes thus Therefore he shall not be iustified in Gods sight that sinnes in heart vpon which God looketh Where he vseth not the word l slipping but sinning as before of the deed Therfore this first exposition hath not so much as any one authoritie truly alleaged to countenance it selfe withall speaker D. B. P. The second exposition is more ordinarie with all the best writers vpon the Psalmes as S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Arnobius S 〈◊〉 and others Which is also S. Augustine S. Gregorie All these say that mans iustice in comparison of the iustice of God will seeme to be no iustiâ—e at all and so take these words No creature neither man nor Angell shall be iustified in thy sight that is if his iustice appeare before thine and be compared to it for as the starres be bright in themselues and sâ—…ne also goodly in a cleare â—ight yet in the presence of the glittâ—… sunne beames they appeare not at all euen so mans iustice although considered by it selfe it be great and perfect in his kind yet set in the sight and presence of Gods iustice it vanisheth away and is not to be seene This exposition is taken out of Job where he saith I knoâ—… 〈◊〉 it is euen so that no man compared to God shall be iustified Take the words of the Psalme in whether sense you list that either we haue many veâ—â—all faults for which we cannot be iustified in Gods sight or else that in the sight of Gods most bright iustice ours will not appeare at all and it cannot be thereof iustly concluded that euery worke of the righteous man is stained with sin And consequently the place is not to purpose speaker A. W. Let vs see the other exposition and first what Hilarie saith for it who indeede applieth it to a comparison with Gods iustice but not onely in degree of righteousnes For he reciteth there diuers passions of anger griefe lust ignorance c. which are the cause why we cannot be iustified Erasmus hath brought good reasons to prooue that Commentarie on the Psalmes to be none of Hieromes I will adde one which I thinke may put the matter out of question that Hierome refuteth that interpretation which this Papist would confirme by that place They saith Hierome delude this testimonie none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight vnder a shew of godlinesse by a new kinde of reasoning For they say that none is perfect in comparison of God as if the scripture had said thus Here is your exposition denied to be the meaning of this scripture What is then the meaning When he saith in thy sight he will haue this vnderstood saith Hierome that euen those which to men seeme holy in Gods knowledge and approbation are not holy for man looks vpon the face but God lookes into the heart Now if no man be righteous when he lookes into and considers the heart whom the secrets of the heart doe not deceiue it is manifestly shewed that the heretikes doe not extoll men on high but derogate from the power of God Hierome then is so farre from bringing that interpretation for his owne that he reiects and refutes it and that which is worth the obseruing euen in that place which this Papist alleaged for his former exposition It is no marueile if these men can prooue any thing by the Fathers Arnobius indeed doth so interpret it But if wee rest vpon authoritie his bare exposition is not to ouerweigh Hieroms reason Besides he is farre from thinking a man righteous in such perfection as you dreame of as it is plaine by his former words Who dares say to God saith Arnobius heare me in thy truth and in thy righteousnes for it is true and iust that he which hath sinned should be most sharply punished Vpon the beginning of the second verse he hath these words It is thy righteousnes that being Lord thou shouldest think skorne to enter into iudgement with thy seruant Euthymius denieth that a man can be iustified if he be examined according to Gods perfect iustice But he addes further Or if we consider the benefits of God or his commandements So that the righteous breake euen the Commandements of God and are vnrighteous It is a needlesse matter to heape vp authorities for the proofe of that whereof there is no question Who doubts that both men and Angels in comparison of Gods infinite perfection are imperfectly righteous And this is all Austin saith But how can this prooue that the Psalme is to be vnderstood of mans righteousnes compared with Gods This is to deceiue your reader with bare names of men not to perswade him by the consent of the ancient Neither doe you remember that Austin where purposely he expounds that Psalme giues no such interpretation of it but makes in his sight to be as it is indeed in his iudgement Euery liuing man saith Austin may perhaps iustifie himselfe before himselfe but not before thee And afterward How vpright soeuer I seeme to my selfe thou bringest a rule out of thy treasurie thou laiest me to it and I am found euill So that Austin vnderstands this place wholy as we doe Gregory is as truly alleaged as Austin and as himselfe was before For he doth not
he that satisfieth for halfe his debts or for any part of them makes some satisfaction vvhich satisfaction is vnperfect and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all as euery child may see speaker A. W. Satisfaction is a full discharge of the debt so that the bond thereupon is voide but hee that paies halfe or three quarters of his debt if he pay not all in such sort as the bond requireth hath the bond still against him in ful strength and vertue so that though hee hath paid part of his principall debt he hath made no satisfaction at all speaker W. P. Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well together For say they Christs satisfaction is sufficient in it selfe to answere the iustice of God for all sin and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied and it must bee applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can bee no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and conuey his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the worde baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefites The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefits are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therfore is the answere of the Papists that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christ is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can speaker A. W. His second is as vntrue but mans satisfaction is not to supplie the vvant of Christs satisfaction but to applie it to vs as M. Perkins saith his faith doth to them and to fulfill his vvill and ordinance First the speech is beyond any ordinarie mans vnderstanding to make satisfaction is to applie another mans satisfaction to vs. Secondly to make satisfaction is to deserue that because of our satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to our sinnes Christs satisfaction for the eternall may be auailable to vs. Thirdly if mans satisfaction be not to supplie the want of Christs satisfaction either there is no temporall punishment belonging to sinne or Christ hath made satisfaction for that as well as for the eternall and then God cannot require any satisfaction of vs because he is alreadie satisfied both for the eternall and temporall punishment Fourthly if wee doe nothing by our satisfaction but applie Christs satisfaction to vs which is onely for the eternall punishment the temporall remaines wholy without satisfaction made for it speaker D. B. P. God doth in baptisme for Christs sake pardon both all sinnes and taketh fully avvay all paine due to sinne so that he vvho dieth in that state goeth presently to heauen But if vve doe aftervvard vngratefully forsake God and contrary to our promise transgresse against his commaundements then loe the order of his diuine iustice requires that we be not so easily receiued againe into his fauour But he vpon our repentance pardoning the sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto it through Christ doth exact of euerie man a temporall satisfaction ansvverable vnto the fault committed not to supplie Christs satisfaction which was of infinite value and might more easily haue taken away this temporall punishment then it doth the eternall But that by the smart and griefe of this punishment the man may be feared from sinning and be made more carefull to auoide sinne and also by this meanes be made members conformable to Christ our head that suffering with him we may raigne with him And therefore he hauing satisfied for the eternall punishment which we are not able to do doth lay the temporall paine vpon our shoulders that according vnto the Apostle Euery man do beare his ovvne burden speaker A. W. Here is a long discourse to little purpose neither answering any part of Master Perkins syllogisme nor defending any point of your owne answere but onely affirming that which before was said that God exacts a temporall satisfaction and affoording vs some reason to confute your opinion by in this sort If Christs satisfaction was sufficient more easily to take away the temporall punishment than the eternall how will you prooue it did not It stands you vpon to shew vs good euidence out of the record of Scripture that God agreed with Christ not to take the full desert of his sufferings and satisfaction but to leaue man still indebted to him though in truth the debt were paid If no such agreement can be shewed for my part I see not how God in iustice can aske the same debt twice being once fully satisfied That which you adde is wholy our doctrine viz. that God by smart and griefe would feare vs from sinning and make vs conformable to his Sonne our Sauiour But you teach that he punisheth vs and so takes satisfaction for sins past as if he were to be reuenged on vs at least by temporall punishment for our sinnes committed You repeate your conclusion but with no dependance vpon your former matter or proofe from that which followes where the Apostle tels the Galathians that they may not be alwaies finding fault with other men and so grow into a conceit of their owne goodnes but looke to themselues because euery man must giue an account to God for his owne sinnes and not for another mans If you will needs abuse the Apostle and applie his words to that he thought not on why doe you not by the same reason lay the eternall punishment vpon vs too for that was our burthen as well as the temporall speaker W. P. Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our workes haue their dignitie and merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our works should satisfie Gods iustice for temporal punishment But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer and a priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinful man his own redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of diuels For the holy Ghost teacheth that the
same speaker D. B. P. No more can be out of this other Christ vvas made sinne for vs That is the punishment of sinne as M. Perkins gloseth it but the learned say an hoast or sacrifice for sin But vve â—raunâ— that he suffered the punishment For our sinne and say consequently that all sin is pardoned freely for his sake and the paine of hell also vvhich is punishment of sinne but not other temporall paines such as it hath pleased the iustice and vvisdome of God to reserue vnto euery siâ—ner to beare in his ovvne person And after this sort and no other vvas God in Christ reconciling the vvorld to himselfe speaker A. W. If Christ were a sacrifice for sinne I say as before either he was an vnperfect sacrifice which to say were blasphemous or hee wrought our redemption from the whole wrath of God and so from all punishment ensuing thereupon vnlesse as I noted before you can shew any agreement to the contrarie betwixt God and Christ. speaker D. B. P. And that S. Paul vnderstood vvell that Christ suffâ—rings did not take avvay ours may be gathered by these his vvords I reioyce in suffering for you and doe accomplish those things that vvant of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body vvhich is the Church But of this point more vvhen vve come vnto the Arguments for the Caâ—holike part speaker A. W. Wee doe not say that Christs sufferings take away ours for we must still suffer for diuers reasons aboue recited but that his satisfaction leaues vs no place for ours we suffer but not to satisfie neither doth Saint Paul say any such thing speaker W. P. Reason II. In sundrie places of Scripture especially in the Epistles of Paul we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued Freely which word Freely doth import that we are iustified and saued without any thing done on our part or by our selues in the matter of our saluation and if this bee so then can wee doe nothing at all that may satisfie the iustice of God for the least punishment of our sinnes If wee satisfie in our owne persons we are not saued freely and if we be saued freely we make no satisfaction at all speaker D. B. P. Novv to M. Perkins second reason In sundrie places saith he of Scripture we are said to be redeemed iustified and saued freely but this vvord freely importeth that vve are saued vvithout doing any thing our selues in that matter of saluation speaker A. W. Ans. Not so good Sir for euen in your owne Doctrine it is necessary that ye beleeue and bring forth the fruits of repentance and that now and then yee make some short prayers and receiue the communion and doe many other odde things in that matter of saluation Wherfore the word freely doth not exclude all our working and suffering in that matter Master Perkins meanes not to exclude all doing on our part but all doing to merit or satisfaction As it appeares by the proposition of his syllogisme in the end If we satisfie in our person we are not saued freely If we be saued freely we make no satisfaction at all Now although all doing be not against free saluation yet all doing to merit and satisfie is directly against it speaker W. P. Reason III. We pray daily forgiue vs our sinnes now to pleade pardon and to satisfie for our sinnes bee contrarie and for all things for which wee can make satisfaction we neede not craue a pardon but we are taught in the foresaid petition wholy and only to vse the plea or pardon for our sinnes and therefore we acknowledge that we cannot make any satisfaction at all speaker D. B. P. If our sinnes be mortall we craue pardon both of the sinne and the eternall punishment annexed and do willingly withall satisfie for the temporall paine as the man who is conuicted of high treason and hauing both his life honor lands and goods pardoned and restored vnto him doth very ioyfully endure three monethes imprisonment and any reasonable fine set on his head speaker A. W. In this as in diuers other arguments namely the very next before you onely set downe the first lines and neuer propound the reason that you may answere to it directly I must doe it for you If we can satisfie for sinne we need not craue pardon for it But we need craue pardon for it Therefore we cannot satisfie for it Your answere cannot well be applied to any part of this syllogisme but in effect it seemes to be as much as if you should denie the assumption not simply but with this distinction that we need craue pardon for the eternall punishment but not for the temporall Then the meaning of that petitioÌ„ in the Lords Prayer is forgiue vs the eternall punishment due to our sins which is to aske forgiuenes by halues Lyra saith We pray that our sinnes may be wholy forgiuen both in respect of the fault and of the punishment And that hee meanes temporall punishment too it appeareth by his reason because so long as that remaines we cannot enter into blessednes Witnes the poore soules that â—â—ie so many yeeres in your Purgatorie speaker D. B. P. 〈◊〉 If our sinnes be veniall then that prayer is a speciall meane both to obtaine pardon of the fault and release of all the paine as witnesseth S. Augustine saying That for the daily short and light offences vvithout vvhich this life is not ledde the daily prayer of the faithfull doth satisfie speaker A. W. You seeme also to denie the consequence of the proposition in your answere about veniall sinnes For which you say we may satisfie by praying for pardon But this is a marueilous strange satisfaction that a man should be said to satisfie by desiring to be pardoned And then wee haue a further meaning in the Lords Prayer that God would accept it as a satisfaction for our veniall sinnes Can any reasonable man imagine that our Sauiour did not teach vs to pray for the full pardon of all punishment due to sinne and yet neuer gaue notice of any such distinction But of this more afterward Austin speakes of the different course that is to be held in repenting of our sinnes that according as they are greater or lesse so we should be the more or lesse carefull of obtaining pardon Which for ordinarie sinnes may be had by ordinarie praying not as if this made a sufficient amends to God which satisfaction imports but because he lookes not for so much sorrow and care for these sinnes as for those by which if we commit them we shall highly dishonour him and therefore neede to grieue more that wee may the more carefully auoide them If you will draw Austin to the worst wee may not follow him against the truth of the Scripture speaker D. B. P. And that is not true which M. Perkins addes that we are taught in that prayer wholy and only to vse the
his departure And therefore in your learning Austin shewes either his ignorance or his craft in telling vs that we cannot satisfie hereafter which is not true but of satisfying in our owne persons speaker W. P. Chrysost prooem in Esa. Say not to me I haue sinned how shall I be freed from so many sinnes Thou canst not but thy God can Yea and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall remaine no print of them which thing befalls not the bodie for when it is healed there remaines a skarre but God as soone as hee exempts thee from punishment he giueth thee iustice speaker D. B. P. All this is most true and much against M. Perkins doctrine of the infection of originall sin but nothing touching satisfaction for we hold that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be iustified is washed whiter then snow so that there is no staine or print left in it of the filth of sinne It is also freed from all eternall punishment but not from some temporall speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes not of originall sinne but of dayly actuall transgressions as his whole discourse shewes which God by pardoning of them so takes away as that neither guilt nor shame of them remaines in his sight yea he makes supply of the contrary vertues To Master Perkins purpose they are thus to be applied that Chrysostome requires nothing of him that is to be pardoned for his full release but repentance only which thing he repeates oftentimes in that proeme before Esay without any the least inkling of temporall satisfaction which is almost as needfull as the other if your doctrine be true for it is in our shallow estimation as fearefull almost to fry I know not how many thousand yeares in Purgatory as to be for euer in hell Euerlastingnes we cannot comprehend many thousand yeares are as much as we can reach to therefore since Chrysostome in that one preface so many times promiseth so full pardon and requires nothing but repentance it is more then likely he knew not your satisfaction speaker W. P. Ambrose saith I reade of Peters teares but I reade not of his satisfaction speaker D. B. P. Now gentle Reader prepare thy selfe to behold a proper peece of cousenage Ambrose saith I read of Peters teares but I read not of his satisfaction The colour of the craft lyeth in the ambiguity of this word Satisfaction which is not alwaies taken for the penance done to satisfie for the former fault But is sometime vsed for the defence and excuse of the fact So speaketh S. Paul Bono animo prome satisfaciam with good courage I will answere in defence of myselfe or giue you satisfaction in like manner Ready alwaies to satisfie euerie one that asketh you a reason of that hope vvhich is in you In this sense doth S. Ambrose vse the word as is most plainly to be seene to them that reade the place and conferre it with the very like of his I find not saith he vvhat Peter said but I finde that he vvept I read his teares but I read not his satisfaction but that which cannot be defended may be vvashed avvay So that nothing is more manifest then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault which Peter vsed not but sought by teares and bitter vveeping to satisfie in part for it for this bevvayling of our sinnes is one speciall kind of satisfaction as Saint Ambrose testifieth saying That hee vvho doth penance must vvith teares vvash avvay his sinnes speaker A. W. A man may easlyer behold malice in you that construe euery thing to the worst then cousenage in the allegation of Ambrose for if your interpretation of it be neuer so true it is such as might escape a diligeÌ„t reader and not be seene yea perhaps if it had not bin so prest by our meÌ„ you would haue read Ambrose ouer a good many times before you had dreampt of that sense Bellarmine from whom you had this as the rest of your answers for the most part layes no such matter to Peter Martyrs charge out of whom he brings this obiection you see not more then he did but write with more spleene If Master Perkins had read and at the writing of this sentence remembred Bellarmines answere either he would not haue alleaged it or else haue giuen some speciall reason for his allegation But this me thinks may be obserued out of this testimonie that Ambrose accounted confessing and crauing of pardon to be the satisfaction God lookes for which is alwayes performed by a sinner before he can haue any true hope that his sinnes are forgiuen This therefore going before the pardon of the eternall punishment what other satisfaction shall neede for the temporall Now that Ambrose in that place vnderstands by satisfaction both confessing his fault to Christ whom he had offended and intreating for pardon it appeareth by these speeches and such like Therefore Peter brake out into teares intreating nothing by voyce Teares wash sinnes which it is a shame to confesse Teares are as it were silent prayers I finde why Peter hold his peace least the crauing of pardon so soone might more offend Teares are part of repentance when they come from the true griefe of the heart but not any part of satisfaction for temporall paine which we should else indure as that very sentence of Ambrose prooues Hee saith Ambrose that repents must not only wash away his sinnes with teares but also couer and hide his former sinnes with better deeds that sinne be not laid to his charge Now where sinne is not imputed there can no punishment be due and where such repentance is not there sinne is imputed euen to eternall damnation So that the teares Ambrose speaketh of are parts of outward repentance for pardon of sinne not satisfaction for temporall iudgements remaining after pardon speaker W. P. Againe let vs adore Christ that hee may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes of this world nor the waues of bodily sufferings I haue remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose de bono mortis Let vs adore Christ that â—e may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes nor the vvaues of vvorldly sufferings I haue remission of â—â—nâ—es is rather for vs then against vs for if by adoring and seruing of God vve may be put out of feare of our sins and the punishment of them then doth it follow that praiers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them speaker A. W. This adoring of Christ is comming to him whereupon ensueth escaping of death as it followeth a few lines after Whosoeuer saith Ambrose in our Sauiour Christs person comes to me that is beleeues in me shall neuer see death By this adoring we are freed from all sinnes and all punishment due
from the purpose for if as you confesse they did not lay hold on the Messiahs satisfaction how could they by this repentance of theirs applie this satisfaction of his to the purchasing of Gods fauour which as you taught vs before is the vse of your satisfaction Secondly if they had not true saith in the Messiah their eternall punishment was vnsatisfied for and we speake of that satisfaction which is made for the temporall after the eternall is discharged From this and such like examples wee may conclude that God sometimes for beares to lay outward iudgements vpon sinners when and because they humble themselues but that these men made satisfaction to God either by applying Christs satisfaction to themselues or by redeeming the temporall punishment remaining after the pardon of the eternall or by making God amends for their former sinnes neither can it be prooued nor I thinke you vpon better aduice will affirme speaker W. P. Obiect V. Dan. 4. 24. Daniel giueth this counsell to Nabuchadnezar redeeme thy sinnes by iustice and thine iniquities by almes deedes Behold say they almes deedes are made meanes to satisfie for mans iniquities speaker D. B. P. If by such good deeds our sinnes may be redeemed as Holy writ doth testifie then it followeth that such workes yeeld a sufficient satisfaction for them for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended as well as satisfaction speaker A. W. This example of Nebuchadnezzar is no more to purpose than that of the Niniuites For the satisfaction we dispute of cannot be performed by any but him that hath his sinnes forgiuen in respect of the eternall punishment by the satisfaction of Christ such as this King at the least at this time of the Prophets counsell was not speaker W. P. Answ. The word which they translate to redeeme as the most learned in the Chaldie tongue with one consent auouch doth properly signifie to breake off as if the Prophet should say O King thou art a mightie Monarch and to inlarge thy kingdome thou hast vsed much iniustice and crueltie therefore now repent of thine iniquitie and breake off these thy sinnes testifie thy repentance by doing iustice and giue almes to the poore whom thou hast oppressed Therefore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sinne but onely of testification of repentance by the fruites thereof speaker D. B. P. To Authours in the aire without any pressing of the propriety of the word no answere can be giuen speaker A. W. Either your knowledge and reading is lesse than you would haue it thought to be or you knew this answere to be true and did but shift it off that you might not seeme to be ouercome The word indeed is hebrew signifying to rub and so to breake off by rubbing It is properly spoken of cattell which being yoked rub against a tree or wall or some other hard thing till they haue fretted their yoke in sunder and so freed themselues Hence is that speech of Isaac to Esau Thou shalt rub his yoke off thy necke And from hence it is that the word signifies to redeeme or deliuer yet not by making satisfaction but by breaking the bonds in sunder Seruants haue ruled ouer vs saith the Prophet and there is no man that rids vs out of their hands So Aaron bids the people to take or breake off their eare-rings viz. by opening the ring by which they were fastned Agreeably hereunto the Prophet in this place aduiseth the King to breake off his sinnes which held him captiue and so to free himself from them And this is the first sense of the word as it appeares also in the Hebrew Concordance and Dictionaries Beside the onely way for him to escape the iudgement threatned which was temporall was to giue ouer those sins for which it was denounced in which sense hee might bee said to redeeme his sinnes in respect of the punishment to come that is to auoide and free himselfe from the euill which else would fall vpon him speaker D. B. P. But let vs admit that it be broken off his sinne not being coâ—etousnes but pride and lacke of acknowledging al Kingdomes to depend vpon God as the text it selfe doth specifie To breake off this sin by almes and compassion of the poore is nothing else but by such workes of charitie in some sort to satisfie Gods iustice thereby to moue him to take compassion of him speaker A. W. The chiefe sinne was pride of his owne estate the next to it and issuing from it oppression of many people of that the Prophet spake in expounding the vision here hee deales with him about the other willing him to practise the contrarie vertues that hee might so escape the destruction that was threatned for the Prophet knew that it was possible euen for wicked men to auoide punishment denounced vpon the forsaking of their outward sinnes whereby they had prouoked the Lord to vse those threatnings And that by almesdeeds we are cleansed from our sinnes our Sauiour himselfe doth teach saying Giue almes and behold all things are cleane vnto you speaker A. W. That almes should be of force to clense men from their sinnes and sinnes of a different nature from the contrarie to almes giuing is a matter that hath no likelihood of truth in it And much lesse can it be proued by that place of S. Luke where our Sauiour reproouing the hypocrisie of the Pharisies in washing so carefully before meats as if they thought themselues otherwise cleane when they respected not what wrong they did and what extortion they vsed exhorts them rather to purge their hearts of their couetousnes and to giue to the poore and then all these outward things meate drinke and such like should bee cleane and â—it for them without such superstitious washing speaker W. P. Obiect VI. Matth. 3. 2. Doe penance and bring forth fruits worthy of penance which say they are workes of satisfaction inioyned by the Priest speaker A. W. Our sixt Bring forth the vvorthy fruits of penance That is doe such workes as become them who are penitent Iohn seeing the Pharisies come to his baptisme exhorts them not onely to make shew of repentance but to bring foorth fruites be seeming or worthie of them that repent The same is otherwise thus exprest To repent and turne to God and to doe workes worthie repentance to walke worthie of their calling But for the interpretation we agree in sense speaker D. B. P. Which as S. Chrysostome expoundeth are He that hath stolen avvay another mans goods let him now giue of his owne he that hath committed fornication let him abstaine from the lavvfull company of his ovvne vvife and so forth Recompensing the works of sinne with the contrary works of vertue The same exposition giueth Saint Gregorie and to omit all others venerable Bede interpreteth them thus Mortifie your sinnes by doing the worthie fruits of penance
to wit by afflicting your selues so much for euery offence as vvorthy penance doth require which vvill be a sacrifice of iustice that is a most iust sacrifice speaker A. W. So do we acknowledge the exposition which the auncients giue of it though we thinke the exhortation to be somewhat larger then they seeme in the words alleaged to make it for it comprehends all kind of holie conuersation not only the change of the grosse outward sinnes which we doubt not was their meaning also as it is manifest by Chrysostome in that place you bring who describes the repentance that he speakes of to be not only a leauing of our former sinnes but a fulfilling of good works which he proues by that place of the Psalme Eschue euill and do good and expounding those words bring forth fruits c. It is not enough saith Iohn to flie from naughtines vnlesse we betake our selues to the practice of well doing You see what he saith quoth Theophylact that we must not only auoid euill but also bring forth the fruit of vertue To which he addes for proofe that place of the Psalme Yea we refuse not that of Bede for it is indeed a sacrifice fit for vs in iustice to offer that our repentance be answerable in proportion to our sinnes But what is all this to prooue that there remaines tempo all paine to be endured whereby Gods wrath may be satisfied especially when as Chrysostome saith plainely that Iohn perswading the people to repentance did it not that they might be punished but that being made humble by repenting and condemning themselues because of their sinnes they might come to the gift of pardon speaker W. P. Answ. This text is absurd for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth thus much change your mindes from sinne to God and testifie it by good workes that is by doing the duties of the morall lawe which must bee done not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans fine but because they are fruites of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart speaker D. B. P. Reply His answere is most absurd for we argue out of these words VVorthy fruits of penance And he answereth to the word going before repent which we vse not against them and for his glose or testifying our repentance is sufficiently confuted by the Fathers before alleaged speaker A. W. Surely a reasonable man might well thinke that you that hold a necessitie of satisfaction and bring that text did ground your argument vpon Iohns charge to do penance The authors alleaged do not confute that interpretation by bringing another which is not 〈◊〉 â—…ty to it at the least we denie your consequence vpon their words And S. Iohn expresly maketh them the meanes to escaâ—… wrath of God saying that the 〈◊〉 was set to the â—…ose of the â—rie and vn lesse by worthy fruits of penanâ—… they 〈◊〉 God they 〈◊〉 â—e 〈◊〉 vp and cast into hell fire and 〈◊〉 hâ—… confute the â—aying â—…d on Christs satisfaction by faith saying 〈◊〉 wâ—â—l not helpe you to say thâ—â— yee are the Sonnes of Abraham wâ—o was â—…her of all true beleeueis as much as if he had said trust not to your faith hand off yee generation of vipers For notwithstanding yee be the Sonnes of the faithfull vnlesse yee amend your liues and for the euill works which ye haue denoâ—… tofore make recompence and satisfie the iustice of God with good yâ—â— shall be cast into hell fire speaker A. W. Neither doth Iohn speake of any satisfaction for the temporall punishment after the pardon of the eternall but threatens them with euerlasting damnation except they bring forth the fruits of repentance as well as make a profession of it by being baptised so that if satisfaction be required in those words dâ—â—btles it is that satisfaction which may free them from hell fire but that you confesse is not to be performed by euery man for himselfe but by Christ for all that trust in him To whom seemes he to confute the very matter of all his preaching not to Bede who in the place alleaged by you tels vs that Iohn exhorts the Pharises to humilitie who were so proude because they were Abrahams children that they would not confesse themselues to be sinners nor to Lyra who writes thus Because the Pharises Lawyers refused Abrahams faith of Christ therefore they lost the name of Abrahams sonnes And certainely it had bin against reason for Iohn to haue disswaded the Saduces and Pharises from trusting in Christ as well because it was his especiall commission to perswade men by all meanes to beleeue in Christ as also for that there was not the least cause of suspition that they would be too forward to trust in him who had so strong a perswasion of their owne righteousnes that they could find no want of his help speaker W. P. Obiect VII 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruites of repentance whereof the last is reuenge whereby repentant persons punish themselues thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes Answ. A repentant sinner must take reuenge of himselfe and that is onely to vse all meanes which serue to subdue the corruption of his nature to bridle carnall affections and to mortifie sinne and these kind of actions are restrainments properly and not punishments and are directed against the sinne and not against the person speaker D. B. P. The 7. obiection with M. Perkins Paul setteth dovvne sundry fruits of repentance vvhereof one is reuenge vvhereby repentant persons punish themselues to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sins M. Perkins answereth A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himselfe and that is to vse all meanes to subdue the corruption of nature and to bridle carnall affections which kind of actions are restrainements properly but no punishments directed against the sinne but not against the person Reply I neuer saw any writer so contradict himselfe and so dull that he doth not vnderstand his owne words If this subduing of our corrupt nature be restrainments only from sinne hereafter and not also punishments of sin past how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himselfe which you affirme that he must doe Reuenge as euery simple body knoweth is the requitall of euill past We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sinne and not against the person but for the great good of the man albeit that for a season it may afflict both his body and mind too as S. Paules former Epistle did the Corinthians speaker A. W. If he vnderstood not his owne words he is like to haue small help of you who either cannot or will not conceiue his meaning aright The reuenge that a sinner must take of himselfe is saith Master Perkins to vse all good meanes which serue to subdue his corruption but this is not properly a punishment of
the person against whom it is not directed but against the sinne wherein now lyes the contradiction for sooth because reuenge is a requitall of euill past therefore the sinner in his reuenge punisheth himselfe for his sinne But Master Perkins hath alreadie answered that the reuenge the Apostle speakes of is of an other kind being directed to the reformation of the partie not to the punishing of him It is called reuenge because the Corinthians vsed the same meanes for the reforming of themselues that men commonly do when they reuenge If this word reuenge would not beare this interpretation which you haue not proued nor can prooue yet were not Master Perkins guiltic of contradiction or not vnderstanding his owne words but only of mistaking the sense of the word speaker D. B. P. But this sorrow being according vnto God doth much benefit the person as the Apostle declareth For besides this reuenge taken on himselfe to appease Gods wrath it breedeth as it is in the text following in our corrupt nature that loueth not such chasusement A feare to returne to sinne least it be againe punished For where there is no feare of paines and much pleasure thither our corruption will runne headlong It stirreth vp also in vs Indignation against sinne and all the wicked instruments of it A defence and clearing of our selues with the honester fort And an emulation and desire to she as farie from sinne as other our equals and consequently A loue of vertue and honest life which freeth vs from that sorrow and all other troublesome passions all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of Saint Paul speaker A. W. Let vs put the case to your liking that this reuenge was a requit all of euill past will it follow thereupon that therefore they did it to satisfie God for the temporall punishment which otherwise they were to haue indured I trow not your glosse reserres it to their care to punish sinne not to satisfie by punishing that they might shew they mislikt and hated sinne because saith the Glosse you punish euen your selues when you sinne since you punish saith another Glosse your owne sinnes and especially since you punish other mens But if it were for satisfaction a man would punish his owne especiallie that he might auoid a greater iudgement Your ordinary Glosse applies that reuenge to the sinne of the incestuous person You haue shewed saith the Glosse by punishing him that committed the incest that you were vndefiled so doth Caietan also expound it This saith he was the last effect against the incestuous person for they vsed reuenging iustice in excommunicating him so Chrysostome You punished them that had sinned against the lawes of God so Theophylact so Ierome speaker W. P. Lastly they make three works of satisfaction praier fasting and almes deedes For the first it is meere foolishnesse to thinke that man by praier can satisfie for his sinnes speaker D. B. P. That praier doth appease Gods iustice and obtaine pardon God himselfe is witnes saying Call vpon me in the day of tribulation and J will deliuer thee Prayer cannot be made without saith in Gods power and hope in his goodnes and therfore must needs be pleasing in Gods sight by prayer we humble our selues before God and acknowledge his omnipotencie and our infirmity By prayer we lament with bitter teares our owne ingratitude folly and wickednes and bewaile the grieuousnes of our sinnes such prayer made King Dauid as his Psalmes do testify water his couch with teares making them his food day and night and by them he satisfied for his former offences So did a farre greater sinner then he King Manasses who falling into tribulation prayed vnto the Lord his God and did great penance before the God of his Fathers and prayed and entreated earnestly and God heard his prayer and brought him backe againe to Ierusalem into his Kingdome speaker A. W. God pardons sinners that call vpon him for mercie and deliuerance therefore their prayers appease his iustice There is no shew of truth in this consequence What though true prayer please God doth it therefore satisfie his iustice Whom doth it not please that hee which hath offended should craue pardon yet is not this a satisfaction to iustice Dauid and Manasses lamented their sinnes and called vpon God for mercie but what scripture saith they satisfied for their sinnes by so doing It were an easy matter to satisfie iustice if intreating pardon would make satisfaction speaker W. P. It is all one as if they had said that a begger by asking of almes should deserue his almes or that a debter by requesting his creditour to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt speaker D. B. P. A begger doth not deserue his almes because he makes not this former kind of prayer but the short fleight one of the Protestants from the lippes outward The like we say of a debter whose creditor being a needie man will not be paid without mony but God who needs none of our goodnes highly esteemeth of a humble and contriâ—e hart grieued much for hauing sinned in the sight of God and humbly suing vnto him for pardon To such a one he said Did I not forgiue thee all thy debt because thou besough est me speaker A. W. Belike then if a begger do intreat an almes from his heart by a set speach as long as one of your Auemaryes he deserues that he asks If he deserue it it is small charitie to giue it and iniustice not to gide it What if the creditor be not a needy man and would be content to be paid his debt by a dayes labour which vpon the mans intreatie he releaseth also doth the detter satisfie by intreating God forgiues vpon intreatie therefore intreating makes satisfaction These loose consequences fall asunder of themselues without touching speaker W. P. Secondly fasting is a thing indifferent of the same nature with eating and drinking and of it selfe conferreth nothing to the obtainement of the kingdome of heauen no more then eating and drinking doth speaker D. B. P. What an Epicurian and fleshly Doctrine is this Why then did the Niniuits fast put on sack cloath and lie on the ground all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting rather then eate and drinke and presume of Gods mercie if the one had bin as acceptable to God as the other Why is S. Iohn Baptist commended for his rough garments and thinne diet if cherishing the flesh please God as well as punishing of it Christ saith expressely That if vve fast in secret his heauenly Father vvill repay vs openly Will he reward eating and drinking so liberally but of falling we shall haue a whole Chapter hereafter Therefore Briefely I here conclude that this Doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the Kingdome of Atheists and Epicures whose sweet speech is Let vs eate and let vs drinke for after death there is
no pleasure True for such Belly-gods and thâ—â— followers speaker A. W. What a bad practise and foolish question are these of yours Master Perkins saith that fasting of it selfe conferres no more to the obtaining of heauen then eating doth You leaue out the principall point in reporting his opinion and then you aske why the Niniuits fasted if eating be as acceptable to God you must adde of it selfe as fasting because though of it selfe it pleased not God yet as part of repentance it doth when it shewes humiliation and sorrow But they might haue fasted long inough without being humbled and haue bin neuer awhit the neerer for it But let it be granted that fasting did please God of it selfe as prayer doth will you thereupon conclude that therefore it satisfies Gods iustice Proue the consequence Iohn Baptist is described to haue liued vpon such meate as the place where he abode did ordinarily afford but it is not said that he vsed a thin diet much lesse is he commended for it as if the thing of it selfe had pleased God It was fit for him by the extraordinarie direction of Gods spirit to follow such an austere course of life not to satisfie for any punishment but to make the Israelites the more carefully attend so extraordinary a mans preaching The reward that God will giue to them that in priuate repent of their sinnes with fasting is not because fasting of it selfe pleaseth him but for that such fasting is part of their repentance speaker W. P. Thirdly and lastly almes deedes cannot be works of satisfaction for sinnes For when wee giue them as we ought wee doe but our dutie whereunto wee are bound And we may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another as to say that by doing his dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the punishment of his sinnes These we confesse be fruits of faith but yet are they no workes of satisfaction but the onely and all-sufficient satisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sins is to bee found in the person of Christ being procured by the merit of his death and his obedience And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared and it is to be learned carefully of our common people because the opinion of humane satisfaction is naturall and sticks fast in the heart of naturall men Hereupon when any haue sinned and feele touch of conscience any way their manner is then to performe some outward humiliation and repentance thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience and by doing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes Yea many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede the Lords prayer and the tenne Commandements so foolish are they in this kinde speaker A. W. A man might suppose that this man were pretely well seene in Carolo Bussone that thus ruffleth in graue matters with his simple Similes If the similies were as simple as your answers to them a man should lose both his time and his labour to reade either of them shew their vnfitnes for the purpose if you can speaker D. B. P. That Almesdeeds redeeme our sinnes purge vs from them and make all things clean vnto vs hath bin already proued out of holy scriptures I will ioyne thereunto this one testimonie of that worthy Maityr Saint Cyprian Our frailtie could not tell vvhat to doe vulesse the goodnes of God by teaching vs the vvorkes of iustice and mercy had shevved vs a certaine vvay of preseruing our saluation which is that vvith Almesdeeds we might vvash cleane avvay the filth of sins vvhich vve had contracted after Baptisme The holie Ghost speaketh in the Scripture and saith Sinnes are purged by almesdeeds and saith speaker A. W. Cyprian intending to exhort all men to almes deeds is somewhat too farre caried with his earnestnes to perswade especiallie since he ascribes to it the purging of sin whereas it can reach no farther at the vttermost by your doctrine then to satisfie for the temporall punishment His proofe out of scripture is not there to be found for though your vulgar translation haue it yet it is not in the originall nor in your interlinear Bible nor in Montanus nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase nor in Vatablus The Greek seemes to haue had it added out of the Apocryphall speaker D. B. P. Now to M. Perkins Simile We deny that a man is bound to giue all the almes that he can We are bound to giue that which we may well spare when there is great want But almes which is a part of satisfaction is not giuen out of our superfluity but spared from our necessarie vses And is many times bestowed when there is no such great need vpon building Schooles Colledges Hospitals and Chappels And this may serue to answere M. Perkins Similes against these three workes of satisfaction If any man desire to know why wee make speciall reckoning of these three workes it is principally for two causes First we being to satisfie must performe it with such things as be our owne which be of three sorts either they belong to our soule or to our body or to our externall goods the goods of our mind we offer to God by prayer by fasting and other bodily discipline we exhibite vnto him A liuing hoast holy and pleasing God By Almesdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods Secondly all sinne as S. Iohn teacheth may be reduced to three principall heads The concupiscence of the flesh that is heacherie which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the bodie Concupiscence of the eyes Couetousnes which is purged and chased away by almesdeeds And pride of life which is suppressed by humble prayer and often meditation of our owne miseries speaker A. W. When we giue almes as we ought saith Master Perkins we doe but our dutie You answer that we are not bound to giue all the almes we can Is this to gainsay him We are bound to spare euen from our necessarie vse when the necessitie of our brethren requires it He that hath no more meate than to fill his owne belly is bound to giue his brother part of it if he see him readie to starue As for other giuing when we cannot spare that wee giue and there is no necessitie it is so farre from being a satisfaction for old sins that it is a committing of new But whence comes this distinction It is not either in Cyprian or in Toby or that place thrust into the book of Toby And out of question it was not Daniels meaning that King Nebuchadnezzar should giue to the poore so that he should come into want himselfe by giuing Neither I thinke can you prooue it was our Sauiours meaning when he exhorted the Pharisies to almes deedes But doe you not perceiue that you marre all by this doctrine Who will giue any thing at his death to your Monasteries if he may not by
to them whereas if your doctrine of satisfaction should be receiued for all our comming to Christ by faith and true repentance we might and ought stand in feare of grieuous punishment for many yeares in Purgatory Neither doth it follow that if by seruing God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes then such seruice doth satisfie for by true repentance we may be put out of feare of eternall damnation and yet no man will say that therefore true repentance doth satisfie for eternall paine speaker W. P. Hierome saith in Psalm 31. The sinne that is couered is not seene the sinne that is not seene is not imputed that which is not imputed is not punished speaker D. B. P. To vvit vvith hellfire vvhich is the due punishment of such mortall sinne vvhereof he speaketh or sinne may bee said to bee couered when not only the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully paide speaker A. W. If it be not imputed how can it be punished for punishment is laid vpon a man in respect of sinne which he is charged with neither can any thing be iustly punished with any kind of paine eternall or temporall but only sinne Your second answere is wholie for vs for if sinne be then said to be couered when the fault and the punishment are forgiuen doubtles he that is iustified is freed from both witnes Paul and Dauid who auouch that iustification couers sinne and suffers it not to be imputed speaker D. B. P. So doth S. Ambrose take that vvord couered saying The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him vvhose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him vvhose sinnes are couered vvith good vvorkes For he that doth penance must not only vvash avvay his sinnes vvith teares but also with better vvorkes couer his former sinnes that they be not imputed vnto him speaker A. W. If S. Ambrose take the word couered in that sense as indeed he and all men else do that speake of couering sin iustification takes away the fault and punishment of all sin so that he which is iustified needs make no farther satisfaction speaker W. P. Chrysostome on Matth. hom 44. Among all men some indure punishment in this life and the life to come others in this life alone others alone in the life to come others neither in this life nor in the life to come There alone as Diues who was not Lord so much as of one drop of water Here alone the incestuous man among the Corinthians Neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and therest of this kinde for they indured no sufferings for punishment but that they might bee known to be conquerours in the fight speaker D. B. P. Novv vve must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this vvhen he cited the other or else this vvas reserued to strike it deed Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures vvere not for their sinnes for they committed but ordinary light offences for vvhich their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly the great persecutions vvhich they endured vvere first to manifest the vertue and povver of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and vvithall to animate and encourage his follovvers Finally that they like conquerours triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater revvard in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing suffering vvere not for their ovvne sins and thus much in ansvvere vnto M. Perkins Arguments against satisfaction speaker A. W. You that are so desirous to find faults would not haue let Master Perkins scape without reproofe if you had lookt this place in Chrysostome and found it to haue bin misquoted though it was most like to haue bin the Printers fault In stead of answering to this testimonie you fall a discoursing of the end of the persecutions of holie men whereas many of them were not persecuted at all and Chrysostome speaks generally of sufferings not of persecutions But this must be obserued in your discourse that howsoeuer you mince the matter of their ordinatie light offences yet they themselues had another opinion of their sinnes If thou Lord saith one of them strictly marke what is done amisse who shall stand In another place one cryes to God not to enter into iudgement with his seruant because in his sight no man liuing shall be iustified Yea Daniel that beloued man confesseth his owne and his peoples sinnes to God as matters that deserue no small punishment yea there is almost no mans story set downe any thing at large in the scripture that hath not some speciall sinne obserued and recorded which notwithstanding if their sufferings were not punishments to satisfie how do you teach that all sinnes must be satisfied for by vs in part Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. Leuit. 4. Moses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons and they were meanes of satisfaction for the temporall punishments of their daily sinnes Answ. Those sacrifices were onely signes and types of Christs satisfaction to be offered to his father in his alone sacrifice vpon the crosse and whosoeuer offered any sacrifice in the olde testament did thus and no otherwise esteeme of it but as a type and figure of better things Secondly the said sacrifices were satisfactions to the Church whereby men did testifie their repentance for their offences and likewise their desire to bee reconciled to God and men And such kinde of satisfactions wee acknowledge speaker D. B. P. Novv to the reasons vvhich he produceth for it And albeit he like an euil master of the campe range our Arguments out of order placing that in the sore-front of our side vvhich Caluin presseth out against vs yet vvill I admit of it rather then breake his order speaker A. W. How good a master of a camp soeuer he were he were of no great discretion that hauing the marshalling of his enemies battaile in his hands would not order it most for his owne aduantage But to Master Perkins it was all one which was first which last if you thinke him beholden to you for your kindnes he hath fully paid you in bearing with your reciting of this and diuers other his reasons speaker D. B. P. 1. Moses according to Gods commandement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sins of seuerall persons and ordeined that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersitie of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens faults vpon their true repentance ioyned vvith faith and hope in Christ to come vvere pardoned Therfore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull vvorkes done to appease Gods iustice vvere vvorkes
of satisfaction speaker A. W. To let passe your propounding the argument otherwise then Master Perkins doth I answere to your Enthymem by denying the consequence Their sinnes say you were pardoned vpon their faith and repentance therefore their sacrifices and other painefull works were works of satisfaction It followes not for these very works were part of their repentance which without them when they could be done was insufficient and they were as requisite for the pardon of the eternall punishment I speake as you Papists do as of the temporall speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins ansvvereth many things as men do commonly vvhen they cannot vvell tell vvhat to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices vvere types of Christs suffering on the Crosse vvhat is this to the purpose speaker A. W. How many things trow you doth Master Perkins answer But poore two and those more to the purpose than you would The obiection was That those sacrifices which Moses prescribed seuerall persons were satisfactions for sinne This Master Perkins denieth directly saying that they were appointed to be types of Christs satisfaction which is most certaine Do you aske what this is to the purpose To shew that there was another end of these sacrifices than you imagine But you will say this doth not disprooue their being for satisfaction Remember your selfe Master Perkins answers and you replie who must prooue he or you He hath giuen you a reason of his deniall which is as much as in extremitie can bee looked for of an answerer Further replie shall haue further answere speaker D. B. P. Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and vvhat needed that vvhen they had offended God only and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth speaker A. W. The sacrifices for those sins by which the congregation had not been offended were not properly for the satisfaction thereof but onely thus farre that the people might perceiue how carefull each man was to repent euen of his secret sinnes and to haue them also purged by the blood of the Messiah to come whereof those sacrifices were types speaker D. B. P. Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation hovv much more reason is it that it be made to God Read those Chapters and you shall find that they vvere principally made to obtaine remission of God as these vvords also do vvitnesse And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices vvere to satisfie God vvho thereupon forgaue the sinne and all paine due to it speaker A. W. First satisfaction was made to God alreadie by the sacrifice of the Messiah to come in whom they beleeued Secondly there was danger to the congregation by their sin which might be an example of sinne to other Thirdly the people by these sacrifices was to be taught that their sinnes prouoked the wrath of God and were to be purged by the sacrifice of the Messiah There is nothing in those chapters to prooue that the end of those sacrifices was the obtaining of Gods mercie otherwise for temporall punishment than for eternall And I am sure you will not say they were to satisfie in that respect though vpon that sacrifice the sinne should be forgiuen that is vpon their faith and repentance of which those sacrifices were enioyned to be proofes and parts speaker W. P. Obiect 11. Men whose sinnes are all pardoned haue afterward sundrie crosses and afflictions laide vpon them vnto the ende of their daies therefore in all likelihoode they make satisfaction to God for temporall punishments As for example the Israelites for murmuring against the Lord in the wildernesse were barred all from the lande of promise and the like befell Moses and Aron for not glorifying God as they should haue done at the waters of strife Answ. Man must bee considered in a twofold estate as he is vnder the law and as he is vnder grace In the first estate all afflictions are curses or legall punishments be they little or great but to them that are in the second estate beleeue in Christ though the same afflictions remaine yet doe they change their habite or condition and are the actions of a Father seruing to be trials corrections preuentings admonitions 1. Cor. 11. 32. When wee are iudged wee are nurtured of the Lord and Heb. 12. 7. If we indure chastisment God offereth himselfe vnto you as children And Chrysostome saith 1. Cor. hom 28. When wee are corrected of the Lord it is more for our admonition then damnation more for a medicine then for a punishment more for a correction then for a penaltie And whereas God denied the beleeuing Israelites with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be prooued that it was a punishment or penaltie of the law vpon them The Scripture saith no more but that it was an admonition to all men in all ages following to take heede of offences as Paul writeth All these things came vnto them for ensamples and were written for our admonition 1. Corinth 10. 11. speaker D. B. P. The reason for vs vvhich indeed is the very ground-vvorke of satisfaction may thus be framed many after pardon obtained of their sins haue had temporall punishment laide vpon them for the same sins and that by Gods ovvne order vvherfore after the forgiuenes of the sinne and the eternall punishment of it through Christs satisfaction there remaineth some temporall paine to be endured by the party himselfe for the same sinne vvhich is most properly that vvhich vve call satisfaction They deny that any man hath been punished temporally for any sinne vvhich vvas once pardoned speaker A. W. If this groundworke of satisfaction prooue ruinuos the whole building will quickly fall But it cannot be sound because it is deceitfully laid If by enduring temporall punishment for sinne you meane no more but that by occasion of sinne committed many men haue had such chastisements we grant your conclusion But if you vnderstand by it as the question is that they haue borne these punishments to satisfie some part of Gods wrath to which our Sauiours sacrifice either could not or vpon composition betwixt his Father and him was not to reach we denie the antecedent of your Enthymem and say that no man beleeuing in the Messiah euer suffered any such punishment for sinne speaker D. B. P. We proue it first by the example of the Israelits vvhose murmuration against God vvas at Moses intercession pardoned yet all the elder sort of them vvho had seene the miracles vvrought in Aegypt for their deliuerance vvere by the sentence of God depriued of the â—â—ght of the Land of promise and punished vvith death in the vvildernesse for the verie same their murmuration speaker A. W. Was the eternall punishment due to this their murmuring pardoned at Moses request If it were not your example is not to the purpose for our question is of them onely who haue