for it with losse both of victorie and life Zachary is conuicted of sinne and striken with dumnes for not beleeuing the Angell and yet in all probabilitie he was as holie as his wife Elizabeth both truly but not perfectly righteous To vvill is in mee but I finde not hovv to performe If Saint Paul could not performe that which he would how can others Ans. He speakes there of auoyding all euill motions and temptations which he would willingly haue done but he could not Marry he could wel by the assistance of Gods grace subdue those prouocations to sinne and make them occasions of vertue and consequently keepe all the commandements not suffering those passions to leade him to the breach of any one of them speaker A. W. Those very motions were no other than sinnes arising from his naturall corruption and preuailing with him so farre that they ouercame him sometimes and led him captiue speaker D. B. P. The like answere we make vnto that obiection that one of the ten commandements forbids vs to couet our neighbours goods his wife or seruants which as they say is impossible but we hold that it may be well done vnderstanding the commaundement rightly which prohibiteth not to haue euill motions of couetousnes and lecherie but to yeeld our consent vnto them Now it is so possible for a man by Gods grace to refraine his consent from such wicked temptations that S. Augustine thinketh it may be done of a mortified vertuous man euen when he is a sleepe And restifieth of himselfe that waking he performed it speaker A. W. If this be the meaning of it what is it but a needlesse repetition of that which was before forbidden For who knoweth not that consent to those sinnes was condemned in the 7. and 8. Commandements Besides the Apostle might know by nature that consent to lust was sinne but the true meaning of the commandement he knew not but by the law so that withholding consent from these motions is not enough to free vs from sinning by them and yet perhaps that would not seeme so easie if wee did not flatter our selues now and then The quotation out of Austin is false and being of no great moment I passe it ouer speaker D. B. P. VVe doe all offend in many things And if vve say vve haue no sinne we deceiue our selues But if we could obserue all the law we should offend in nothing nor haue any sinne ergo Ans. I graunt that we offend in many things not because it is not possible to keepe them but for that we are fraile and easily ledde by the craft of the Diuell into many offences which we might auoide if vve were so warie and watchfull as we ought to be againe although we cannot keepe our selues from veniall offences yet may we fulfill the lavv which is not transgressed and broken vnlesse we committe some mortall sinnes For veniall sinnes either for the smalnesse of the matter or want of consideration are not so opposite to the law as that they violate the reason and purport of it although they be somewhat disagreeing vvith it But of this matter more fully in some other place speaker A. W. It is an idle speculation to imagine a Christian as Tully doth an Orator and Castiglio a Courtier And what else is he whom in this answere you fancie Such an one since the fall of Adam neuer was not in this world euer shall be Doe you not see your selfe what pitifull shifts these be Veniall sinnes disagree with the law but they do not violate the purport and reason of it Are they not against the purenes of Gods image in which we were created are they not in a naturall man damnable Our obedience is to be squared according to the commandement of God neither haue we any warrant from him to excuse our selues by the conceited reason and I know not what purport of the law For my part though I acknowledge a great difference in degrees of sinnes yet I see little reason why it should not be as mortall a sinne to be led away by carelesnes to the committing of those things which we might easily auoide as after a long and tedious fight to be led captiue by the violence of some mightie temptation For this striuing argueth a desire to please and serue God but that needlesse sinning shewes either presumption or want of ordinarie regard speaker D. B. P. Lastly it may be obiected that the way to heauen is straite and the gate narrow which is so true that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood but that which is impossible to men of themselues is made possible and easie too by the grace of God speaker A. W. Not euery thing for there are many impossible to man that are neuer made possible and easie by the grace of God So farre as it pleaseth God to make things possible so farre they are made possible But this possibilitie is not communicated to any the examples of the most righteous doe make it more than manifest Which made S. Paul to say I can doe all things in him that strengtheneth and comforteth me speaker A. W. He that confesseth he cannot doe that good he would sheweth plainly that God doth not enable him to all things which in this place are to be restrained according to the text I can doe all things that is saith your glosse I can vse all fortunes and estates well So doe Theodoret and Oecumenius take it So doe other of your Interpreters restraine it shewing that he meaneth not he can do all things but that he could not doe all those things that is be content with any estate were it not for the strength and comfort hee hath from Christ. speaker D. B. P. And the Prophet Dauid after thou O Lord hadest dilated my hart and with thy grace let it at liberty I did runne the waâ—es of thy commaundements that is I did readily and willingly performe them Of the louing of God with all our hart c. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of iustice speaker A. W. The Prophet Dauid ranne indeed and that an excellent race but not without stumbling staying and turning a little out of the way now and then as the last action in his health declareth speaker D. B. P. Hauing now confuted all that is commonly proposed to proue the impossibility of keeping Gods commandements let vs now see what we can say in proofe of the possibility of it First S. Paul is very plaine for it saying That which vvas impossible to the lavv in that it is weakned by the flesh God sending his Sonne in the similitude of flesh of sinne damned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the lavv might be fulfilled in vs vvho vvalke not according to the flesh but according vnto the spirit See how formally he teacheth that Christ dying to redeeme vs from sinne purchased vs grace
may open and shut heauen to whom he will and bind the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. speaker D. B. P. But to leaue to you the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox That the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you goe about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may chaunge and adde to his commandements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whom he will and biâ—de the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker oâ— the spirituall kâ—ngdome of Christ. Here are diuerse reasons huâ—â—â—d vp in one but all of 〈◊〉 moment for all these seuerall faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice only and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a Pseudochrist that they doe highly recommend his most singular bountie towardes his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues â—he particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods commaundements nor adde any contrarie vnto them but may well enact and establish some other conformable vnto them which doe bind in conscience for that power is graunted of God to euery soueraigne gouernour as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher povvers And that as it is in the fifth verse following of necessitie not only for vvrath but also for conscience sake So that to at tribute power vnto one that is vnder Christ to binde our consciences is not to make Christ a Pseudochrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like manner what an absurde illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue been giuen to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that Christ is made a Pseudochrist as who should say the Master spoiled himselfe of his supreame authoritie by appoynting a stevvard ouer his householde or a porter at his gates he must be both Master and Man too belike And thus much of the first instance speaker A. W. First you begge the question in taking it as granted that the Popes power is receiued of Christ. Secondly it doth not follow that Christ is not made a Pseudochrist if the power be receiued of Christ to be imployed in his seruice only For it may be imployed by the Pope to another end than it is giuen by Christ. As an armie committed to a Generall by his Soueraigne may bee turned against the Prince to his ouerthrow He that can dispense with Gods commandements so that either a man shall be freed from doing that which is inioyned or haue libertie to doe that which is forbidden can change Gods commandements But such dispensations haue been giuen by Popes and may as well be still In all things inioyned by the commandements of God the law of the Magistrate bindes men in conscience to obedience by vertue of the matter commanded In things indifferent the conscience is not alwaies charged with sinne where that which is appointed is not done but you Papists as it appeares by your Catechismes make the Commandements of the Church equall or superiour to Gods commandements The opening and shutting of heauen by the worke of the Ministerie which is the power that was giuen to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell is not to be executed at their pleasure but depends vpon the people as much as vpon them if not more For whosoeuer will repent and beleeue shall be saued though all the Popes Priests and Ministers that euer were are and shall be would shut him out of heauen Therefore the Pope hath no authoritie nor power to open the doore to one man more than to another much lesse to let in and shut out whom he list He must open it if he be a Minister of the Gospell as much as lies in him to al if they wil enter they may without any further leaue or power from him speaker W. P. Againe they call him a Sauiour but yet in Vs in that he giues this grace vnto vs that by our merits we may partake in the merits of the Saints speaker D. B. P. Come we now to the second it is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I meruaile in whom he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of any other creatures I hope not but the mischiefe is that he giues grace to vs that thereby we may merite and so become our owne Sauiours This is a phrase vnheard of among Catholiks that any man is his owne Sauiour neither doth it follow of that position that good workes are meritorious but well that we applie vnto vs the saluation which is in Christ Iesus by good works as the Protestants auouâ—h they doe by faith onely In which sence the Apostle S. Paul saith to his deare Disciple Timothie For this doing thou shalt saue both thyselfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiour infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith only good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be proued hereafter more at large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may steede them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God saith that for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shew mercy vnto thousands as is expressely said in the end of the first commandement speaker A. W. Christ is a sauiour of vs by redeeming vs not a sauiour in vs by making vs redeeme our selues Though the speech be not yours the matter is For if Christ be therefore a Sauiour because by his merits we are saued looke how much wee merit our saluation so much wee are sauiours of our selues yea how much merit there is in our workes so much there wanted in Christs satisfaction or else our saluation is in part twice merited The Minister saues not by meriting but by preaching the word of saluation works must needs diminish Christs glorie more than faith because this saues not by meriting they doe the matter cannot be deduced from such places The mercie God shewes in that respect is either for the blessings of this life or at the most for the outward meanes of saluation speaker W. P. And they acknowledge that he died and suffered
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
issue out of our soules now garnished vvith grace and such he holdeth vs to be iustified by that is made more and more iust See the place He saith directhe that we are iustified and that this iusuce doth increase whiles it doth proceed and profit speaker A. W. This labour might haue bin saued For we grant that Abraham by this glorious fact was iustified euen before God that is was knowne to be iustified or to haue true faith as he was known to feare God by it not that God was ignorant before either of his faith or feare but because it pleased him by this deed to take as it were speciall notice of them both as men doe That righteousnes is increased by holie actions I shewed before and that therefore we are iustified by them that is more sanctified speaker D. B. P. Nothing then is more certaine and cleare then that our iustification may daily be augmented and it seemeth to me that this also be granted in their opinion for they holding faith to be the only instrument of iustification cannot deny but that there are many degrees of faith it is so plainely taught in the word O yee of little faith And then a little after I haue not found so great faith in Israell And O Lord increase our saith and many such like where many different degrees of faith are mentioned How then can the iustification which depends vpon that faith not be correspondent vnto that diuersity of faith but all one Againe M. Perkins deliuereth plainly That men at the first are not so vvell assured of their saluation as they are aftervvard If then in the certainety of their saluation which is the prime effect of their iustification they put degrees they must perforce allow them in the iustification it selfe speaker A. W. Degrees of faith we deny not but increase of iustification thereupon except it be in our feeling In which respect it receiueth continuall growth but in it selfe it cannot because God doth account faith to vs for righteousnes and forgiue our sinnes not by halues but fully vpon the least measure of true beleeuing Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid bee iudged according to his righteousnesse then may hee be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnesse and therefore he was iustified thereby Answ. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnesse of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this Psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnesse of the action or innocencie of his cause in that hee was falslie charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psalm 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnesse not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glorie Obiect II. The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commaundements Yet is he not blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whom he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof Obiect III. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by prayer and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Answ. Indeed men that truly humble themselues by prayer and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merites of Christ in whom the Father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. Obiect IV. Sundrie persons in Scriptures are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all bee perfect and where there is any perfection of works there also workes may iustifie Answ. There bee two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in parts is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in all and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degree is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the very rigor therof in the highest degree Now then whereas we are commaunded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commaundements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in partes and not of perfection in degrees which cannot bee attained vnto in this life though we for our parts must dailie striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can Obiect V. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our momentarie afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Answ. Afflictions work saluation not as causes procuring it but as a meanes directing vs thereto And thus alwaies must we esteeme of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certaine way or a marke therein directing vs to glorie not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are via regni non causa regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there Obiect VI. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Answ. The proposition is false for iudgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is alreadie iust and iustification is an other act of God whereby hee maketh him to bee iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whom God hath iustified in this life Obiect VII Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Answ. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good worke of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie Obiect VIII To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by all the workes of
For if we say we haue no sin wee deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law And what can he merit that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition for one good worke done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne he leeseth his former merit but recouering grace he riseth to his former merit as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour in the person of the good Father Doe on him that is on his prodigall sonne returning home his former garment His second proposition is also false as hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question To that of S. Iames although it belong not to this matter I answere that he who offendeth in one is made guilty of all that is he shall be as surely condomned as if he had broken all See S. Augustine speaker A. W. You denie the proposition but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life which requires the keeping of the whole law you would neuer stick at it for no man can be guiltie of the whole law as euery one is that failes in any one commandement and yet deserue euerlasting life The reason of your deniall is not sufficient for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition Indeede this reason is nothing but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe That you add of a mans losing and recouering his merit is liker a dreame then a point of diuinitie as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it viz. a speech out of an allegory and that also falsly translated his former garment for that best or principall garment Your vulgar latine calls it the first garment Pagnin that principall your interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost and the ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first because it is the garment of innocency in which the first man was created which interpretation is taken out of Austin But to the matter What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice If a man haue once deserued euerlasting life why should he not haue it Or if that merit be once lost how can it be restored againe but only by Gods acceptation and then how can it be truly and properly merit You must not only say but shew too that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture Let vs grant your owne interpretation that he which breakes one commandement shall be certainely condemned how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man whereof if any one be broken the whole bond is forfeited how exactly soeuer all the rest haue bin performed what merit then can there be of life where the partie is liable to damnation speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner Giue vs this day our daily bread Wherein we acknowledge euery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine that hee can by his workes merit eternall life who cannot merit bread speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer but he handleth the matter so handsomely that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God that we must not either make it ours with our peny or trauaile we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle by the meere gift of God but according vnto S. Paules rule either labour for our liuing in some approued sort or not cate Yet because our trauailes are in vaine vnlesse God blesse them we pray to God daily to giue vs our nuriture either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth or by prospering our labours with good successe or if they be men who liue of almes by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray and much more earnestly that God will giue vs eternall life Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes which God hath appointed vs to walke in to deserue it And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit to call it a Satanicall insolencie as M. Perkins doth to thinke that eternall life can be merited when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments then to disproue or vnderstand them his reason lyes thus He that cannot merit bread cannot merit euerlasting life But no man can merit bread Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life The proposition stands vpon the comparison of inequality from the lesse to the greater for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread then to merit euerlasting life The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer wherein we beg our dayly bread which we might claime of due debt if we could deserue it In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme you tell vs that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost which is as much to purpose as if you should say we must eate our bread when we haue it if we will be fed It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we haue deserued it vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church Bernard Those which we call our merits are the way to the kingdome and not the cause of raigning speaker D. B. P. But let vs heare his last argument which is as he speaketh the consent of the auncient Church and then beginneth
Now as for M. Perkins gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of paper some profane and of Philosophie I hold them not worth the discussing being not much pertinent and auowed on his word only without either any reason or authoritie speaker A. W. Sauing the better iudgement of Chrysostome and other learned men I cannot perswade my selfe that any part of the Canonicall scripture is lost when you haue brought your proofe out of any place of the scripture I will either answere or yeeld to it But it makes nothing to your argument whether any be lost or no for as you see I deny your assumption and the proofe of it which ouerthrowes your whole reason The Iewes and the skilfullest Christians in the Rabbines and antiquities of the Iewes that I know are of a diuers iudgement from Chrysostome concerning this point speaker W. P. Obiect IV. Moses in mount Sina beside the written law receiued from God a more secret doctrine which he neuer writ but deliuered by tradition or word of mouth to the Prophets after him and this the Iewes haue now set downe in their Cabala Answ. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes whom in effect and substance sundry Papists follow but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage For if Moses had knowne any secret doctrine beside the written law he could neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins his fourth obiection of the Iewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this Moses who was the pen man of the old Law committed not all to vvriting but deliuered certaine points needfull to saluation by Tradition nor any Lavv-maker that euer was in any Country comprehended all in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likely that our Christian Lavv should be all vvritten speaker A. W. Your argument is in effect all one with his but let vs take yours Moses committed all to writing that was necessarie to saluation so doe all wise lawmakers and if any thing be left vnprouided for that is of moment it is because the lawgiuer perceiued it not or knew not how to helpe it which in Gods lawes and Moses the holie Ghosts Scribes writing could be no hinderances For what is there that God seeth not by his wisedome or cannot order as he list by his power speaker D. B. P. That Moses did not pen all thus vve proue It vvas as necessarie for vvomen to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedy for men could not possibly be applied to vvomen as euery one vvhoknovveth vvhat circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the vvritten lavv to deliuer vvomen from that sin Therefore some other remedie for them vvas deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. Circumcision was not prouided for remedie of originall sinne any more than for actuall neither did it remedie the one or the other nay it was not of Moses appointing but was long before him The remedie for all sinne is the sacrifice of the Messiah the meanes to applie it faith which Moses taught in diuers places of those fiue bookes If women without circumcision cannot be freed from originall sinne how were Adam and Eue freed and all that died before God enioyned it to Abraham speaker D. B. P. Item if the Child vvere likly to die before the eight day there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no vvhere vvritten in the Lavv Also many Gentiles during that state of the old Testament vvere saued as Iob and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Lavv or any other part of the old Testament it is not vvritten vvhat they had to beleeue or how they should liue vvherefore many things needfull to saluation vvere then deliuered by Tradition speaker A. W. The remedie for infants aswell before the eight day as vpon it and after it was the mercie of God vpon his couenant As for the meanes you would imagine which were you cannot tell what and deuised by you cannot tel whom remember what you answered about the Chaldee word in Daniel To meanes and authors in the ayre no thing need be nor can be answered speaker D. B. P. To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any part of the Scripture I ansvvere that God permiteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue vvhat was then lost Although God in his prouidence permits much euill it followes not nor is at al likely that he would suffer his own holie word indited by his spirit to perish Neither can it helpe the matter that tradition might preserue the truth vnlesse God should miraculously hold in men from mingling their inuentions with his traditions Experience makes the matter cleere few things or none yet remaining that are indeede of antiquitie both for the substance and vse of them But what answere you to Master Perkins other reason out of S. Paul That was too heauie for your shoulders speaker W. P. Obiect V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods word is of two sortes milk and strong meate By milke we must vnderstand the worde of God written wherein God speakes plainely to the capacitie of the rudest but strong meate is vnwritten traditions a doctrine not to bee deliuered vnto all but to those that grow to perfection Answ. We must know that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate in regard of the manner of handling and propounding of it For being deliuered generally and plainely to the capacitie of the simplest it is milke but beeing handled particularly and largely and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding it is strong meate As for example the doctrine of the creation of mans fall and redemption by Christ when it is taught ouerly and plainly it is milke but when the depth of the same is throughly opened it is strong meate And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine to imagine that some vn written word is meant by strong meate speaker A. W. Novv insteed of M. Perkins his fift reason for vs of milke and strong meate vvishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I vvill set dovvne some authorities out of the vvritten Word in proofe of Traditions I make no question but Master Perkins had al the reasons he propounds for you in any matter in some of your owne writers as perhaps hereafter vpon better search at more leisure I shall finde and prooue to all the world To the testimonies I answere in generall that no argument can be drawne from any or all of them to proue that any doctrine necessarie to saluation is to be learned by tradition and is not written in the Scripture Let any
A DEFENCE OF M. PERKINS BOOKE CALLED A REFORMED CATHOLIKE Against the cauils of a Popish writer one D. B. P. or W. B. in his deformed Reformation By Antony Wotton AT LONDON Imprinted by FELIX KYNGSTON for Cuthbert Burby and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Swan 1606. THE PRINCIPAL POINS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE 1. Of Antichrist pag. 41. 2. Of Freewill pag. 64. 3. Of Originall sinne pag. 95. 4. Of the certaintie of saluation pag. 124. 5. Of Iustification pag. 163. 6. Of inherent iustice pag. 184. 7. Of iustifying faith what it is pag. 195. 8. How faith iustifieth pag. 206. 9. That faith alone iustifieth pag. 212. 10. Of good workes how farre forth they are required to iustification pag. 239. 11. Whether it be possible for a man that is iustified to fulfill the law of God pag. 258. 12. Whether good workes be stained with sinne pag. 265. 13. Whether faith may be without charitie pag. 277. 14. Whether faith may be without good workes pag. 285. 15. Of merits pag. 287. 16. Of satisfaction pag. 344. 17. Of Traditions pag. 399. 18. Of vowes pag. 469. 19. Of the vow of single life pag. 487. 20. Of wilfull pouerty pag. 508. 21. Of regular obedience pag. 522. 22. Of Images pag. 524. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE ROBERT EARLE OF SALISBVRIE VICOVNT Cranborne Baron of Essingdon Principall Secretarie to his Maiestie Master of the Court of Wards and Liueries one of his Highnesse most Honourable Priuie Councell and Chancellor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge RIght Honourable it hath pleased God to vouchsafe your Lordship no small honour in the profession of Christianity that you haue not onely beleeued the truth of the Gospell but also are made partaker of that glorie of his children to suffer for it To you it is giuen saith the Apostle to the Philippians for Christ that not onely you should beleeue in him but also suffer for his sake Giuen as if it were a speciall fauour which no man attaines to but they only to whom it is granted by priuiledge from God To you it is giuen saith our Sauiour to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen And in another place No man can come vnto me except it bee giuen him of my Father This gift the Lord hath bestowed vpon your Honour that they which are enemies to him should be persecutors of you euen to the death if it lay in their power for his quarrell But the gratious prouidence of God hath manifestly shewed it selfe in this whole action on your Lordships behalfe in that not only you are still preserued in despight of them but also that you hold on that noble and Christian resolution to prouide for the sasctie of Religion his Maiesties person and estate with the hazard of your owne life regarding more what your Lordship ought to doe in dutie to God and your Soueraigne then what you may suffer by men for so doing Now on their part who can say whether their malice or their follie is the greater when I consider the height of their hatred that reacheth euen to the taking away of life which is in Gods hands me thinkes I am not able to looke beyond it But when I remember their desperate resoluing to commit such a murther so openly and their extreame indiscretion in acquainting your Lordship with their intendment it seemes to me that the lightnes of their follie exceeds the waight of their malice So that they giue all men iust occasion to suspect that God hath giuen them ouer into a reprobate sense as to destroy their soules by intending such a bloody sinne so to cast away their liues also by attempting it with so great follie But leauing them to the mercie and iustice of God for repentance or confusion giue me leaue Right Honourable to put your Lordship in minde of that which I make no doubt but you know and thinke on viz. That the Lord God hauing taken your person estate and honour into his protection against these and such like conspiracies looketh for continuance and increase of zeale and care in your Lordship for the securing as much as may be in your power of his holy religion and his worthie Lieutenant our gratious Soueraignes person and dignitie Now the knowledge of danger being a good helpe to the auoyding of it The Lord himselfe seemes to haue taken halfe the care alreadie in discouering those that haue bin are and will be the continuall practisers of his Maiesties ruine I were more than conceited and foolish if I could but thinke my selfe either able or fit to aduise your Lordship in matters of this nature Yet let me humbly entreate your Honour to vouchsafe the reading of that which in my poore thoughts I haue apprehended That the safetie of Princes dependeth vpon the good pleasure of God it is out of all question especially in their account who aduisedly and thankfully remember the late wonderfull and gratious deliuerance neuer to be forgotten Neither can it be doubted but it is Gods good pleasure to preserue them as long as they haue care to walke in obedience to him especially in prouiding for his glorie by maintaining and aduancing the true religion of Iesus Christ. So then the safetie of religion is the securitie of the Prince and the decay of Gods true seruice the forerunner of the Kings destruction As this is true in generall concerning all Kings and Gouernours so hath it an especiall euidence of truth in his Maiesties particular For it is apparant to euery man that the Papists quarrell to his Maiestie is not for hatred of his person but of his religion And therefore so farre foorth will they plot against the former as they can see likelihood of aâ—chieuing the latter His danger groweth by their hope and their despaire of bringing in Popish idolatrie must needs be the securitie of his life and state Are wee then desirous to rid his Maiestie of this danger and the whole state of this feare we see the meanes of accomplishing that desire to bee no other than to prouide that true religion may grow and flourish and Popish idolatrie fade and wither For neither may wee looke for any blessing from God on the Common-wealth if he be continually dishonoured amongst vs by the encrease of Popish heresie nor reasonably promise our selues any end of treacherous and bloodie enterprises as long as Papists conceiue hope of preuailing for Antichrist by such attempts If their number daily encrease how should their hope lessen And how is it possible to keepe it from growing if thousands in this kingdome remaining in their ignorance be left as pray to seducing Priests and Iesuits The conclusion is that if there be not some religious and wise care taken as to instruct the people in the knowledge of Gods truth which is the principall so to ferrit out those lurking Serpents that breathe Idolatrie and treason into the hearts of his Maiesties people and
Origenist taught that sinne was not taken away in Baptisme but only couered as is recorded by that holy man and auncient Father Eâ—…anius M. Perâ—ins in the name of the Church of England affirmeth in like manner that originall sinne remaineth still and raigneth in the regenerate albeit it is not imputed vnto them speaker A. W. Neither Methodius out of whom Epiphanius recites Proclus opinions in many leaues together word for word nor Epiphanius himselfe refute that of the remainders of sin after Baptisme rather they both confesse that the sproutes and branches of concupiscence abide in vs yea that sinne dwels in vs by which the diuell preuailes The Apostle saith Methodius Rom. 7. seemes to make a three-fold law The first the law of the minde according to that good that is ingrafted in vs. The second by the assault of the diuell vrging and distracting the minde by imaginations full of passion The third which triumphs in the flesh by sinne which the Apostle calles the law of sinne dwelling in our members That Hierom is of our opinion in this point it appeares in his booke against the Pelagians speaker D. B. P. Iouinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine for defending honest Marriage to be of equall vertue and merite with chaste Virginitie and saith further that this heresie was so sottish and fleshly that it could not deceiue any one learned Priest but onely some few simple and carnall women Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirme that marriage is not only equall but better also in diuers respects than Virginitie speaker A. W. S. Austin was neither so ancient nor so holie as S. Paul hauing him on our side we neede not feare the other But the report you make of him is vntrue For these are his words in English This heresie preuailed so much in the citie of Rome that it is said to haue throwne into the estate of mariage euen some vowed virgins of whose chastitie there had been no suspition before So farre is Augustine from calling them simple and carnall Beside he addes though you will not be knowne of it that he weakned and ouerthrew the holy single life of holie men by rehearsing and commending the Fathers Abraham Isaack Iacob who were married men And whereas he saith it could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests for learned and any one is your glosse besides the text he seemes to attribute it to the short continuance thereof It was saith he quickly opprest and extinguished and could not come to the deceiuing of any Priests speaker D. B. P. The same olde reprobate heretike barked also against approoued feasts and fasting dayes so doe most of our Ministers at this time speaker A. W. Our Ministers doe all generally approoue both of feasts and fasting daies keeping the former more religiously than you doe ordinarily the Sabbath The latter we obserue with reuerence and humilitie whensoeuer they are appointed Fish daies superstitiously abused by you are ciuilly retained by vs with lesse riot than your selues doe vse speaker D. B. P. Vigilantius was sharpely reprooued by S. Hierome in a booke written against him and hath been euer since vnto this day esteemed a wicked heretike for denying prayer to Saints and honour to be done vnto their Reliâ—es And yet what poynt of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants than this speaker A. W. Erasmus not without cause findes want of modestie in that treatise of Hieroms he might haue found want of truth too if Vigilantius held no worse opinion than those you recite But of the former namely praying to Saints neither the one nor the other speakes a word And indeede it was not the manner in those daies to pray to the Martyrs but to pray at their Tombes which custome it should seeme remained till that time according to the former practise of the Christians who assembled ordinarily where the Martyrs were buried before they were suffered to haue any Churches speaker A. W. In like sorte one Aërius to the Arrian heresie added this of his owne That we must not pray for the soules of our friends departed as S. Augustine hath registred And doe not all Protestants imbrace and earnestly defend the same This doctrine of prayer for the dead the deniall whereof is counted an errour in Aërius hath no foundation in the Scripture but was built vpon the tradition of the Fathers as he from whom Austin takes the accusation confesseth speaker A. W. A common custome it was of the Arrians and of other more auncient heretikes to reiect all Traditions and to rely onely vpon the written word as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine Doe not ours the same reiecting all Traditions as Mans Inuention A perilous error no doubt to rest wholy vpon the written word that is to beleeue none but God in matters of his owne worship and religion Ireneus in the places alleaged hath no word of reiecting traditions rather hee speakes the contrarie of Simon Maguâ— who reiected the Scripture to establish his owne deuices S. Austin findes no fault with Maximinus for resting vpon the Scriptures nor indeede reasonably could for it is his own doctrine in that conference with the Heretike and other where speaker D. B. P. Xeaâ—…s a Barbaâ—ous Persian indeed yet in shew a counterfeited Christian is noted for one of the first among Christians that inueyed against the Images of Saints and the worship done by true Christians vnto them as both Nicephorus and Cedâ—… comppenâ—… doe recorde The reprobate Iewes indeede before him and after euen vntill this day the misâ—râ—anâ— Turkes enemies of all Christianitie doe dwell still in the same erâ—…r And yet is not this most vehemently auerâ—ed by our Protestants and all â—aluiâ—â—sts although they cannot denie but that aboue 900. yeares agoe in the second generall Councell holden at Nice they are by the conâ—â—nt of the best and most learned of the world for euer accursed that doe denie reuerence and worshippe to be giuen vnto the Images of Saints speaker A. W. Nicephorus you should haue added Callistus that the reader might haue knowne whom you meant and haue quoted lib. 16. not 10. who liued not 400. yeeres since and Cedrenus who liued as it is thought about the yeere 1058. are neither of antiquitie nor credit to auow a historie not recorded by any of their ancients But how could Xenaias about the yeere 478. be one of the first if the Commentarie vpon Damascen say true That the worshipping of Images was condemned as superstitious by some about the beginning of the Gospell preached Cedrenus saith be was one of the first Callistus after him more then 200. yeeres saith he was the first speaker D. B. P. The second Councel of Nice was a conuenticle of Idolaters neither of the best nor of the most learned and was presently after
will doubtles in short time loath it As for example I hat it is as good and godly by eating to feede the bodie as to chastize it by fasting That it is as holy to fulfill the fleshly desires of it by Mariage as by Continencie to mortifie them yea that it is flat against the word of God to vow Virginitie And also contrarie to his blessed will to bestowe our goods on the poore and to giue our selues wholy to prayer and fasting All which this Aduocate of the English Congregation teacheth expressâ—e Is this the puritie of the Gospell Or is it not rather the high way to Epicurisme and to all worldly vanitie and iniquitie speaker A. W. To chastice the bodie by fasting wee hold it not only good but of tentimes necessary though we acknowledge neither merit nor satisfaction in it which accompanie your popish fasts Mortification of all kindes of lusts not only that one we account a necessarie part of sanctification neither doe wee allow mariage to fulfill the lust of the flesh but to remedie it vowing of virginitie we approoue not because a man cannot be sure that he shall keepe his vow alwaies though for a time he be able besides all lawfull vowes being things indifferent charitie must giue iudgement of excediencie in making thâ—n To make prayer and fasting our whole worke is to liue in the world without a calling To giue away our goods to the poore so to become chargeable to others is to tempt God and burthen the Church to doe it with opinion of merit is popish pride against Gods glorie speaker D. B. P. I neede not ioyne hereunto that they teach it to be impossible to keepe Gods Commaundements and therefore in vaine to goe about it And faâ—ther that the best worke of the righteous man is defiled with sinne Wherefore as good for him to leane all vndone as to doe any Nay if this position of theirs were true it would to low necessarilie that all men were bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doe any good deede to long as they liue for that their good deede being stayned with sinne cannot but deserue the hyre of sinne which according to the Apostle is Death euerlasting If your Maiesties important affaires would once permit you to consider maturely of these impieties and many other like absurdities wherewith the Protestant Doctrine is stuffed I dare be bold to say that you would speedely either commaund them to reforme themselues and amend their errors or fairely giue them their Congie speaker A. W. We say it is impossible to keepe Gods commandements perfectly to iustification but wee denie that therefore it is in vaine to goe about it Yea we truly affirme that we are bound to doe our best endeuour and shall haue acceptation and reward of our workes from God though not vpon any desert of ours That our best workes are tainted with imperfections we professe plainly That they are therefore to be left vndone neither we say nor you can prooue The imperfection that cleaues to them is by all good meanes to be auoyded but the workes to be performed for it is not the worke but the imperfection in it that is forbidden speaker D. B. P. I will close vp this my second reason with this Epiphoneme That it is impossible for a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his ovvne Religion to hope for any saluation For they doe and needes must graunt that no man can be saued without a liuely faith and also that a liuely faith cannot be without charitie for otherwise it were dead Now then to the purpose No Protestant can haue charitie for as witnesseth Saint Iohn This is the charitie of God that vve keepe his commaundements But it is impossible according to the Protestants to keepe the commandements therfore also impossible to haue charitie VVhich is the â—ulnes of the lavve and consequently impossible to haue a liuely faith which cannot be without charitie And so finally through want of that lâ—uely feeling faith whereby they should lay hold on Christs righteousnesse to hale and apply that vnto themselues they can haue no hope at all of any fauour and grace at Gods hands Without which they must needes assure themselues of eternall damnation in steede of their pretended certainâ—… of saluation speaker A. W. True charitie though not perfect may be had in this life and by it the commandements of God may bee and are kept though not perfectly so that a Protestant firmely cleaning to the grounds of his religion may yet hope for saluation speaker D. B. P. To these two arguments gathered out of the treatise following I adde a third collected from these your owne memorable wordes related in the aboue named conference viz. Are wee now come to that passe that we must appeache Constantine of Poperie and superstition Which argueth that your Maiestie iudgeth them to haue little regard of either piety or ciuility that would admit such a thought into their minde as that the first Christian Emperour our most renowned countriman should bee nousled and brought vp in superstition wherein your Maiestie hath great reason for he was most carefully instructed and taught the Christian Religion by such holy Confessors whose sinceritie in faith had bin tried in the hotte furnace of many strange persecutions And he farther had the good happe to see and heare together in the first generall Councell of Nice many of the holiest and best learned Bishops of Christendome Therefore is it most vnlikely that so Royall a Person deuoted to Religion add hauing so good meanes to attayne to the perfect knowledge thereof as no man could haue better should neuerthelesse in the purest time of it be mis-ledde into errour and superstition If then it may be prooued that this most Christian Emperour the glittering ornament of our noble Iland did beleeue such articles of the present Roman Church as the Protestants teach not to be beleeued Will not your Maiestie rather ioyne in faith with so peeâ—les a Prince who by the consent of all antiquitie was for certaine right well enformed then with these whome doubtles most men deeme to be pittifullie deceiued ' Now that Constantine was of the same opinion in matter of Religion with the present Church of Rome may euidently bee gathered out of this that followeth speaker A. W. He that denies Constantine to haue been a worthie a singular instrument of God for the good of his Church wrongs the worthie Emperour and sinnes against God But the triall of doctrine is to be fetched not from the opinions and examples of men though neuer so holie but from the Holie of Holies It may not seeme strange if superstition were crept into the Church before Constantines time when the Apostle witnesses that euen in his daies the mysterie of iniquitie was alreadie begun speaker D. B. P. First he was so affectionate vnto the signe of the Crosse that hee
such a weightie matter will permitte Yet I hope with that perspicuitie as the meaner learned may vnderstand it and with such substance of proofe both out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers as the more iudicious to vvhose profit it is principallie dedicated may not contemne it speaker A. W. I will labour as much as I can both for plainnes and shortnes in all the seuerall points not doubting but by the grace of God to maintaine Master Perkins reasons and answers against all your cauils speaker W. P. The first point wherewith I meane to begin shall be the point of Freewill though it be not the principall I. Our consent speaker W. P. Freewill both by them and vs is taken for a mixt power in the mind and will of man whereby discerning what is good and what is euill hee doth accordingly chuse or refuse the same speaker D. B. P. That I be not thought captious but willing to admit any thing that M. Perkins hath said agreeable to the truth I will let his whole text in places indifferent passe paring off only superfluous words with adding some annotations where it shall be needfull and rest onely vpon the points in controuersie First then concerning free-will wherewith he beginneth thus he saith Free vvill both by them and vs c. speaker W. P. Annot. If we would speake formally it is not a mixt power in the mind and will but is a free facultie of the mind and will only whereby we choose or refuse supposing in the vnderstanding a knowledge of the same before But let this definition passe as more populer Your correcting of Master Perkins definition passeth my vnderstanding for if it be a a facultie both of the minde and will out of doubt it is a mixt facultie But it is more strange that you adde only of the minde onely or of the will onely are speeches that haue some reason in them but of the minde and will onely is a phrase implying a contradiction vnlesse there be some third part of the soule vnknown to ordinarie Philosophers whereof free will may be suspected to be a facultie I. Conclus Man must bee considered in a fourefold estate as he was created as he was corrupted as he is renewed as he shall be glorified In the first estate we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill in the third liberty of grace in the last liberty of glory speaker D. B. P. Annot. Carry this in mind that here he granteth man in the state of grace to haue free will All the doubt is of the second estate and yet therein also we agree as the conclusions following will declare II. Conclus The matters whereabout freewill is occupied are principally the actions of men which bee of three sorts naturall humane spirituall Naturall actions are such as are common to men with beasts as to eate drinke sleepe heare see smell taste and to mooue from place to place in all which we ioyne with the Papists and hold that man hath free will and euen since the fall of Adam by a naturall power of the minde doth freely performe any of these actions or the like III. Conclus Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad as to speake and vse reason the practise of all mechanicall and liberall arts and the outward performance of ciuill and Ecclesiasticall duties as to come to the Church to speake and preach the word to reach out the hand to receiue the Sacrament and to lend the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues as namely Iustice temperance gentlenesse liberalitie And in these also wee ioyne with the Church of Rome and say as experience teacheth that men haue a naturall freedome of will to put them or not to put them in execution Paul saith Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles that haue not the lawe doe the things of the law by nature that is by naturall strength and hee saith of himselfe that before his conuersion touching the righteousnesse of the law he was vnblameable Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall obedience natural men receiue reward in temporall things Matth. 6. 5. Ezech. 29. 19. And yet here some caueats must be remembred I. That in humane actions he should haue said morall saith D. B. P. mans will is weake and feeble and his vnderstanding dimme and darke and thereupon he often failes in them This caueat is no caueat of the Protestants but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquine saith D. B. P. And in all such actions with Augustine you might haue quoted the place â—aith D. B. P. I vnderstand the will of man to be onely wounded or halfe dead speaker A. W. Humane is more generall and more fit because morall cannot comprehend the first ranke of actions in the beginning of the section Besides it may be Master Perkins thought it not fit to giue that title to any actions of naturall men because none of them are performed according to the Philosophers definition of morall vertue by a habit with due obseruation of the circumstances required by him howsoeuer they are magnified by you Papists The caueat is not taken out of those places wherein Thomas shewes no more but that a man cannot by his naturall strength either fulfill the law or auoide sinne The place is quoted in the margin Hypognostic lib. 3. which you shal finde in tome 7. of Austins works though indeed the book be thought to be none of Austins speaker W. P. II. That the will of man is vnder the will of God and therefore to be ordered by it as Ieremie saith chap. 10. vers 23. O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is in man to walke or direct his steps Who knowes not this saith D. B. P. speaker A. W. If there be no man that knowes it not perhaps euery man remembers it not and it is a caueat necessarie for this question The Prophet in the place brought by Master Perkins so speakes of it to God as if it were not knowne to all men O Lord I know that the way of man c. And to say the truth how can any man bee said to know it that fetches the knowledge which God hath of things depending on mans will from the sight of the things from all eternitie present to him For the thing must needs be in the order of nature at least before it can be knowne to be But of this point when iust occasion shall be offered about Predestination speaker W. P. IV. Conclus The third kinde of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart and conscience and these be twofold they either concerne the kingdome of darknes or else the kingdome of God Those that concerne the kingdome of darknesse are sinnes properly and in these we likewise
will but to will indeede I say of this as of the former that it is not contrarie to our doctrine for we acknowledge that in our iustification and saluation after election we worke with God but not as I haue often answered by any naturall power of our free will nor by any choyse of our owne to which we are not inclined and brought by Gods spirit We say with S. Austin both in words and meaning that true religion neither denies free will either to a good or bad life nor giues so much to it that it should be of any force without grace and we adde that therefore your religion is false because it affirmes that the will of man can by nature assent to a good motion inspired So to commend free will is indeede to deny grace but to holde them both as I haue proued Austin did out of these very places which you alleage for your opinion and as we doe going not an haires breadth from him in this question is to glorifie Gods mercie and confesse our owne weaknes which is the end of his loue to vs in the whole worke of our saluation III. Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. Obiect I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good and therefore will that which is good for none can doe that which hee neither willeth nor thinketh to doe but first wee must will and then doe Now say they men can doe good by nature as giue almes speake the trueth doe iustice and practise other duties of ciuill vertue and therefore will that which is good I answer that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke but not in regarde of the goodnesse of the manner these are two diuers things A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes doe iustice speake the truth c. which bee good things considered in themselues as God hath commaunded them but he cannot doe them well To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes but to thinke good things in a good manner and to doe them well so as God may accept the action done are workes of grace And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne in respect of the doer because it failes both for his right beginning which is a pure heart good conscience and faith vnfained as also for his end which is the glory of God speaker D. B. P. Novv in fevv vvords I vvill passe ouer the obiections vvhich he frameth in our names But misapplieth them First Obiection That man can doe good by nature as giue almes do Iustice speake the truth c. And therefore vvill them vvithout the helpe of grace This argument we vse to proue liberty of wil in ciuil and morall matters euen in the corrupted state of man and it doth demonstrate it and M. Perkins in his third conclusion doth graunt it An â—his answere here is farre from the purpose for albeit saith he touching the substance of the worke it be good yet it faileth both in the beginning because it proceeds not from a pure hart and a faith vnfeined and also in the end wâ—ich is not the glory of God Ansvvere It faileth neither in the one nor other for that almes may issue out of a true naturall compassion which is a sufficient good fountaine to make a worke morally good faith and grace do purge the hart and are necessarie onely for good and meritorious workes Againe being done to relieue the poore mans necessity God his Creator Master is thereby glorified And so albeit the man thought not of God in particular yet God being the finall end of all good any good action of it selfe is directed tovvards him vvhen the man putteth no other contrarie end thereunto speaker A. W. Master Perkins as any man may see grants a freedome of will in morall actions but denies those actions to be good in regard of the goodnes of the manner and afterward A man may giue almes c. which are good things considered as they are commanded of God but hee cannot doe them wel that is so as God may accept of the action done If you will replie vpon M. Perkins you must proue that such workes of a naturall man will be accepted of God but that you cannot do For the person must be accepted before the worke and without faith he cannot be accepted nor haue faith being a naturall man The summe of the answere is if it be not done as the law requires it is not a good worke if it be it is meritorious and so must be accepted of God speaker W. P. Obiect II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof beeing helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue and repent Ans. This reason is not good for by such commaundements God shewes not what men are able to doe but what they should doe and what they cannot doe Againe the reason is not well framed it ought rather to bee thus because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue therefore they haue power to repent and beleeue either by nature or by grace and then we hold with them For when God in the Gospel commandeth men to repent and to beleeue at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent as also actually to repent and beleeue speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect God hath commaunded all to beleeue and repent therefore they haue naturall free will by vertue whereof being helped by the spirit of God they can beleeue The force of the argument consisteth in this that God being a good Lord will not commaund any man to doe that which he is no way able to doe Ans. M. Perkins ansvvereth in effect for his vvords be obscure that God commaundeth that vvhich we be not able to performe but that which we should doe Then I hope he vvill admitte that he vvill enable vs by his grace to doe it or else hovv should vve doe it God surely doth not bind vs by commandement to any impossible thing he is no tyrant but telleth vs that his yoke is sweet and his burthen easie And S. John vvitnesseth that his commaundements are not heauy He vvas farre off from thinking that God vvould tye any man by lavv to doe that which he was altogether vnable to performe This in the end M. Perkins himselfe approueth speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies the consequence of the enthymem viz. That therefore men haue free will to beleeue and repent because God commands them to beleeue and repent you to helpe the matter giue a reason of the consequence God being a good Lord will not command any man to do that which he is no way able to do therefore since God commands men to beleeue and repent they haue free will to beleeue and repent Here the
consequence is worse than before for who sees not that there may be other meanes of beleeuing repenting namely inclining the wil by grace The antecedent also is false for God being a good Lord may inioyne his seruant that which he made him able to performe though by his owne fault he be now vnable speaker W. P. Obiect III. If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sinne then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he finneth by a necessitie not to bee auoided Answere The reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore he is to be punished as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debtes because he is not able to pay them but the bils against him stand in force because the debt comes through his owne default speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect If man haue no free will to sinne or not to sin then no man is to be punished for his sinnes because he sinneth by a necessity not to be auoided He answereth that the reason is not good for though man cannot but sinne yet is the fault in himselfe and therefore is to be punished Against which I say that this answere supposeth that which is false to wit that a man in sinne cannot choose but sinne for by the helpe of God who desireth all sinners conuersion and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient a sinner in a moment may call for grace and repent him and so choose whether he will sin or no and consequently hath free vvill to sin or not to sin And that example of a bankerupt is not to purpose for he cannot when he will satisfie his creditours who content not themselues vvith his repentance vvithout repay of their money as God doth speaker A. W. Here againe Master Perkins denies the consequence that therefore a man is not to be punished for sinning because he hath no free will to sinne or not to sinne The reason of his denial is that which I answered in the second obiection he may iustly be punished though he haue not free will not to sinne because it is by his owne fault that he hath it not You replie that the answere supposeth that which is false The answere doth not suppose it but as I haue shewed plainly denies the consequence How your conceit that euery man hath helpe of God so that he may repent and beleeue when he will can stand with Austins iudgement before set downe let euery man that hath reason consider The example of the bankerupt is fully to the purpose for which Master Perkins brings it to shew that a man is not alwaies therfore to be borne with for not doing that which hee is inioyned because hee cannot doe it for when it is through his owne fault that hee cannot why should hee escape Now concerning the force of this argument heare S. Augustines opinion in these wordes Neither are we here to search obscure bookes to learne that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment which doth not that vvhich he cannot doe for saith he doe not shepheards vpon the dovvnes sing these things doe not Poets vpon the stages act them Doe not the vnlearned in their assemblies and the learned in their libraries acknovvledge them Doe not maisters in the schooles and Prelats in the pulpits and finally all mankind throughout the vvhole vvorld confesse and teach this to wit that no man is to be punished because he did that which he could not choose but doe Should he not then according to S. Augustines censure be hissed out of all honest company of men that denieth this so manifest a truth confessed by all Mankind How grosse is this heresie that so hoodeth a man and hardneth him that be he learned yet he blusheth not to deny roundly that which is so euident in reason that euen naturall sense doth teach it vnto shepheards God of his infinite mercie deliuer vs from this straunge light of the new Gospell speaker A. W. Saint Austin disputing in that booke against the Manichees who hold that there were two soules in euery creature of two diuers substances the one good the other bad by which they are forced to doe good or euill as either of them could ouercome other refutes them by this reason among other that if men doe well or ill by constraint they were neither to be praised nor dispraised for it That he is thus to be vnderstood not onely the course of his disputation shewes but also the definition that he brings of will Will saith Austin is a motion of the minde no man constraining it to the not losing or to the getting of something I shewed before that we admit no such necessitie of sinning but onely affirme that whatsoeuer a naturall man doth it is sinfull so that wee grant him libertie from constraint for the doing or not doing this or that action but denie that any action he doth is free from sinne and therefore he sins necessarily in all he doth The second poynt Of Originall sinne speaker W. P. The next point to be handled is concerning Originall sinne after baptisme that is how farforth it remaineth after baptisme A point to bee well considered because hereupon depend many points of Poperie I. Our consent Conclus I. They say naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished and so say we but let vs see how farre it is abolished In originall sinne are three things I. the punishment which is the first and second death II. Guiltines which is the binding vp of the creature vnto punishment III. the fault or the offending of God vnder which I comprehend our guiltines in Adams first offence as also the corruption of the heart which is a naturall inclination and pronenes to any thing that is euill or against the law of God For the first wee say that after baptisme in the regenerate the punishment of originall sin is taken away There is no condemnation saith the Apostle to them that be in Christ Iesus Rom. 8. 1. For the second that is guiltines we further condescend and say that is also taken away in them that are borne anew for considering there is no condemnation to them there is nothing to bind them to punishment Yet this caueat must be remembred namely that the guiltines is remoued from the person regenerate not from the sinne in the person but of this more afterward Thirdly the guilt in Adams first offence is pardoned And touching the corruption of the heart I auouch two things I. That that very power or strength whereby it raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate II. That this corruption is abolished as also the fault of euery actual sinne past so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whom it is Indeede it remaines till death and it is sinne considered in it selfe so long as it remaines but it is not imputed
vnto the person and in that respect is as though it were not it being pardoned Annotations vpon our Consent speaker D. B. P. First we say not that the punishment of Originall sinne is in it or any part of it but rather a due correction and as it were an expulsion of it this is but a peccadillo speaker A. W. Neither doe we say that the punishment of originall sin is in it or any part of it but that in handling that point it is to be considered much lesse doe we charge you with saying so What it is you call a peccadillo or small sinne I vnderstand not certainly If you meane that originall sinne is small and deserues no punishment but a due correction either the death of all men in Adam is no punishment or God punisheth without desert speaker D. B. P. But there lurketh a Serpent in that caueat that the guiltines of Originall sinne is remoued from the person regenerate but not from the sinne in the person The like he saith afterward of the fault that it is a sinne still in it selfe remaining in the man till death but it is not imputed to him as being pardoned Here hee quillets of very strange Doctrine the sinne is pardoned and yet the guiltines of it is not taken away Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned all bond of punishment due vnto it and consequently all guiltines belonging to it Who can deny this vnlesse he know not or care not what he say If then Originall sinne be perdoned the guiltines of it is also remoued from it selfe Againe what Philosophy or reason alloweth vs to say that the offendour being pardoned for his offence the offence in it self remaineth guilty as though the offence separated from the person were a substance subiect to law and capable of punishment can Originall sinne in itselfe die the first and second death or be bound vp to them What senselesse imaginations be these speaker A. W. The sinne is pardoned so that the partie shall not be punisht for it but it is not so pardoned that in it self it hath not iust cause of punishment and this both philosophie and reason allow all our actuall sinnes are pardoned as soone as we beleeue in Christ and yet they are truly sinnes whensoeuer afterward they are committed by vs. speaker D. B. P. Againe how can the fault of Originall sinne remaine in the man renewed by Gods grace although not imputed can there be two contrarios in one part of the subiect at once can there be light and darknes in the vnderstanding vertue and vice in the wil at the same instant can the soule be both truly conuerted to God and as truly auerted from him at one time is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial and the holy Ghost oontent to inhabit a body subiect to sinne all which must be granted contrary to both Scripture and naturall sense if we admit the â—ault and deformitie of sinne to remaine in a man renewed and indued with Gods grace vnlesse we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sinne were not inherent and placed in their proper subiects but were drawne thence and penned vp in some other oddâ— corner speaker A. W. Remember also gentle Reader that here M. Perkins affirmeth the power whereby the corruption of the hart raigneth in man is taken away in the regenerate which is cleane contrary to the first proposition of his first reason following as shall be there proued Not being imputed hinders not the being of the thing there but rather proues it for if it were not there what fauour were it not to impute it Who knowes not that contraries may bee in one part of the same subiect at once though not in the same respect Do we not while we are here know in part and so remaine ignorant in part Is not our wil imperfectly reformed The holy Ghost is not content that the bodie he doth inhabit should be subiect to sinne and therefore hee labours continually to free it from that subiection but he is content to inhabit the man whom he hath begun to reforme that hee may purge him thoroughly II. The dissent or difference speaker W. P. Thus far wee consent with the Church of Rome now the difference betweene vs stands not in the abolishment but in the manner and the measure of the abolishment of this sinne Papists teach that Originall sinne is so farre sorth taken away after baptisme that it ceaseth to bee a sin properly and is nothing else but a want defect and weakenes making the heart fitte and readie to conceiue sinne much like tinder which though it be not fire of it selfe yet is it very apt and fit to conceiue fire And they of the Church of Rome denie it to be sinne properly that they might vphold some grosse opinions of theirs namely That a man in this life may fulfill the law of God and doe good workes void of sinne that hee may stand righteous at the barre of Gods iudgement by them But wee teach otherwise that though original sinne be taken away in the regenerate and that in sundrie respects yet doth it remaine in them after baptisme not only as a want and weakenes but as a sinne and that properly as may by these reasons be prooued Reason I. Rom. 7. 17. Paul saith directly It is no more I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in me that is originall sinne The Papists answere againe that it is so called improperly because it commeth of sinne and also is an occasion of sinne to be done speaker A. W. I approue this interpretation of S. Paul as taken out of that auncient and famous Papist Saint Augustine who saith expresly Concupiscence whereof the Apostle speaketh although it be called sinne yet is it not so called because it is sinne but for that it is made by sinne aâ— vvriting is called the hand because it is made by the hand And in an other place repeating the same addeth That it may also be called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as cold is called sloathfull because it maâ—es a man sloathfull so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is stiled a formall Papist by M. Perkins shall be well coursed by the plaine circumstances of the place If S. Austin were a Papist in this point because of this sentence questionlesse hee was in the same point a Protestant because of some other which I will recite Doest thou not marke saith Austin doest thou not perceiue that he who doth so vehemently persecute his bodie if he doth persecute nothing that displeaseth God doth God great wrong by persecuting his temple without cause Now what I pray you displeaseth God but sinne But this corruption wee speake of is also hated of God and therefore day by day consumed As the Physitian saith Austin hates the disease of the sicke man and labours by curing it to driue
away the disease and ease the diseased so doth God lab our by his grace in vs to consume sinne and deliuer man And that it is not onely sinne as it comes from sinne and causeth sinne but also properly as a disobedience Austin shewes euidently by this similitude As blindnes of heart saith he is both a sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne whereby the proud heart is worthily punished and a cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of the heart so that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusteth is both sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the minde and a punishment of sinne because it is laid by desert vpon the disobedient and the cause of sinne by the fault of consent or the contagion of birth Yea Austin doubts not to say as we doe that the guilt of concupiscence yet remaining is pardoned that it may not be imputed for sinne In them which are regenerate saith Austin when they receiue forgiuenes of all sinnes whatsoeuer it must needes be that the guilt also of this concupiscence yet remaining is forgiuen that as I said it may not be imputed for sinne Further it is plaine that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne because he receiues and allowes of Ambrose his opinion who calles it iniquitie because it is vniust that the flesh should lust against the spirit This sinne Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand to be our â—lothfull and corrupt will and a violent inclination to euill And Peter Lombard saith that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault but so that it reignes not in vs. speaker W. P. But by the circumstances of the text it is sinne properly for in the words following S. Paul saith that this sinne dwelling in him made him to doe the euill which he hated And. verse 24. he crieth out O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death For saith he that S. Paul there takes sinne properly appeares by the words following That this sinne dvvelling in him made him to doe the euill vvhich he haâ—â—a How proues this that sinne there must be taken properlie it rather proues that it must be taken improperly for if it made him doe the euill which he hated then could it not be sin properly for sinne is not committed but by the consent and liking of the vvill But S. Paul did not like that euill but hated it and thereby vvas so farre off from sinning that he did a most vertuous deed in resisting and ouercomming that euill As vvitnesseth S. Augustine saying Reason sometimes resisteth manfully and ruleth raging concupiscence vvhich being done we sinne not but for that conflict are to be crowned This first circumstance then alleadged by M. Perkins doth rather make against him than for him speaker A. W. The reason lies thus Originall sinne dwelling in the Apostle made him doe that euill he hates therefore it is sin properly You answere it rather prooues the contrarie because yâ— which the Apostle doth with hatred of it is not sin for sinne is not committed but with liking and consent of the will I answere that whatsoeuer a man doth against the law of God it is sinne whether he like or mislike it Secondly that the consent of the will makes it not sinne but our sinne Thirdly the Apostle denies not that he doth this euil with his will for else he would not doe it but affirmes that he doth it against his iudgement as euen naturall men doe that are ouercome of their affections Witnes Medea in Ouid I see what is good and like it and doe that is euill Otherwise such actions of theirs should not be sinne I denie not that the regenerate haue a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into and vpon a better ground but yet the naturall men also oftentimes doe that which they mislike in general though they do it willingly That this was the Apostles meaning he that will reade the chapter may easily perceiue I allow not saith he that I doe that is I know it to bee euill and I would faine leaue it vndone but the strength of my corruption is such that I am carried away to the doing of it and so because I am but in part regenerate in part I serue God and in part sinne As for that you adde out of S. Austin it makes not any whit against vs who acknowledge that reason especially being regenerate oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence shall haue reward for it Yet are not Austins words as you report them but thus Reason sometimes manfullie bridles and restraines concupiscence euen when it is stirred when it so happens we fall not into sin but with some little wrastling are crowned But sometimes againe as the Apostle plainly confesseth it is vanquished by sinne or naturall corruption and drawne to the committing of some actuall sinne inward or outward which being euident Master Perkins reason is not answered as the sight of it may prooue That which dwelling in S. Paul made him doe that he hates is sinne properly Indeede why should he hate it if it be not sinne But originall sinne dwelling in him made him doe that he hates Therefore originall sinne is properly sinne speaker D. B. P. Novv to the second O wretched man that J am who shall deliuer mee from this body of death Here is no mention of sinne hovv this may be dravvne to his purpose shall be examined in his argument vvhere he repeateth it so that there is not one poore circumstance of the text vvhich he can find to proue S. Paul to take sinne there properly speaker A. W. That originall sinne called sinne by the Apostle is sinne properly our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in that chapter It is not good It hinders vs from doing good It drawes vs to the doing of euill It makes the Apostle crie out Oh wretched man that I am To which they adde out of other places It is an euill that doth compasse vs about It fights against the Commandement Thou shalt not lust It is an euill to be crucified and mortified Vpon al these descriptions of it we conclude that it is truly and properly sinne speaker A. W. Novv I vvill proue by diuers that he speakes of sinne improperly First by the former part of the same sentence Jt is not I that doe it â—lâ— sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is but this vvas not done by S. Paul Ergo. Let vs now see your proofes to the contrarie the first whereof you frame thus All sinne is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is But this was not done by S. Paul Ergo. First your proposition is false secondly your conclusion is either
false or not to the purpose Your proposition hath two faults the one that in stead of saying All that is sinne properly is done c. You say All that is sinne is done properly applying properly to the committing of sinne and not to the nature of it The other fault is that the matter of your proposition is vntrue For there is some sinne namely originall which is not done by him in whom it is but is bred with him If in your assumption you meane that the Apostle doth not properly doe the euill which he hates you are deceiued For whether it be an inward action of the minde or an outward of the bodie it must needes be performed by some nature that hath a true being but there is no third nature in man besides the soule and bodie and what is done by either of these is done by the man of whom they are parts If you say it is done by a vicious qualitie in man that qualitie hauing subsistence in man as in the subiect of it is not properly the doer of the action but the facultie by which a man is fitted for the doing of it To your proofe I answere that the Apostle consefleth he did it I allow not that which I doe What I hate that doe I. I doe that which I would not The euill which I would not that doe I. And at last he concludes I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Where he teacheth vs to expound his doing or not doing I doe not the euill which I hate that is in my minde or in respect of my regeneration I doe that is in regard of my corruption In my minde I my selfe serue the law of God in my flesh I my selfe serue the law of sinne I doe both my selfe but the one in my minde regenerate the other in my flesh vnregenerate If you will conclude for that you leaue at large in this reason it should seeme of purpose because in the other two you set downe your conclusion expressely Therefore it is not properly sinne your conclusion is false because it containes more than is in the antecedent If your meaning be either that originall corruption is not sinne or that the euill which S. Paul hates is not sinne as one of these two you must needes meane your conclusion is from the purpose For the question is not whether originall sinne be sinne which both parts grant but whether it be properly sinne or no neither doe you vndertake to prooue that the euill which the Apostle did with hatred of it is not sinne So that this first proofe of yours is neither for you nor against vs. speaker A. W. Secondly out of those vvords I know there is not in me that is in my flesh any good And after I see an other law in my members resisting the lavv of my mind Thus sinne properly taken is seated in the soule but that vvas seated in the flesh ergo it vvas no sinne properly Sinne properly taken is seated in the soule But that was not seated in the soule but in the flesh Therefore it was no sinne properly As the image of God after which wee were created was though principally yet not onely in the soule so the corruption of nature wherby that image is defaced hath place both in soule and bodie and therefore your proposition is not simply true But your assumption is simply false For by saying it was seated in the flesh you must needs denie that it was seated in the soule or else your syllogisme will be nothing worth Now by flesh the Apostle meanes nature vnregenerate both soule and bodie The wisedome of the flesh is â—nmitie against God signifying the very best part of a mans soule Hence it is that he calles a naturall man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animalem and wils vs to be renewed in the spirit of our mind affirming that some are puft vp with their fleshly minde and I pray you consider whence these workes of the flesh arise Idolatrie witchcraft hatred debate heresies c. The Apostle saith Austin ascribes those sinnes to the flesh which beare principallsway in the diuell who it is certaine hath no flesh for he saith enmitie contention emulation enuie are workes of the flesh the head and fountaine whereof is pride which raigneth in the diuell though he haue no flesh Yea Bellarmine himselfe grants though with much ado that concupiscence though it be as he saith principally in the sensuall part yet hath place also in the minde speaker D. B. P. The third and last is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter There is novv therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that vvalke not according to the flesh c. Whence I thus argue there is no condemnation to them that haue that sinne dvvelling in them if they vvalke not according vnto the fleshly desires of it therefore it is no sin properly For the vvages of sin is death that is eternall damnation speaker A. W. If say you there be no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it then it is not properly sinne But there is no condemnation to them that haue originall sinne dwelling in them so they walke not according to the fleshly desires of it Therefore it is not sin properly If by these words there is no condemnation you meane they shall not be condemned I denie the consequence of your proposition For it may be properly sinne though they in whom it is haue it not imputed to them to condemnation I denie your assumption whether you meane they are not condemned de facto or they deserue not condemnation de iure In the former sense you teach that all infants which die vnbaptized are shut out of heauen and yet none of them walke according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne In the latter sense we and you are wholy of opinion that originall sinne is a iust cause of condemnation euen to infants who actually sinne not The place alleaged by you serues not to prooue either of your propositions as you haue set them downe for the Apostle saith not that there is no condemnation to them which walke not according to the fleshly desires of originall sinne but to them which are in Christ Iesus I grant that all but they which are in Christ doe walke according to such desires yet it is not all one to say the one and the other For you seeme to bring that as a reason why there is no condemnation to them whereas the Apostle addes these words to shew that they which are in Christ do not walk after the flesh but after the spirit therein concluding his former disputation of iustification and sanctification speaker W. P. Thence I reason thus That which once was sinne properly and still remaining in
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
contrary God tempteth no man but euery man is tempted vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence and is allured aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne Marke the words well First Concupiscence tempteth and allureth by some euill motion but that is no sinne vntill afterward it do conceiue that is obtaine some liking oâ— our will in giuing eare to it and not expelling it so speedely as we ought to doe the suggestion of such an enemie speaker A. W. The first proposition is true and your answere but a shift wherein you craftely leaue out the principall poynt to make a shew of reason The apple that allured Eue to sinne did not lust against the spirit which is the first and chiefe poynt of Master Perkins proposition whereof you make no mention Philosophers speake according to their ignorance graunting to a man seeds and sparkes of vertue by nature not vnderstanding that it was sinne to lust because the law of God which forbad it was vnknowne vnto them Besides they spake of the passions as naturall things and so they are not sinne but good as being created by God but our question is of them as they are degenerated from their nature and corrupt a mere mysterie to naturall men speaker D. B. P. The which that most deepe Doctor Saint Augustine siâ—â—eth out very profoundly in these words VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith euery man is tempted being dravvne avvay and allured by his Concupiscence and aftervvard Concupiscence vvhen it hath conceiued bringeth forth sin Truly in these words the thing brought forth is distinguished from that vvhich bringeth it forth The damme is concupiscence the fole is sinne But concupiscence doth not bring sinne forth vnlesse it conceiue so then it is not sin of it selfe and it conceiueth not vnlesse it dravv vs that is vnlesse it obtaine the consent of our vvill to commit euill The like exposition of the same place and the difference betweene the pleasure tempting that runneth before and the sinne which followeth after Unlesse vve resist manfully may be seene in S. Cyrill so that by the iudgement of the most learned auncient Fathers the text of S. James cited by M. Perkins to proue concupiscence to be sinne disproueth it very soundly to that reason of his Such as the fruit is such is the Tree I ansvvere that not concupiscence but the vvill of man is the Tree vvhich bringeth forth either good or bad fruit according vnto the disposition of it concupiscence is onely an intiser vnto badde speaker A. W. Austin and Cyril speake as the Apostle doth of actuall sinne which is committed by those degrees and surely if concupiscence be not sinne without consent because the Apostle saith it brings forth sinne when it hath conceiued by the like reason consent makes not sinne deadly because thâ— Apostle saith also that sinne when it is finisht brings forth death Now we know consent euen with you may be deadly sinne and with vs alwaies is so concupiscence is of it selfe sinne though not in that height and kind that outward actuall sinnes are The first motion to wickednes is sinne because it is an action against the commaundement Thou shalt not lust consent increaseth the wickednes of it The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the Fathers here speake of It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this who expounds Brings forth sinne Brings it to the acte or into action If the Apostle saith as he doth That concupiscence brings forth sinne out of doubt concupiscence is the tree and as in the tree the naughtines of the sap is blamed for the badnes of the fruite so is the sinfulnes of the will for the euill actions though properly neither the sap but the tree brings forth the fruite nor concupiscence but the will is the mother of sinne But that concupiscence is properly sinne I shewed before speaker W. P. Concupiscence against which the spirit lusteth is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the minde and it is the punishment of sinne because it befalles man for the merits of his disobedience and it is the cause of sinne speaker D. B. P. But S. Augustine saith That concupiscence is sinne because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind c. I ansvvere that S. Augustine in more then tvventy places of his vvorkes teacheth expresly that concupiscence is no sinne if sinne be taken properly vvherefore vvhen he once calleth it sinne he taketh sinne largely as it comprehendeth not only all sinne but also all motions and intiâ—ements to sinne in which sense concupiscence may be tearmed sinne but is so called very seldome of S. Augustine but more commonly an euill as in the same wâ—â—ke is to be seene euidently where he saith That grace in Baptisme doth renevve a man perfectly so farre forth as it appertaineth to the deliuerance of him from all manner of sinne but not so as it freeth him from all euill so that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is no manner of sinne in S. Augustines iudgement but may be called euill because it prouoketh vs to euil To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like which M. Perkins quoteth in his 4. reason where he saith That sinne dwelleth alwaies in our members The same answere serueth that sinne there is taken improperly as appeareth by that he seates it in our members for according vnto S. Augustine and all the learned the subiect of sinne being properly taken is not in any part of the body but in the will and soule and in the same passage he signifieth plainely that in Baptisme all sinnes and iniquity is taken away and that there is lefte in the regenerate only an infirmity or weakenes speaker A. W. Hauing prooued so manifestly in the former sections by Scripture that originall corruption is properly sinne wee are desirous so to expound the Fathers as they may best agree with the truth of Scripture if you had rather set them against the Scripture not we but you are to be blamed as enemies to them if any disgrace fall vpon them speaker W. P. Reason V. The iudgement of the ancient Church August epist. 29. Charitie in some is more in some lesse in some none the highest degree of all which cannot be increased is in none as long as man liues vpon earth And as long as it may be increased That which is lesse theÌ„ it should be is in fault by which fault it is that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sinne there is no truth in vs for which also though we profit neuer so much it is necessarie for vs to say Forgiue vs our debts though all our words deedes and thoughts bee alreadie forgiuen
in baptisme speaker D. B. P. Ans. That here is neuer a word touching concupiscence or to proue Originall sinne to remaine after Baptisme which is in question but only hat the best men for want of perfect Charity doe oâ—ten sin venially which we graunt speaker A. W. Indeede as you pare it leauing out all these words By which fault none liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God For which fault if we say we haue no sin there is no truth in vs there is not much to prooue the poynt but your c. hath cut off that which is most materiall viz. By reason of our defect or failing in charitie which comes from our naturall corruption no man can say he is without sinne and by reason of which we must call vpon God for pardon of our sinnes speaker W. P. Indeede Augustine in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to bee sinne after baptisme but his meaning is that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whom it is For thus he expounds himselfe This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne And The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended And Let not sinne raigne he saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne For as long as thou liuest of necessitie sinne will be in thy members at the least looke it raigne not in thee c. speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins hauing thus strongly as you see fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine which hath also nothing for his purpose insteed of all antiquitie confesseth ingenuously that S. Augustine in sundrie places denieth concupiscence to be sin but expounds him to meane that it is not sin in that person but in it selfe which is already confuted for sinne that is an accident and so properly inherent in his subiect cannot be at all if it be not in some person and the sinne of the same person speaker A. W. Master Perkins as the places he brings out of Austin shew doth not deny it simply to be the sinne of the person in whom it is but to be his to condemnation of it selfe it deserues to be punisht with eternall death but in him it is not a sinne procuring this punishment This is not to haue sinne not to be guiltie of sinne speaker D. B. P. But it the Protestant Reader desire to be well assured of Saint Augustines opinion in this point let him see what their Patriarke Iohn Caluin saith of it where thus he writeth Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching out what the olde writers thought of this point when one Augustine may serue the turne who with great diligence hath faithfully collected togither all their sentences Let the readers therefore take out of him if they desire to haue any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity Hitherto somewhat honestly What followeth Moreouer betweene him and vs there is this difference that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin but to expresse it is content to vse the word of infirmity then loe doth he say that it is made sinne when the acte of our consent doth ioyne with it But we hâ—ld that very thing to be sinne wherewith a man is in any sort tickled Obserue first good Reader that S. Augustines opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquitie Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them Secondly that he is â—â—â—tly on our side teaching concupiscence not to be sinne vnlesse we doe consent vnto it Lastly learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters who hauing so highly coÌ„mended S. Augustines iudgement in this very matter and aduised all men to follow it Doth notwithstanding flie from it himselfe Presuming that some vvould be so shalovv-vvitted as not to espie him or else content to relie more vpon his onely credit then vpon the authority of all the auncient Fathers For a tast of whoâ—e consent with S. Augustine in this question I will here put the sentences of some few that I need not hereafter returne to rehearse them speaker A. W. Caluin saith not as you translate him Betweene him and vs there is this difference but this may seeme to be the difference because he was loth to speake so plaine as we now are forced to doe though in Caluin his opinion his iudgement was all one with ours speaker D. B. P. S. Chrysostome saith Passions be not sinnes of themselues but the vnbridled excesse of them doth make sinnes And that J may for example sake touch one of them concupiscence is not a sinne but when passing measure it breakes his bounds then loe it is adultery not in regard of concupiscence but in respect of the excessiue and vnlavvfull riot of it S. Bernard vvhom M. Perkins often citeth against vs and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vs hath these vvords Sinne is at the doore but if thou doe not open it it vvill not enter in lust tickleth at the heart but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vnto it it shall doe thee no hurt vvithâ—old thy consent and it preuaileth not speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill haue been cited already S. Hierome and S. Gregory shall be hereafter vvho vvith the confession of Caluin may serue sufficiently to proue that approued antiquitie is vvholy for vs. And if any desire to knovv the founder of our aduersaries Doctrine in this point let him read the 64. heresie recorded by that auncient and holy Bishop Epiphanius vvhere he registreth one Proclus an old rotten sectarie to haue taught that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme but are only couered which is as much to say as sinne remaineth still in the person regenerate but is not imputed to him Which is iust M. Perkins and our Protestants position Chrysostome speakes of the affections as they are naturall in which respect indeede they are not sinnes but only as they are disordered against the law of God in their creation The concupiscence he names is not originall sinne whereof we dispute but the naturall desire which Adam had by creation and which is not in it selfe euill but as by our corruption it inclines now to euill and hath euill mingled with it in the act of desiring Any man may see that Bernard intends not to proue that originall sinne is properly sinne but that it shall not preuaile to make vs commit grosse sinne outwardly vnlesse we consent to it and thereby incourageth Christian men to resist it affirming that it shal not hurt them to condemnation in which respect Austin denies it to be sinne Proclus howsoeuer deceiued by Origen he erred in the point of the resurrection yet in this matter taught nothing but that which he sufficiently confirmed by S. Pauls authoritie of whom he had learned the doctrine neither doe Epiphanius or Methodius bring any good proofe against his opinion or for
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
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
many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
day by day of these suites of eternall saluation we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken VVe must alvvaies pray and neuer be vveary And 〈◊〉 to doubt but vve shall in the end receiue it But because vve are in doubt whether we shall obserue those necessary circumstances of prayerer no therefore we cannot be so well assured to obtaine our suite although we be on Gods part must assured that he is most bâ—…ful and readier to giue then vve are to a â—e speaker A. W. I denie your consequence and answere to the proofe of it as before that our faith is not without some doubting and our feeling not so strong as it should and may be If that were the condition we could neuer looke to obtaine any thing of God for wee are sure that we neuer obserue all the circumstances required but we are out of all doubt that God will grant our requests in his good time if we make them in Christs name though we faile in circumstances and pray not euery day as we ought For the spirit we haue receiued will rouse vs vp from our deadnes and teach vs so to pray that we shall speede as it may be most for Gods glorie and our owne saluation speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith calling it Our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his vvill But vvhere find vve that it is Gods vvill to assure euery man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall saluation is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour tovvards him speaker A. W. Where finde you that we hold any such opinion Nay we teach the contrarie that this assurance comes not at the first but by little and little as God sees it requisite according to the triall he hath appointed to make of vs. But because God hath commanded vs to labour for the perfection of al graces we are sure this must be intreated for and haue promise that it shall be granted as God seeth meete both for the time and the measure of it speaker D. B. P. The proposition is true yet commonly denied by all Protestants for God commaunds vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaunds vs to beleeue our saluation is proued saith M. Perkins by these vvords Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it vvritten in that Gospell beleeue your ovvne particular saluation thevv vs once but one cleare text for it and vve vvill beleeue it I doe beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits but knovv vvell that vnlesse I keepe his words I am by him likened to a foole that built his house vpon the sanas He commands me to vvatch and pray least I fall into temptation and else vvhere vvaâ—neth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certaine to be shut out vvith the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions find vve in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this security of our saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and dâ—…gent to traine our selues in godly exercises of all vertue speaker A. W. Master Perkins hath answered your obiection against his proposition that it is not a commandement of the Gospell but of the law Doe this and thou shalt liue His proofe is easilier laughed at than answered To beleeue saith he is particularly to acknowledge Christ to be my Sauiour that is to put my confidence in him for my saluation which I cannot doe vnlesse I be resolued of my reconciliation with him To this you answere not a word but barely alleage the first proofe and denie it All these things and such like our Sauiour commaunds and assures me that God will inable me to the performing of them because I rest vpon him for this grace in Christ. speaker D. B. P. Hope indeed of heauen makes a man most couragiously beare out all stormes of persecution and not to be ashamed of Christs Crosse but to professe his faith most boldly before the most bloody tyrants of the world our harts being by charity fortified and made inuincible And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place and saith before that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God And doe not vaunt themselues of the certainty of their saluation This certainty of hope is great in those that haue long liued vertuously specially when they haue also endured manifold losses much disgrace great wrongs and iniuries for Christs sake for he that cannot faile of his word hath promised to requite all such with an hundred fold But what is this to the certainety of faith which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God When as S. Paul inâ—…th that godly men paâ— takers of the holy Ghost yea after they haue tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come that is haue receiued besides faith great fauours of Gods spirit and felt as it were the ioyes of heauen haue after all this so fallen from God that there was small hope of their recouery speaker A. W. He that hopes for any thing and glories in that hope must needes be ashamed of his follie and presumption if he faile to obtaine it but the children of God hope for euerlasting life and glorie in this hope of theirs Now the Apostle saith they shall not be ashamed of this hope and therefore it must needes be that they shall haue euerlasting life This interpretation your owne glosse auowes Hope makes not a man blush because it is fulfilled and expounding that which followes of the loue of God it saith It is certaine it shall be fulfilled because we haue the spirit to pledge So doth Lyra also interpret that hope so Theodoret so Chrysostome so Theophylact c. And wherein I pray you differs this from the assurance of faith which wee teach and you condemne This growes euery day in the hearts of true beleeuers who neuer fall away though they are sometimes shaken Those that the Apostle speakes of neuer had true faith to iustification as I will prooue otherwhere The fourth poynt Touching the iustification of a sinner speaker W. P. That we may see how farre we are to agree with them and where to differ first I will set downe the doctrine on both parts and secondly the maine differences wherein we are to stand against them euen to death Our doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner I propound in foure rules Rule I. That iustification is an action of God whereby he absolueth a sinner and accepteth him to life
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
to your owne merits proceeding from your will which grace as you say hath wholy freed But of this also I spake before and must say more hereafter speaker W. P. Now let vs see by what reasons wee iustifie our doctrine and secondly answere the contrarie obiections Our reasons Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnesse before God must satisfie the iustice of the law which saith Doe these things and thou shalt line Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the law but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vs. If any alleage ciuil iustice it is nothing for Christ saith Except your righteousnesse exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen speaker D. B. P. This reason is not worth a rush for when he requireth that our iustice must satisfie the iustice of the law I demaund what law he meaneth If Moses law of which those words Doe this and thou shalt liue are spoken Then I answere with the Apostle That you are euacuated or abolished from Christ that are iustified in the lavv That is he is a Iew and no Chri stian that wuld haue Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law If M. Perkins would onely that men iustified must be able to fulfill Christs law I then graunt that they so be by the helpe of Gods grace which will neuer faile them before they faile of their duties speaker A. W. He is neither Christian nor Iew but worse than either that abolisheth the moral law by the Gospel The Apostle speakes of ioyning the law with Christ to iustification not of making Christian iustice answerable to Moses law But is there any likelihood that hee which came to bring perfect righteousnes would destroy the law of righteousnes Are you they that finde fault with vs because wee say it is impossible for vs to keepe the Commandements so fully as God requireth Doth Moses law containe any other or greater righteousnes than the perfect loue of God and of our neighbour Is it not your common doctrine that faith makes vs able to keepe the law Nay doe you not teach that our Sauiour hath propounded greater perfection to his followers than was required by the law of Moses Beside is not the law the very law of nature And can any man bee righteous that keepes not the law of nature You must prooue that God by Christ hath either abrogated the morall law or dispensed with Christians for the breaches of it not by pardoning of them as the Apostle teacheth but by freeing them from obedience to it If this be false then whosoeuer will be iustified by any law must fulfill Moses law to which onely the promise is made Doe this and thou shalt liue speaker W. P. What shall we say that workes doe make vs iust that cannot be for all mens workes are defectiue in respect of the iustice of the law Shall we say our sanctification whereby we are renewed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse that also is imperfect and cannot satisfie Gods iustice required in the law as Isai hath said of himselfe and the people All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous cloath speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins That iustice of man is vnperfect and cannot satisfie the iustice vvhich God requires in his lavv and proues it out of Esay who saith All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous or defiled cloath I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked and therefore are madly applied vnto the righteous That he speaketh of the wicked of that nation and of that time appeareth plainly by the text it selfe For he saith before But loe thou hast been angry for vve haue offended and haue been euer in sinne and after There is no man that calleth vpon thy name and standeth vp to take hold by thee And although the words be generall and seeme to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also yet that is but the manner of preachers and specially of such as become Intercessors for others who vse to speake in the persons of them for whom they sue for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number he had lyed when he said There is none that call vpon thy name when as he immediatly calleth vpon him in most vehement sort for mercy all which the best learned among them marking confesse that this sentence cannot be alleadged against the vertue of good works Hence gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture That which the Prophet spake of some euil men of one place and at one time that he applieth vnto all good men for all times and all places speaker A. W. It is no proofe that the Prophet speakes not of himselfe as well as of the people because Preachers sometimes doe not in the like speeches For sometimes also they doe Neither had the Prophet lied as you grosly speake if hee had meant himselfe For it is not his purpose to denie that God had been called vpon but so called vpon as hee ought to haue been The Prophet speakes of their actions which had some shew of goodnes els he would not say our righteousnes besides he speakes not of that which he presently was to doe as a Prophet but of that which ordinarily he and other did with the infirmitie of men Luther and Caluin are of opinion that the place doth not properly belong to the proofe of this doctrine but they denie not that the Prophet speakes of the faithfull and their works Yea Caluin plainly affirmes that he doth speake of them The faithfull saith he goe forward in their complaint And The faithfull must confesse their guiltines So doth Caietan vnderstand the place alluding to it Christ merit is called our righteousnes because it is true righteousnes before Gods iudgement seate to make a difference betwixt it and our righteousnes which at Gods iudgement seate is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman Our humble righteousnes if it be any is true perhaps saith Bernard but not pure vnlesse perchance we thinke our selues better than our fathers who no lesse truly than humbly said All our righteousnes is as the cloutes c. Therefore Bernard and Caietan expound this place of the righteousnes of iustified men as Master Perkins doth speaker W. P. To haue a cleare conscience before God is a principall part of inward righteousnesse and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus I am priuie to nothing by my selfe yet am I not iustified thereby 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therefore nothing can procure vnto vs an absolution and acceptance to life euerlasting but Christs imputed righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But he will amend it in the next where he proues out of S. Paul that a cleare conscience which is a great part of inherent iustice can nothing helpe to our iustification I am priuie to nothing by my selfe and yet J am not iustified
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
hope therfore we are not iustified by faith onely For more is required to saluation than to iustification speaker D. B. P. To these authorities and reasons taken out of the holy Scriptures let vs ioyne here some testimonies of the auncient Church reseruing the rest vnto that place wherein M. Perkins citeth some for him The most auncient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius of our iustification writeth thus The beginning of life is faith but the end of it is charity but both vnited and ioyned together doe make the man of God perfect speaker A. W. There is no such word in that Epistle to the Philippians and if there were the matter were not great Such an author as he sheweth himselfe to be that writ those epistles in Ignatius name is an vnfit iudge in controuersies of Diuinitie But for the sentence it selfe if it bee any where to bee found it may well be answered that sanctification is required to the perfection of a Christian and not onely iustification and this is all that is here affirmed What proofe is there in this that faith onely doth not iustifie speaker A. W. Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith Faith goeth before but feare doth build and charity bringeth to perfection Clement speaketh not either of iustification or of iustifying faith but as the former author describeth some of the meanes and as it were the parts of Christian sanctification speaker D. B. P. Saint Iohn Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words Least the faithfull should trust that by faith alone they might be saued he disputeth of the punishment of euill men and so doth he both exhort the Jnfidels to faith and the faithfull to liue vvell speaker A. W. Chrysostome speakes of that faith whereby we giue assent to the truth of the Gospell not of that whereby we liue in Christ. Neither intreateth he of iustification but of saluation Further hee reiecteth such a faith as hath not good workes and so doe we speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine cryeth out as it were to our Protestants and saith Heare O foolish Heretike and enemy to the true faith Good workes vvhich that they may be done are by grace prepared and not of the merits of free-will vve condemne not because by them or such like men of God haue been iustified are iustified and shall be iustified speaker A. W. Many doubt and some euen of your owne side denie that booke to be Austins But for the sentence alleaged by you it cannot be to the purpose because our question is now onely of the first iustification as you speake to which the workes of grace that follow afterward and of which Austin professedly speaketh in that place cannot belong Beside there is no doubt but he speaketh as S. Iames doth saying that Abraham was iustified by workes that is approued and acknowledged for iust both by God and man as a man is knowne to be aliue by his breathing speaker A. W. And Novv let vs see that vvhich is to be shaken out of the harts of the faithfull Least by euill securitie they lose their saluation if they shall thinke faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it The words immediatly following after those you haue set downe and being a part of the sentence make it manifest that Austin speakes of a dead faith which neglecteth good workes If they shall thinke saith he faith alone to be sufficient to obtaine it but shall neglect to liue well and hold on the way of God by good workes This as hee professeth otherwhere he knew to be the course of some who thought that faith which saith he they faine they haue should auaile them before God without good workes and being deceiued with this kinde of error commit hainous sinnes without feare while they beleeue that God is a reuenger of no sinne but infidelitie And these were the Gnostickes against whom such speeches are intended speaker W. P. Now the doctrine which wee teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea by faith alone The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustistcation before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts and graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof and consequents of faith Nothing in man concurres as any cause to this worke but faith alone And faith itselfe is no principall but onely an instrumental cause whereby wee receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse for our iustification speaker D. B. P. Now the doctrine which M. Perkins teacheth is cleane contrary For saith he A sinner is iustified by faith alone that is nothing that man can doe by nature or grace concurreth thereto as any kind of cause but faith alone Farther he saith That faith it selfe is no principall but rather an instrumentall cause vvhereby vve apprehend and applie Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification So that in fine we haue that faith so much by them magnified and called the only and whole cause of our iustification is in the end become no true cause at all but a bare condition without which we cannot be iustified speaker A. W. The doctrine Master Perkins teacheth is not contrarie but the very same For he holds that no man can be saued who either neglecteth or endeuoureth not to bring foorth good workes though he allow these no place as causes of a mans iustification At the last you vnderstand that wee make not faith the principall much lesse the whole cause of our iustification To speake properly wee make it no true cause at all but onely as you say a condition required by God on our part which hee accepteth in stead of fulfilling the lawe and thereupon forgiueth vs our sinnes for Christs sake speaker A. W. If it be an instrumental cause let him then declare what is the principall cause whose instrument faith is and choose vvhether he had liefer to haue charity or the soule of man vvithout any helpe of grace Your disiunction is naught For neither charitie nor the soule are the principall efficients but man himselfe not without any helpe of grace but by such a speciall grace as certainly produceth that effect in vs to our iustification speaker W. P. Reason I. Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue eternall life In these words Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fierie serpents his cure was not by any physicke surgery but only by the casting of his eie vp to the brasen-serpent which Moses had erected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our
soules when wee are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouerie but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eie of our faith on Christ and his righteousnesse speaker D. B. P. But to come to his reasons The first is taken out of these vvords As Moses lift vp the serpent in the desert so must the Sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish but haue life euerlasting True if he liue accordingly and as his faith teacheth him but what is this to iustification by only faith Mary M. Perkins drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were stung by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eyes of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and applie that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similitudes be not in all points alike neither must be streatched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernesse stung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sinne haue no other remedie then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easily reiected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability speaker A. W. If wee precisely vrge the similitude the latter part of the reddition is no part of the comparison for there is nothing in the proposition to which it answereth But our Sauiour addes the end of lifting vp himselfe to stirre vs vp as it may seeme to a more thorough consideration of the agreement betwixt health by the Serpent and saluation by him And surely it is not without reason to make a likenes in the deliuerance as well as in other points that all men might vnderstand by our Sauiours speech how they should become partakers of that benefit speaker W. P. Reason II. The exclusiue formes of speech vsed in scripture prooue thus much We are iustified freely not of the law not by the law without the law without workes not of workes not according to works not of vs not by the workes of the law but by faith Gal. 2. 16. All boasting excluded onely beleeue Luk. 8. 50. These distinctions whereby workes and the lawe are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie speaker D. B. P. It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it self Which may be called a worke of the law as well as any other vertue being as much required by the law as any other speaker A. W. If they doe not more exclude feare hope and charitie than faith it must be shewed that they are directly or by necessarie consequence required in opposition to the workes of the law For that is very manifest of faith in diuers places By faith without the works of the law Not by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. By the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law Through faith not of workes But this can neuer be shewed of them By reason of the opposition I speake of faith cannot bee taken for a worke of the law neither is it any worke required by the law to beleeue in Christ for iustification because the law saith Doe this and thou shalt be saued namely as an hired seruant But the Gospell saith i Beleeue and thou shalt haue thy sinnes forgiuen thee by iustification Now the law commands no sute for pardon but calles for either obedience or damnation Hope indeede as I shewed before differs little from faith but depends vpon it feare and loue are proper duties of the law and so alwaies performed speaker D. B. P. But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iew or Gentile did or could bragge of as done of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truely saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desert of their owne And that to obtaine this grace through Christ it was not needfull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moses law as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feasts or fastes nor any such like worke of the law which the lews reputed so necessary Again that all morall works of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which works not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of iustification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first iustification being freely bestowed vpon them speaker A. W. S. Paul speaketh not of deseruing to be made Christians but of attaining to saluation as it is apparant by his disputation in the Epistle to the Romanes By the workes of the law no man liuing shall be iustified What is iustified shall be made a Christian after your interpretation So afterward a man is iustified that is made a Christian by faith and not by the workes of the law So haue we a new interpretation of iustification by faith Besides it would be remembred that you distinguish betwixt workes of nature and workes of grace denying iustification to them and granting it to these how will this stand with your answere Neither doth the Apostle dispute how they were to attaine to the grace of Christ but how they were to receiue pardon and acceptation to euerlasting life which he truly ascribeth on our part to beleefe in Christ by which wee obtaine both these priuiledges As for meriting of iustification there is not a letter of it in any place of the new or old Testament And though there be no meritorious cause of it in workes before grace yet boasting by your doctrine is not excluded For may I not iustly boast that my selfe being inlightened by Gods spirit and hauing a good motion inspired into me by the power of mine owne free will accepted of the grace of God offered me and so am iustified where my cause of boasting is the greater because many other men who might haue been iustified as well as I haue not imploied their free will so well as I haue done and therfore are damned speaker D. B. P. Yet all this notwithstanding a certainevertuous disposition is required in the Iew and Gentile wherby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of iustification that say we is faith feare hope loue
by faith I beleeue Christ to be the Sauiour of all mankind by hope I trust to be made partaker of that saluation in him speaker A. W. None of these hath that aptnes that is in faith For the other haue more shew of desert in man but God purposeth to set out his loue to the soule he saueth Which can be done by no meanes so well as when the party to be iustified doth nothing but rest vpon God to receiue iustification at his mercifull hands Of the difference betwixt faith and hope I haue spoken otherwhere now I say only thus much that to hope without faith is vaine If I beleeue I may not hope alone but be sure I am iustified if I doe not beleeue I may be sure of the contrarie speaker D. B. P. But charitie doth yet giue me a greater confidence of saluation for by the rule of true charity as I dedicate and imploy my life labours and all that I haue to the seruice of God so all that God hath is made mine so farre forth as it can be made mine according vnto that sacred law of friendship Amicorum omnia sunt communia And therefore in true reason neither by faith nor any other vertue we take such hold on Christs merits nor haue such interest in his inestimable treasures as by charity speaker D. B. P. This were the way indeed to make God debtor to man and man a more speciall cause of his owne iustification than God yea to make man in equitie at the least deserue his iustification at Gods hands But what Prince would bee so dealt withall by a traytor especially if he meant to manifest the riches of his mercie in affoording fauour Would he trow you haue his traiterous subiect plead an interest to his loue kindnes and bountie by imploying his life and labours to do him seruice and so to receiue all benefits from him as a friend from a friend by the law of mutuall good will who seeth not how directly this runnes against the whole course of the new Testament speaker A. W. Which S. Augustine vnderstood well when he made it the modell and measure of iustification saying That Charity beginning was Justice beginning Charity encreased vvas Iustice encreased great Charity vvas great iustice and perfect Charity was perfect iustice Austin speakes not of iustification but of walking cheerefully in obedience to Gods commandements after we are iustified which we cannot doe vnlesse the loue wee beare to God make all difficulties that we shall meet with light and easie to vs. In this respect charitie beginning is iustice beginning because he that hath begun to loue hath also begun to walke in the way of righteousnes making light of all hindrances by reason of his loue and as his loue groweth so doth his righteousnes in his whole conuersation speaker W. P. Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whom without any labour or worke done iniquities are remitted and sinne couered no workes or repentance required of them but onely that they beleeue And cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified but by faith alone through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. this is appointed of God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shall be saued without any worke by faith alone freely receiuing remission of sinnes speaker D. B. P. To these and such like words I answere First that it is very vncertaine whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambroses speaker A. W. You that could so confidently thrust vpon vs those Commentaries on the Reuelation for Ambroses which were neuer heard of till within these last 80. yeres should not haue made a doubt of these on the Romanes that haue been receiued for his so many hundreds of yeeres But I will not striue about the matter Once this is out of doubt that they are very ancient and generally held to be orthodoxall speaker D. B. P. Secondly that that Author excludeth not repentance but only the workes of Moses law which the Iewes held to be necessary as circumcision and such like see the place and conferre with it that which he hath written in the same worke vpon the fourth to the Hebrews where he hath these vvords Faith is a great thing and vvithout it it is not possible to be saued but faith alone doth not suffice but it is necessary that faith worke by charitie and conuerse worthie of God speaker A W. Not repentance he names it expresly No workes or repentance required of them But he meanes not workes of the Ceremoniall law onely He meanes both Ceremoniall and Morall That law which the Gentiles had by nature which if a man keepe he shall liue Abraham had not whereof to boast because he was circumcised or because he abstained from sinne but because he beleeued To him that worketh that is to him that is subiect to the law of Moses or of nature To him that worketh not that is to him that is guiltie of sinne because he doth not that which the law commaunds In that place vpon the Hebrues he speaketh not of iustification as in the other but of our entring into rest or heauen to which no man shall come that doth not liue holily beautifying as he there speaketh his faith with workes speaker W. P. August There is one propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. Grace which is of mercie is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins next authoritie is gathered out of S. Augustine There is one propitiation for all sinners to beleeue in Christ True but where is it that we need nothing else but to beleeue 3. Hesychius saith Grace vvhich is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of vvorkes that is vve doe not merit by our vvorks done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification speaker A. W. This testimonie of Austin and the next of Hesychius are answered by roate and not by iudgement For they are both misquoted which he must needes haue obserued and then would haue reprooued if he had lookt for them in the places cited The former I cannot finde and therefore let it passe without any answere If this interpretation may goe for currant I know not what may be refused as counterfeit Grace which is of mercy is apprehended by faith alone and not of workes that is say you wee doe not merit by our workes done before grace any thing at Gods hand but of his mercie receiue both faith and iustification Hesychius saith that grace is apprehended by faith alone you make him say that we receiue both faith and iustification of Gods mercy he speaketh of attaining to grace by faith you expound him of receiuing faith by Gods mercie But indeed Hesychius in his owne
speech maketh a distinction affirming of grace that it is giuen vs viz. on Gods behalfe of mercie and compassion and is receiued on our part by faith alone and not by workes Bernard Whoseeuer is pricked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righteousnesse let him beleeue in thee who iustifieth a sinner and beeing iustified by Faith alone hee shall haue peace with God speaker D. B. P. 4. Bernard hath VVhosoeuer thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee that being iustified by faith alone he may haue peace with God Ans. By faith alone he excludeth all other meanes that either levv or gentile required but not charity Which his very words include for how can we abhorre sin and thirst after iustice vvithout charitie and in the same worke he declareth plainely that he comprehendeth alwaies charitie vvhen he speakes of a iustifying faith saying A right faith doth not make a man righteous if it vvorke not by Charitie And againe Neither workes vvithout faith nor faith without vvorkes is sufficient to make the soule righteous speaker A. W. The chiefe thing the Iewes stood vpon was charitie which they knew the law especially required and therefore to leaue that in was to aduance the righteousnes of the Iewes at the least in their opinion We may abhorre sinne for feare of punishment and thirst for righteoosnes for desire of glorie without any respect of loue but to our selues In those places you bring he sheweth what faith hee meaneth euen as we doe who say that no faith can iustifie but that which workes by loue not in the very act of iustifying but in the course of our conuersation Therfore in the former place when he hath said that being iustified by faith alone we shall haue peace with God he doth afterward distinguish iustification from sanctification They therefore that being iustified by faith desire and resolue to follow after holines c. And in the latter he saith that faith without workes is dead to seuer loue from faith is to kill it But none of these things prooue that Bernard gaue the habit or the act of loue any place of a cause in our iustification or any respect with God to our iustification For then how could hee haue said by faith onely speaker W. P. Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said he which resteth on faith alone is cursed but Paul sheweth that hee is blessed which resteth on faith alone speaker D. B. P. He speakes of the Iewes who held Christians accursed because resting on the faith in Christ would not obserue withall â—oses law the Apostle contrariwise denounceth them accursed who would ioyne the ceremonies of Moses lavv vvith Christian religion and so faith alone there excludeth only the old lavv not the vvorkes of charity speaker A. W. That Chrysostome speaketh of the Morall law any man may see that markes how he vrgeth the Apostles reason to prooue them accursed who will ioyne the law with faith to iustification namely that they are accursed because they cannot fulfill euery part of the morall law for of it is that sentence vttered speaker W. P. Basil. de Humil. Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified onely by faith in Christ. speaker D. B. P. So he mangleth pittifully a sentence of S. Basils saying Let man acknowledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified only by faith in Christ If a man knovv himselfe iustified by faith in Christ hovv can he acknovvledge that he vvants true iustice His vvords truly repeated are these Let man acknovvledge that he is vnvvorthy of true iustice and that his iustification comes not of his desert but of the meere mercy of God through Christ. So that by saith alone S. Basill treating of humilitie excludes all merit of our ovvne but no necessary good disposition as you may see in his Sermon de fide vvhere he proues by many texts of holy Scripture that charity is as necessary as faith speaker A. W. That is saith Basil perfect and full reioycing in Gods sight when a man is not lifted vp no not for his owne righteousness but acknowledgeth himselfe indeed to be destitute of true righteousnes and to be iustified onely by faith in Christ. Basil in that place speaketh of faith as it is an assent to those things that are taught by the grace of God requiring workes not to iustification but in our cariage here to saluation speaker W. P. Origen on cap. 3. Rom. Wee thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law and he saith that iustification by faith alone sufficeth so as a man onely beleeuing may be iustified And Therefore it lieth vpon vs to search who was iustified by faith without workes And for an example I thinke vpon the theefe who being crucified with Christ cried vnto him Lord remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell but for this alone faith Iesus saith vnto him This night thou shalt be with me in paradise speaker D. B. P. Origen excludeth no good disposition in vs to iustification but saith that a man may besaued vvithout doing ourvvardly any good vvorkes If he vvant time and place as the Theefe did vvho presently vpon his conuersion vvas put to death vvhich is good Catholike Doctrine but that you may perceiue hovv necessary the good dispositions before mentioned be to iustification you shall find if you consider wel al circumstances not one of them to haue bin wanting in that good Theefes conuersion First that he stood in feare of Gods iust iudgment appeares by these his vvords to his fellovv Doest thou not feare God c. He had hope to be saued by Christ out of vvhich he said O Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy Kingdome By both vvhich speeches is shevved also his faith both in God that he is the gouernour and iust iudge of the vvorld and in Christ that he vvas the Redeemer of mankind His repentance and confession of his fault is laid dovvne in this And vve trulie suffer vvorthilie His charity tovvards God and his neighbour in reprehending his fellovves blasphemie in defending Christs innocency and in the middest of his greatest disgraces and raging enemies to confesse him to be King of the vvorld to come out of all vvhich vve may gather also that he had a full purpose to amend his life and to haue taken such order for his recouery as it should please Christ his Sauiour to appoint So that he lacked not any one of those dispositions vvhich the Catholike Church requires to iustification speaker A. W. Your discourse of the theeues vertues and good workes doth not refute the truth of Master Perkins allegation but if it doe any thing condemnes Origens iudgement of him As for the dispositions you often mention doubtlesse if Origen had thought that any such had been
God not of works least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes al and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Now let the Papists tell me what bee the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnlesse they bee the most excellent workes and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholy from the worke of iustification and saluation speaker D. B. P. Ephes. 2. is nothing against our Doctrine of iustification but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it and note also vvith S. Austin that faith is there mentioned to exclude all merits of our workes which vvent before and might seeme to the simple to haue been some cause vvhy God bestovved his first grace vpon vs but no vertuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace speaker A. W. What ignorance or malice there is in alleaging this text against your doctrine of iustification it shal appeare by and by in the meane time I answere concerning Austin first that in the place you name there is neuer a word of the sentence in question Secondly that his scope in that treatise is no more but to shew that they falsely vnderstood such places of the Apostle as speake against iustification by workes who thinke that when once they haue beleeued in Christ they shall be saued by faith though they liue neuer so wickedly Thirdly to refuâ—e that lewd conceit Austâ—… addes that the Apostle rather therefore saith that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law because he would haue no man imagine that he hath obtained iustification by faith vpon the merit of his former workes This we grant to be true but not all that the Apostle intendeth For it cannot be doubted but that he confuteth the opinion of the Iewes and Heathen concerning iustification as it is plaine by the three first chapters Now they did not make account to deserue the grace of iustification at Gods hands by their holy and vertuous liuing but to inherit heauen by it Neither could they that did beleeue so much flatter themselues as to dreame that their good deeds in particular had procured that fauour when it was easie for them to see that many thousands both Iewes and Gentiles as good or better than diuers of themselues for vertuous behauiour notwithstanding attained not to this iustification Besides if we mark the reasons by which the Apostle beates down their pride they are such as generally concerne all both Iewes and Gentiles Adde hereunto that Austin speakes no further for the vse of good works but to shew that they are necessarie for a Christian man as without which his faith is voide and idle and that no man may dreame that if hee beleeue it pertaines not to him to worke well which are the words that immediatly goe before these you bring speaker D. B. P. And therefore very fondly doth M. Perkins inferre that in that sentence S. Paul speaketh of vvorkes of grace because in the text follovving he mentioned good vvorkes Whereas the Apostle putteth an euident distinction betvveene those tvvo kinde of vvorks signifying the first To be of ourselues The second â—o proceede from vs as Gods vvorkmanshâ—o created in Christ Iesus and the first he calleth VVorkes simplie the second Good vvorkes prepared of God for vs to walke in after our first iustification What grosse ignorance then vvas it to take these tvvo so distinct manner of vvorkes for the same and to ground himself so boldly vpon it speaker A. W. Master Perkins saith that the Apostle barres all workes before and after grace He prooues it by the very text it self The reason may be thus more plainly propounded We are not saued by works saith the Apostle that no man may boast His proofe followeth For good workes are appointed by God for vs to walke in for which purpose he hath made vs anew in Iesus Christ. That this tenth verse is a proofe of the former the coniunction for declares But how it can serue to that purpose if the two verses speake of diuers kindes of works some iustifying some not iustifying neither I see nor I thinke you can shew me What though he call the former workes simply the latter good workes are not the former those workes which the law morall and naturall require and are not they in their nature good workes But who knoweth not that by workes without any addition workes of grace after iustification are signified let the Apostle Iames speake who intreating of such workes and naming them almost in euery verse doth not once call them good workes but workes simply speaker W. P. II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circumcised ye are bound to the whole law and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the law hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by works he is bound to fulfil the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the law according to the rigour thereof for the liues and works of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery day to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Again our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best workes are partly from the flesh and in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if hee were bound to his owne damnation speaker D. B. P. If he can apply the text prefixed vnto any part of the argument Erit mihi magnus Appollo S. Paul onely saith in these vvords That if you be circumcised yee are bound to keepe the vvhole lavv of Moses M. Perkins That if a man vvill be iustified by vvorkes he must fulfill the rigour of the lavv Which are as iust as Germaines lippes as they say But M. Perkins sayes that it is S. Paules ground but he is much deceiued for the Apostles ground is this That circumcision is as it vvere a profession of Iudaisme and therefore he that vvould be circumcided did make himselfe subiect vnto the vvhole lavv of the Ievves Of the possibilities of fulfilling the lavv because M. Perkins toucheth so often that string shall be treated in a distinct question as soone as I haue dispatched this speaker A. W. Master Perkins vnderstood his owne minde in this and other arguments better than I can doe and so could haue affoorded better answers for his defence Yet thus much I may say that the text of
the law Answ. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke qualitie or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And wee are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby wee are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speech to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as wee see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that workes concurre to iustification and that wee are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and hereupon Iohn saith If any man beeing alreadie iustified sinne wee haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe speaker A. W. The obiections which M. Perkins makes for vs in this Article doe belong either to the question of merits or of the possibility of fulfilling the law or to the perfection of our iustice and therefore I remitte them to those places and will handle the two latter points before I come to that of mâ—rits You are still the same man shifting off that to which you haue no answere readie If you say any thing to these obiections afterward I will referre the reader to it by A. B. C. WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR a man in grace to fulfill Gods lawe speaker A. W. MAster Perkins argueth that it is vnpossible First for that Paule tooke it for his ground that the law could not be fulfilled Admitte it were so I then would answere that he meant that a man helped onely with the knowledge of the law cannot fulfill the law but by the ayde of Gods grace he might be able to doe it Which I gather out of S. Paule where he saith That that vvhich was impossible to the lavv is made by the grace of Christ possible Your answere is insufficient For the g Apostle speaketh not of any strength to be had by the knowledge of the law which no reasonable man euer lookt for but denieth abilitie to the Galathians who would haue ioyned faith and works together to iustification That the Apostle saith is this That the law which promiseth euerlasting life to them that keepe it could not bestow it vpon vs because wee were vnable to performe the condition but God hath prepared that for vs in sending his Sonne to be a sacrifice for sinne that we might obtaine that which by the righteousnes of the law was to be had if we could haue fulfilled it which notwithstanding they onely attaine to that walke not after the flesh but after the spirit speaker D. B. P. 2. Obiect The liues and vvorkes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained vvith sinne ergo quid Of this there shall be a seuerall Article speaker A. W. All this is but trifling to set down reasons as you list and then to answere to them You are too wise to tie any knots but those you see how to vntie The conclusion you seeke for is Therefore they cannot be iustified by their workes speaker D. B. P. 3 Obiect Our knovvledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge then would they be much more perfect then they are but this Argument is also impertinent and doth rather proue it possible to fulfill the law because it is possible to know all the law Then if our workes be answerable to our knowledge we may also fulfill it speaker A. W. It asketh better proofe than your word that it is possible to know all the law when Dauid confesseth himselfe so short of that knowledge And yet a man may know more than he can doe Our consequence is good yours naught speaker D. B. P. 4 Obiect A man regenerate is partly flesh and partly spirit and therefore his best vvorkes are partly from the flesh Not so if we mortifie the deeds of the flesh by the spirit as the Apostle exhorteth But these trifling arguments belong rather vnto the next question speaker A. W. If we could mortifie them wholy to which the Apostle exhorteth they should not be at all of the flesh But since that in this life is impossible all our workes sauour of the flesh speaker D. B. P. I will helpe M. Perkins to some better that the matter may be more throughly examined Why goe yee about to put a yoke vpon the Disciples neckes vvhich neither vve nor our Fathers vvere able to beare these words were spoken of the law of Moses therefore we were not able to fulfill it I answere first that that law could not be fulfilled by the onely helpe of the same law without the further ayde of Gods grace Secondly that it was so burdensome and comberous by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies that it could hardly be kept with the helpe of ordinary grace and in that sense it is said to be such a yoke as we were not able to beare Because things very hard to be done are now and then called impossible speaker A. W. Let vs see your arguments in comparison whereof Master Perkins are trifles Belike in your iudgement a little helpe would haue serued but it stands you vpon to shew that wee receiue as much in this life as is sufficient for that purpose Of all parts of the law the sacrifices Sacraments and Ceremonies had least need of grace to the keeping of them and therfore that is not the reason why it was a burthen But this is spoken also of the Morall law to the keeping whereof circumcision bindes By such a distinction any slight thing may to some man be impossible speaker A. W. Now that Josue Dauid Josias Zachary Elizabeth and many others did fulfill all the law is recorded in holy Scripture Wherefore it is most manifest that it might be kept speaker D. B. P. They fulfilled the law as Master Perkins hath truly answered you in respect of their sincere endeuour not in some but in all knowne points of Gods commandements yet faild they in some now and then That commendation of Iosua is onely in that point of rooting out the Heathen wherein he also faulted not a little by making peace with the Gibeonits before he had asked counsell of God How often and grieuously Dauid sinned I had rather haue the Scripture speake than my selfe out of it Iosiah is reprooued for fighting against Pharao Necho and chasticed
to fulfill the law which before was impossible vnto our weake flesh speaker A. W. I shewed the true meaning of the place before that God by his Sonne hath iustified vs which the law could not doe because we were vnable to keepe it Now the end of this iustification is that wee should walke after the spirit whereby we fulfill the law though not perfectly yet performing the same duties the law requires but not in the same measure speaker D. B. P. Againe how farre S. Iohn was from that opinion of thinking Gods commandements to be impossible may appeare by that Epistle And his commandements be not heauy Which is takē out of our Sauiours own words My yoke is sweet and my burthen is light The reason of this is that although to our corrupt frailtie they be very heauy Yet when the vertue of charity is powred into our harts by the holy Ghost then loe doe we with delight fulfill them For as the Apostle witnesseth Charitie is the fulnes of the lavv And He that doth loue his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv Which Christ himselfe teacheth when he affirmeth That the vvhole lavv and Prophets depend vpon these tvvo commandements of louing God and our neighbour Now both according vnto our opinion and the Protestants a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the vertue of Charitie we hold it to be the principall part of inherent iustice they say that their iustifying faith can neuer be seperated from it So that a righteous man being also indued with charity is able thereby to fulfill the whole law speaker A. W. You haue giuen the true meaning of S. Iohn for therefore are Gods Commandements said not to be heauie because our loue to God who hath giuen vs the assurance of his loue to vs in Iesus Christ maketh vs goe willingly and cheerefully about them for all those incumbrances wee finde by the world the flesh and the diuell And in that respect we are said to fulfill the law by charitie because the obedience we performe weake and slender though it be proceedeth from the loue of God and of our neighbour which is the very summe of the law vpon which both the law and the Prophets depend And all this prooueth not perfect but onely true obedience which all that are iustified performe howsoeuer they faile much in the particulars of that measure the law exacteth speaker D. B. P. Let vs adioyne vnto these Authorities of holy write the testimony of one auncient Father or two S. Basil affirmeth That it is impious and vngodly to say that the commandements of the spirit be vnpossible S. Augustine defineth That vve must beleeue firmely that God being iust and good could not command things that be impossible for vs to fulfill The reason may be that it is the part of a tyrant no true law-maker to commaund his subiects to doe that vnder paine of death which he knowes them no way able to performe For those were not to be called lawes which are to direct men to that which is iust but snares to catch the most diligent in and to binde them vp to most assured perdition speaker A. W. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstood according to the Scriptures of possibilitie to performe true obedience which without grace no man can doe not of perfect keeping the law which yet by our creation wee were sufficiently enabled to performe So that God not onely may not but reasonably cannot be suspected of iniustice if hee require that at our hands which he made vs able to doe as with Austin we confesse he did Basil speaketh not of our abilitie to keepe the Commandements but onely sheweth that the charge of looking to our selues belongeth to the contemplation of the minde not to the eyes of the bodie because if it did it were giuen in vaine no man being able to see the hinder parts of his bodie nor his face nor his inwards Therefore the holie Ghost who doth not command things vtterly impossible will haue this precept of looking to our selues to be vnderstood of the searching of our heart not of the viewing of our bodie speaker A. W. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approued Councell of Arausican as an article of faith in these words This also vve beleeue according to the Catholike faith that all men baptized by grace there receiued vvith the helpe and cooperation of Christ both can and ought to keepe and fulfill those things vvhich belong to saluation The principall whereof are after our Sauiours owne determination to keepe the commandements If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements He may doe them without doubt as I haue often said truly and acceptably to God yet not so fully as he ought because our corruption will not suffer vs to labour faithfully without intermission or infirmitie which the Councill requireth and you aduisedly leaue out That speech of our Sauiour is not the voyce of the Gospell though that also requires obedience and allowes a reward for it but of the law fit to be vttered to him that came to our Sauiour full fraught with the conceit of his owne righteousnes not so much with a desire to learne of him saith Hierome as to trie his skill And this our Sauiour spake of the iustification which is of the law without faith As it appeareth by Beda Lyra the ordinarie glosse and Remigius THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT stained with sinne speaker D. B. P. NOw that iust mens workes be not sinnes which I proue first by some workes of that patterne of patience Iob. Of whom it is written that notwithstanding all the Diuels power and craft in tempting of him He continued still a single harted and an vpright man departing from euill and preseruing his innocency If he continued an innocent he sinned not Againe if in all these instigations to impatience he remained patient these his workes were perfect For S. Iames saith Esteeme it my brethren all ioy vvhen you shall fall into diuers temptations knovving that the probation of your faith vvorketh patience And let patience haue a perfect vvorke that you may be perfect and entire fayling in nothing speaker A. W. This as the last point is a matter belike that this man thinkes himselfe well prepared for and therefore he runnes a course of his own in them hauing no such occasion giuen him by Master Perkins yet let vs follow him step by step By Iobs innocencie continued nothing else is meant but that he had not as Satan had affirmed he would vttered any blasphemie against God But by this it cannot be prooued that there was no taint of sinne in his patience As for his sinceritie and vprightnes they are vertues that alwaies accompanie true Christians and without which all is hypocrisie That perfection or perfect worke is the proouing that his faith is perfect because it ouercommeth as your
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
with such or such a carriage of the bodie without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed with other like circumstances I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly may bee said in some good sense to haue deserued the hire that he laboured for though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit But if this man should faile in many or any of these circumstances though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did might he in iustice claime the prize as due to him vpon desert This is our case in the point of merit There is no man but he failes very much and often in his best workes some lesse some more but euery one more or lesse So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice though he should denie all men the reward due to the keepers of his Commandements speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew mercie vpon thousands in them that loue me and keepe my commaundements Hence I reason thus where reward is giuen vpon mercie there is no merit but reward is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law therefore no merit What can we any way deserue when our full recompence must be of mercie speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing touching the reward of heauen which is now in question God doth for his louing seruants sake shew mercy vnto their children or friends either in temporall things or in calling them to repentance and such like but doth neuer for one mans sake bestow the kingdome vpon another vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it speaker A. W. What though he doe not and yet it must needes be implied in the text if your interpretation be true For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance which is neuer without faith to him he will certainly giue the kingdome of heauen But the reason is strong by a comparison from the lesse to the greater For if these outward fauours which God bestowes vpon them that keepe his Commandements be of mercie how should heauen be of debt speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam if hee had stood to this day he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience haue procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand but should only haue continued that happy estate in which he was first created speaker A. W. That confirmation of his that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience could not haue procured a further increase of Gods fauour is both besides the purpose and most false for as well he as euery good man sithence by good vse of Gods giftes might day by day encrease them And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should haue been otherwise S. Augustine saith expresly That in the felicity of Paradise righteousnes preserued should haue ascended into better And Adam finally and all his posterity if he had not fallen should haue been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen this by the way speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose because it prooues the question thus If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot But his could not therefore ours cannot Your answere is little to the purpose For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes but of procuring or rather deseruing a more happie estate whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing And surely vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam For the Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vpon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him and neither makes mention nor giues signification of any reward at all much lesse vpon desert speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said The reward of good works is eternall life if life euerlasting could bee deserued which cannot because it is a free gift speaker D. B. P. True But wee speake of good workes and not of bad which the Astle calleth sinne where were the mans wits but it followeth there That eternall life is the grace or gift of God speaker A. W. Nay where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text to shew what the proportion of the argument required namely that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life as the wages of sinne is death And thus without question would the Apostle haue spoken to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall if euerlasting life could be deserued speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose but answered 1200. yeares past by that famous Father S. Augustine in diuers places of his most learned workes I will note one or two of them First thus here ariseth no small doubt which by Gods helpe I will now discusse For if eternall life be rendred vnto good workes as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach note how then can it be called grace when grace is giuen freely and not repaid for workes and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large in the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue been done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answere doth he giue where he hath these words Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred vvere giuen speaker A. W. S. Austin in the places alleaged by you neither expounds that text nor speakes of any proportion betwixt the desert of death by sinne and life by good workes But because I am not ignorant that it is his opinion that euerlasting life is due to good workes if you will giue me leaue I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God not from the dignitie of the worke which I thinke to haue been his meaning because he speakes so often and so much of the imperfection of our workes If to countenance your owne error you will needes haue Austin thought to haue erred which is not impossible at the least shew some good reason why the holie Apostle should forbeare to say Euerlasting life is the wages of good works when it would so fitly haue serued his turne for exhortation and when the nature of the sentence
priesthood of Christ is incommunicable cannot passe from him to another Now to make satisfaction for sinne or any part of the punishment thereof is a dutie or a part of Christ his priesthood and therefore to make satisfaction is a worke that cannot passe from his person to the person of any man speaker D. B. P. Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christs and redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue therof satisfie not for the crime it self or euerlasting punishment which is lincked with it because that would require an infinite vertue But for the temporall paine of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it speaker A. W. It was not for nothing that you would not set downe Master Perkins words For you saw well enough that if you should doe so your poore blinded Papists would venture to reade them which now they dare not doe and so your weaknes in answering might be discouered Master Perkins hath refuted your answere of applying Christs satisfaction before it was hatcht you passe it by as not seene and propound his answere to another obiection by halues leauing the obiection out altogether I will make the matter as plaine as I can with shortnes You Papists say that Christs satisfaction merited that mans workes should satisfie for temporall punishment Master Perkins denies it vpon this reason If Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie he made euery beleeuer a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer a Priest in the same order with himselfe But he did not make men Christs and Iesuses Redeemers and Priests in the same order with himselfe Therefore he did not satisfie that man might satisfie The assumption he prooues because Christs Priesthood cannot be communicated to any other the consequence of the proposition depends vpon this that satisfaction is a part of Christs Priesthood you denie the consequence but neither shew any reason of your deniall nor answere his proofe onely you tell vs that a man is able to beare the temporall punishment though not the eternall as though wee denied temporall because a man cannot beare it speaker D. B. P. And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine Let him consider that in sinne there are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glorie lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth Novv vvhen he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning avvay from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure vvhich he tooke in the sinne the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnes of that his pleasure he is to doe penance speaker A. W. First your distinction belongs not to all sinnes and so prooues satisfaction needfull but for some sinnes onely To what doth a man turne when in the error of his iudgement he denies Christ to bee God without any respect of glorie lucre lust or such like Again may not a man sweare vnaduisedly and rashly without this turning and without any pleasure in that sinne Yea may not a man thinke the murthering of his Soueraigne lawfull and meritorious as many Popish traytors haue done without this turning to I cannot tell what Sinne is the transgression of Gods commendements as for this turning to and from it is an idle speculation of men that seeke a knot in a rush he that doth that which God forbids whatsoeuer the occasion or end of his doing be sinnes in so doing He that makes his money his god sinnes not because he loues his money or turnes to his money but because hee loues it otherwise than hee should and so turnes from God to it Secondly what a fond distinction is that betwixt the sin and the pleasure in the sinne Is not that pleasure in the sin a sinne too if it be voluntarie and if it be not voluntarie but onely be a consequent vpon the sinne hauing no ground in the will any way how is it punishable speaker W. P. Againe if Christ by his satisfaction giue power to man to satisfie then man doth satisfie by Christ and Christ beside his owne satisfaction vpon the crosse must daily satisfie in man to the ende of the world but this cannot be for Christ vpon the crosse when death was vpon him said It is finished that is I haue fully satisfied for all the sins of mankinde both in respect of the fault and punishment As for Christs buriall resurrection which followeth his death they serued not to satisfie but to confirme and ratifie the same speaker D. B. P. But Christ saith M. Perkins said On the Crosse it is finished VVherefore all satisfaction vvas at Christs death ended as vvell temporall as eternall Ans. That those vvords haue a farre different sense To vvitte that Christ had then ended his course and fulfilled all prophecies and endured all such torments as pleased God to impose vpon him for the redemption of mankind of satisfaction temporall there is no mention neither can any thing be dravvne thence against it speaker A. W. There is no mention of any satisfaction at all and yet you grant that eternall satisfaction is there signified You must then shew some good reason why the one was then finished and not the other which it is vnpossible for you to doe because you confesse that both were then performed for all sinnes before Baptisme Look by what reason you can draw that doctrine from that place by the same will we conclude the other If you will say al was done that belongs to mans redemption I aske whether Christ haue not also redeemed vs from temporall punishment You grant from all that was due to sinne before Baptisme I demaund further whether these punishments were not part of that penaltie which the breach of Gods law laies vpon vs if they were then either we are redeemed from them by Christ or he hath not made perfect redemption But questionlesse his redemption is perfect and these are punishments due to sinne Therfore he hath freed vs from these also speaker W. P. Againe Paul saith 2. Cor. 5. 21. Hee that knew no sin was made sinne for vs that is the punishment of sinne for vs but if the Church of Rome say true that Christ doth daily satisfie then Paul spake too short and should haue said further that Christ was made sinne for vs and in vs too and that God was not onâ—ly in Christ but also in vs reconciling the world to himselfe But Paul neuer knew this learning and therfore let them turne themselues which way they wil by putting a supplement to Christs satisfaction they doe indeede annihilate the
that forgiuen If it were then al the people had true faith in the Messiah which is a very bold assertion without all likelihood of truth But no doubt some of them were indeed true beleeuers They were and of them it remaines to be prooued that their shutting out of Canaan was to appease the remaines of Gods wrath against their murmuring There is no such thing in the text but that God did it to make all the earth see his glorie Adde hereunto that this punishment was not occasioned by this sinne onely but by former murmurings and those many perhaps not at all pardoned by any such speciall entreatie of Moses speaker D. B. P. The like iudgement vvas giuen against Moses himselfe and Aaron for not glorifying Gad at the vvaters of contradiction both of them had their sinne pardoned yet vvere they both aftervvard for the same de barred from the entrance into the holy Land speaker A. W. The like answere I make to the example of Moses and Aaron that is I denie the antecedent Moses and Aaron were not punished that God might be satisfied for the temporall punishment belonging to their sinne but that they and the people might learne to put their trust in Gods promises made to them and to weight on him with patience The end of their punishment was not Gods satisfaction but their reformation and the peoples speaker D. B. P. To this M. Perkins ansvvereth first that man must be considered in a tvvofold estate as he is vnder the lavv and as he is vnder grace In the former estate all afflictions vvere curses of the lavv in the latter they are turned vnto them that beleeue in Christ from curses into trials corrections preuentions admonitions instructions and into vvhat you vvill else sauing satisfaction Novv to the purpose Whereas God saith he denied the beleeuing Israelits vvith Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan it cannot be proued that it vvas a punishment or penaltie of the law laide vpon them the Scripture hath no more but that it vvas an admonition vnto all ages follovving to take heed of like offences as Paul vvriteth All thâ—se things came vnto them for examples and vvere vvritten for our admonition Reply He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion needs not to care what he saith Hath the Scripture no more of their fact then that it was an admonition to others Turne to the originall places where the whole matter in particular is related First their murmuration then Moses intercession for them and the obtaining of their pardon and lastlie after all the rest Gods sentence of depriuation of them from entring into the land of promise for that their murmuration Againe Aaron shall not enter into the land because he hath been disobedient to my voyce and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the vvaters of strife So that nothing is more cleare euen by the testimony of the holy Ghost then that their daies were shortened and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off in punishment of those offences which were before forgiuen them And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth for our admonition and instruction we are to learne thereby that God so deaâ—eth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance speaker A. W. Master Perkins denies not that this punishment was laid vpon them for those sinnes but that the Scripture affoords any proofe to shew that it was a penaltie of the law as a part of the Curse which appertaines to sinners by the law for which Christ hath fully satisfied The punishments in themselues were penalties of the law but they are notsuch to them who by true faith in Christ haue all their sinnes fully satisfied for by him speaker W. P. Obiect III. Dauid was punished after his repentance for his adulterie for the child died and he was plagued in his owne kind in the incest of Absolon and when hee had numbred the people hee was yet punished in the death of his people after his owne repentance Answ. I answere as before that the hand of God was vpon Dauid after his repentance but yet the iudgements which befell him were not curses vnto him properly but corrections for his sinnes and triall of his faith and meanes to preuent further sinne and to renew both his faith and repentance as also they serued to admonish others in like case for Dauid was a publike person and his sinnes were offensiue both within the Church of God and without speaker D. B. P. What dotage is this to graunt the very same thing which he would be thought to deny but yet in other tearmes that the simple whom only he can beguile may not perceiue it If the hand of God were vpon Dauid correcting him for his sinne and that after his repentance did not Dauid then suffer temporall punishment for his sinnes before forgiuen Which is most properly to satisfie for them speaker A. W. Dauid was punished but not to satisfie Gods wrath remaining after the eternall punishment was taken away by the sactifice of the Messiah made effectuall to Dauid by his faith The reason of his punishment as the Scripture expresly saith was the stopping of the Heathens mouthes who were likely to blaspheme God because of Dauids sin as if God either would not haue seene or had not cared what manner of man by his speciall prouidence he had preferred to the kingdome of Israel Master Perkins truly and constantly denies the same thing still viz. that Dauids punishment was for satisfaction to God by bearing part of the curse due to sinners by the law which onely is to satisfie The reason of this deniall that I may answere once againe for all is that Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law being made a curse for vs. speaker D. B. P. Yea ouer and beside this punishment inflicted by God he of his owne deuotion performed farre greater satisfaction by putting on sack-cloath lying on the bare ground by watering his couch with teares and making ashes his food and in this most pittifull plight he made most humble supplication vnto God to wash him more and more from his iniquitie he neuer dreamed that this his satisfaction should be any derogation vnto the satisfaction of his Lord and Sauiour but in the Psalme saith That such an humble and contrite hart is a sweete sacrifice vnto God speaker A. W. Dauid had not so little feeling either of his Sauiours loue or his owne sinne as to thinke that the one had satisfied by halues or the other by such outward cariage could be satisfied for His praying and humbling of himselfe was to another end partly to intreate for the childs life whom he loued most dearely and partly to obtaine the recouerie of that ioy and comfort which he had formerly taken in the sense of Gods loue to him to which
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
we haue care to maintaine and obserue these caueats being remembred first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done speaker D. B. P. See what a â—…erent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God gouerned by his holy spirit that it neuerthelesse may prescribe things both childish and absurd But I must pardon him because he speaketh of his owne Synagogue which is no part of the true Church speaker A. W. Hee that obserues what your Romish synagogue hath brought into Gods seruice and remembers that the Church that is men which beare sway in it may fondly erre will acknowledge this caueat most needfull No stage-play is so full of fooleries as your Masse-game speaker W. P. Secondly that they bee not imposed as any parts of Gods worship speaker D. B. P. This is contrary to the conclusion for order and comlinesse to be vsed in Gods worship which the Church can prescribe is some part of the worship speaker A. W. Order and comelinesse are no parts of Gods worship but adiuncts seruing to the better performance thereof as the obseruation of due and fit circumstances giue a grace and furtherance to any action whatsoeuer speaker W. P. Thirdly that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit speaker D. B. P. This is needlesse for if it be not absurd which was the first prouiso it is already seneted from superstition speaker A. W. That is absurd which is contrarie to common reason or sense but all things superstitious are not so yea many points of superstition haue so much shew of reason for them that without Gods commandement to the contrarie a wise man might thinke them very fit meanes of Gods worship and meritorious Such was the Gentiles worshipping of Angels supposing they had worshipped none but God such is your worshipping of Angels and he saincts and she saincts now adayes such is your feare of displeasing God if you eate flesh on saincts eauens or in Lent and such like speaker W. P. Lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them And thus much wee hold touching Traditions speaker D. B. P. The fourth touching multitude may passe these be but meere trifles That is of more importance that he tearmeth the decree registred in the 15. of the Actes of the Apostles a Tradition whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine deliuered besides the written word Now the Actes of the Apostles is a parcell of the written word as all the world knovves That then vvhich is of record there cannot be tearmed a Tradition Though the Acts of the Apostles be a part of the written word yet was not the booke written when that decree was first obserued neither doth Master Perkins giue it the name of himselfe but saith it is tearmed a tradition The difference speaker W. P. Papists teach that beside the written worde there be certaine vnwritten traditions which must bee beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation And these they say are twofold Apostolicall namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written and Ecclesiasticall which the Church decreeth as occasion is offered Wee hold that the Scriptures are most perfect containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation whether they concerne faith or manners and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written worde which shall bee necessarie to saluation so as hee which beleeueth them not cannot be saued speaker D. B. P. Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions obserue that we deuide Traditions into three sorts The first we rearme Diuine because they were deliuered by our blessed Sauiour who is God Thesecond Apostolicall as deliuered by the holy Apostles The third Ecclesiasticall instituted and deliuered by the Gouernors of the Curch after the Apostles daies And of these three kinds of Traditions we make the same account as of the writings of the same Authors to wit we esteeme no lesse of our Sauiours Traditions than of thefoure Gospels or any thing immediatly dictated from the holy Ghost Likewise as much honor and credit doe we giue vnto the Apostles doctrine vnwritten as written For incke and paper brought no new holines nor gaue any force and vertue vnto either Gods or the Apostles words but they were of the same value and credit vttered by word of mouth as if they had been written Here the question is principally of diuine Traditions which we hold to be necessary to saluation to resolue and determine many matters of greater difficulty For we deny not but that some such principall points of our Faith which the simple are bound to beleeue vnder paine of damnation may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures as for example that God is the Creator of the world Christ the Redeemer of the world the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier and other such like Articles of the Creed speaker A. W. Diuine traditions are such as were deliuered by our Sauiour say you and are diuers from those that the Apostles left So that the controuersie is principally of those matters that Christ only spake and neither the Euangelists nor Apostles haue set downe in writing But that we may vnderstand what wee doe it is further to be knowne that the question is not whether if there be any such traditions wee are bound to beleeue them for that is out of all doubt but whether there be any such or no or whether the Scriptures doe not containe sufficient direction for the determining of al matters of importance to saluation and for the substance of religion You that you may discredit the Scriptures to aduance traditions doe not so much as acknowledge that the maine grounds of doctrine are there plainly taught but mince the matter with your some such principall points and may be gathered out of the holy Scripture whereas not onely those two you name but if not all yet many more are manifestly therein declared Our reasons speaker W. P. Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the words that I commande thee nor take anything therefrom therefore the written worde is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation If it bee said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vnwritten as of the written word I answere that Moses speaketh of the written word onely for these very words are a certaine preface which hee set before a long commentarie made of the written lawe for this ende to make the people more attentiue and obedient speaker D. B. P. Let the words be set where you will they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification The words cited signifie no more then that we must not either by addition or subtraction chaunge or peruert Gods commaundements whether they be written or vnwritten speaker A. W. To interpret this place of vnwritten traditions is to strengthen the Iewes error and to voide our Sauiours reproofe And if there were any such though the particulars were
Churches is of great authoritie speaker A. W. Origen teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants Origen calles the tradition of the Apostles their practise of baptizing infants which hath sufficient ground of scripture though not in expresse words as your Church also holds and as Origen himselfe acknowledgeth by shewing the reason that moued the Apostles to baptise them as hee conceiues though indeede there is also other better warrant for it speaker A. W. Athanasius saith VVe haue proued this sentence to haue been deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but yee O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas vvhat Auncestors can yee shevv of your opinion speaker A. W. Where reason failed the Arians on their side and could not moue them in behalfe of the Church Athanasius addes this as a further proofe for their confutation that the doctrine of Christ being one with his Father had been held from time to time in the Church whereas they had no consent of antiquitie for their opinion Yet had he himselfe prooued the point by many certaine reasons out of the Scripture and brought this argument from the authoritie of men for confutation of their false assertion that the former Diuines were not of that iudgement This Athanasius refuteth by the testimonies of Theognostus Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria whom he calles eloquent and one other Dionysius Bishop of Rome and Origen whom he termes painfull S. Basil hath these words VVe haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly vvritten and part vve haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both vvhich be of the same force to godlines and no man opposeth against these vvho hath at the least but meane experience of the Lavves of the Church See Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. in Iulian If you will giue me leaue I will defend Basils speech by that which may be gathered out of him viz. that hee holds them things to be by tradition which are not exprest in the Scriptures My ground for this exposition are these words of his Out of what Scripture haue we saith Basil the very speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine some thousand two hundred yeares agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning Jf thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures vvhich is common to all vve must needs heare thee but these vvords vvhich are vvithout the Scriptures are in no sort to be receiued of vs when as the Lord himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine do they vvorship me teaching commaundements and precepts of men How S. Augustine opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath been afore declared The like doth S. Bernard asfirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called Apostolici So that most truly it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by word of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their ignoble predecessors old condemned Heretikes to reiect all traditions and to she vnto the only Scriptures speaker A. W. The Heretike Maximinus asked nothing but reason of Austin if he stood vpon the matter and not vpon the termes neither doth Austin find fault with this condition nor could he in reason because as I answered before himselfe appeales to that kind of triall in that very disputation Neither must I saith Austin to Maximinus alleage the Councell of Nice in preiudice of the matter nor you the Councell of Ariminum neither am I tyed with the authoritie of this Councell nor you with the authoritie of that let matter striue with matter 〈◊〉 with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the scriptures which are not proper to you or me but common to vs both But will you heare him speake more like Maximinus Reade me this saith Austin out of a Prophet reade it out of a Psalme recite it out of the Lawe recite it out of the Gospell recite it out of an Apostle Thence recite I the Church disperst ouer the whole world and our Lord saying my sheepe heare my voyce And a little after away with mens papers let the voyce of God sound And in another place away with our papers let Gods bookes come forth heare Christ heare the truth speaking If these speeches be hereticall we confesse our selues to be Heretikes but so that we haue Austin on our side for an Arch-Heretike Bernard speakes of the Hereticks called Apostolicks not in his 62. but in his 66. sermon vpon the Canticles where he saith neuer a word of their reiecting Traditions No more hath Austin nor Epiphanius where they write of them And if they did reiect traditions it was because they would establish their owne hereticall bookes viz. the Acts of Thomas and Andrew and the gospell of the Egyptians which to say the truth are to be counted traditions because they haue no warrant of the scripture nor are any part of the Canon It were easie for me to turne your owne sentence against you and as all men may see with good reason but it shall suffice me that I haue refuted your slaunders and shewes with sound proofe of arguments and authoritie I consider loosers must haue leaue to speake The eighth point Of Vowes Our consent speaker W. P. Touching vowes this must bee knowne that wee do not condemne them altogether but onely labour to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point which by the Church of Rome from time to time hath beene corrupted and defaced We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed vnto him and it is twofold generall or speciall The generall vow is that which concernes all beleeuers and it is made in the couenant both of the law and of the Gospell I will here onely speake of the vow which is made in the couenant of the Gospell in which there be two actions one of God the other of man God in mercy on his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ and to obey God in all his commaundements All men euer made this vow vnto God as the Iewes in circumcision which also they renewed so often as they receiued the Passeouer and in the newe Testament all that are baptized doe the like And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good conscience whereby wee purpose to renounce our selues to beleeue in Christ and to bring forth the fruites of true repentance and it ought to be renued so oft as wee are partakers of the supper of the Lord.
them he must needs be furiously transported with blind zeale that makes warre against Crosses and burnes holy Pictures as of late the Superintendent of Hereford did in the market place openly Here is not one sufficient testimonie as I haue shewed to prooue that euer there were any such Images as you speake of then what miracles could be wrought for the countenancing of our Sauiour by them It is an honour indeed to haue Images erected in memorie of the deceased but not for him that is God neither is it a religious honour but a ciuill proceeding not from our deuotion but from our loue whatsoeuer the ground of our loue be in respect of them whom we so honour How slight and vaine a motion to the imitation of any mans vertues the sight of his Image is let all experience testifie which indeed can bring no more but the remembrance of it at the most But suppose there were some more force in it all the helps that can be imagined likely to come by it will not counteruaile the danger of Idolatrie and so the breach of Gods commandement in erecting them for any vse of Religion whereupon Idolatrie will most certainly ensue That fable of I cannot tell what woman moued to some ciuill outward carriage by the beholding of Polemons Image seemes to haue been deuised out of the Heathen historie of another Polemon who was brought to the like ciuill vertue by hearing the Philosopher Xenocrates discourse of continencie and temperancie a farre more likely matter whether it be true or false But what haue we to doe with that lying Conuenticle which tels vs of such a thing out of Athanasius as was written if they say true some foure hundred yeeres before and neuer heard of vntill that time when there was such speciall need of it No no that dealing of that Councill is too well knowne to purchase any credit with mē that will not wilfully be blinded In the like sort they deale with Basil Cyril Ambrose Chrysostome Gregorie and the Apostles themselues whose decrees they fetch out of a counterfeit Synod at Antioch The difference speaker W. P. Our dissent from them touching images stands in three points I. The Church of Rome holds it lawfull for them to make images to resemble God though not in respect of his diuine nature yet in respect of some properties and actions Wee on the contrarie hold it vnlawfull for vs to make any image any way to represent the true God or to make an image of any thing in way of religion to worship God much lesse the creature thereby For the second commandement saith plainely Exod. 20. 4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing in heauen c. The Papists say the commaundement is meant of the images of false gods But will they nill they it must be vnderstood of the images of the true Iehouah and it forbids vs to resemble God either in his nature properties or works or to vse any resemblance of him for any sacred vse as to help the memorie when we are about to worship God Thus much the holy Ghost who is the best expoūder of himself teacheth most plainly Deut. 4. 15. 16. Thou sawest no image at al either of false or true god and therefore thou shalt not make any likenes of anything And againe the Prophet Esay c. 40. 18. reprouing idolaters asketh to whom they will liken God or what similitude will they set vp to him And vers 21. Know ye nothing haue ye not heard hath it not bin told you from the beginning as if he should say haue yee forgotten the second commaundement that God gaue vnto your fathers And thus he flatly reprooues all them that resemble the true God in images speaker D. B. P. This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Roman Catechisme in defence of that opinion which it doth of set purpose disproue It teacheth indeed that the very nature and substance of God which is wholy spirituall cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours and all edgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull yet by and by annexeth these words Let no man therefore thinke it to be against religion and the Law of God vvhen any person of the most holy Trinities is pourtraied in such sort as they haue appeared either in the Old or Nevv Testament c. But let the Pastor teach that not the nature of God but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God are represented in such Pictures If the man be not past grace he wil surely blush at such a foule error His textes of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme and do proue only that Gods proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or liknes speaker A. W. If you would haue dealt as kindly with Master Perkins in this quotation as I haue dealt with you in many you might haue applied it to the former part that the commandement is meant of the Images of the true Iehouah which your Catechisme grants though onely so farre as concernes the expressing of his forme by an Image as your selfe also confesse And the Councill of Trent affirmes that to be vn being al one in the coueting of wife and coueting of house seruant maide oxe asse and whatsoeuer els as the Apostle expresseth it without mētioning any particular But the two first differ almost as much as may be The first forbidding the worship of any other God but the true the second prohibiting the worshipping of him by an Image or Idoll The last reason which only your Catechisme brings beside Austins authoritie and custome of your Church is insufficient also For it was very fit that God should adde that reason of promise and threatning to that rather than any of the rest because hee had speciall care of that and knew that the Iewes and all men generally were likely to worship him after their owne deuices and namely by Images Beside is not the reason annexed to the third Commandement as generall that God will not hold him guiltlesse which breakes any of his lawes why then doe you not make that also a part of the first Commandement speaker W. P. And the distinction they make that an Image is the representation of true things an Idol of things supposed is false speaker D. B. P. But Master Perkins goeth on and saith that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll that an Image representeth a thing that is but Idoll a thing supposed to be but is not is false and against the auncient writers vvho make it all one We proue the contrary First by the authority of the auncient Doctors Origen and Theodoret vvho in expresse vvords deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll vvhich is taken out of S. Paul laying that an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld that is such Idols as the Heathen take for
substance or that they may be reunited BEfore I am to deliuer my opinion concerning this point I had neede to be enformed what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion For there being great diuersities of pretended Religions currant in the world all contrary to the Church of Rome how can I certainlie know whether of them hâ— professeth Wherefore good Sir may it please you to declare what Religion you vnderstand when you say our Religion Is it that which Martin Luther a licentious Fryer first preached in Germany or rather that which the martiall Minister Zwinglius contended with sword and shield to set vp in Switzerland or perhaps that which John Caluin by sedition wrought into Geneua expelling the lawfull Magistrate thence and by the ayde of Beza a dissolute turnecoate spread into many corners of France Or if by your Religion you meane only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England yet are you farther to shewe whether you vnderstand that established by the State or the other more refined as it is thought by many and embraced by them who are called Puritanes for of their leauen sauoureth that position of yours That the article of Christs descent into bell crept into the Creede by negligence and some other such like in this booke These principall diuisions of the new Gospell to omit sundrie sub-diuisions being famous and receiued of diuers in England according to each mans phantasie it is meete you expresse whether of them you speake of that it may be dulie considered how the Romane Religion and it agree and what vnion may be made betweene them speaker A. W. Is this no superfluitie of words What reasonable man can doubt that Master Perkins by our religion meanes as you say afterward the religion now professed in England For your word practised is too skant for doctrine some points whereof fall not into practise If it be contrarie to the Church of Rome it is easily answered without any such inquirie that contraries cannot be vnited If difference in some points make a diuers religion how many kindes are there amongst you Papists let the Franciscans and Dominicans goe with all the rest of former times what say you to these maine points Iustification in Pighius Predestination in Bellarmine Free will in Bartholomew Camerarius three pillers of your Church The difference betwixt Protestants and Puritanes as you call them is not in any essentiall point of faith but in matters of outward gouernment and ceremonies speaker W. P. And this shall appeare if we doe but a little consider how they of the Romane Church haue rased the foundation For though in words they honour Christ yet in deede they turne him to a Pseudo-Christ and an Idoll of their owne braine speaker D. B. P. Now if you meane the hotchpotâ—h and confusion of all these new Religions together as by the opposition here vnto the Church of Rome and by the artiâ—les following may be gathered then I am cleere for you in this that there can be no more concord betweene these two Religions then there is betweene light and darknes faith and insidelâ—tie Christ and Beliall Notwithstanding I thinke that the reason by you produced to proue the impossibilitie of this vnion is of no value to â—it that they of the Romane Church â—aue razed the foundation for though in vvords they honour Christ yet indeede they turne him into a Pseudochrist and an â—doll of their 〈◊〉 braine A very sufficient cause no doubt of eternall breach and diuision if it could be verisied But how proue you that we Romane Catholikes who beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and the onely Redeemer of Mankinde make him a false Christ and an Idoll or before you goe about to proue it tell me I pray you how this can well stand with your owne definition of a reformed Catholike in your Preface There you affirme him to be a Catholike reformed to your liking that holdeth the same necessarie heads of Religion vvith the Romane Church Now can there be any more necessarie head of Religion than to haue a right faith in Christ can any other foundation be laid besides Iesus Christ If then your reformed Catholike must agree with the Romane Church in neâ—essarie heads of Religion as you hold he must either the Romane Church â—…th not the foundation and maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist as you say here or else you teach your disâ—iples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of Religion with it speaker A. W. It is no confusion to take from seuerall men seuerall opinions agreeing with the word of God Luther hauing been a long time kept in the darknes of Pâ—…pcrie could not by and by discerne the truth in all points Was not your superstition both for doctrine and ceremonics patcht vp peece by peece as it could procure allowance from time to time Yea was not the truth of Religion made manifest by little and little in the Church as God gaue learned men occasion of studie and a blessing in their studie against the poyson of Heretikes Such hath been and such alwaies will be the course of the Gospell that truth will be more and more knowne as there is more opposition against it and as men bestow more paines in reading praying and studying To denie the reason or argument is to denie the consequence not the antecedent but you grant the consequence viz. That razing the foundation and turning Christ into a Pseudochrist is a sufficient cause of eternall breach onely you denie the antecedent that the Church of Rome doth so At the least as well as you prooue that the Church of England holding the same opinions of Christ haue no faith no religion no Church no Christ c. But let vs see how you disprooue the antecedent If your reformed Catholike say you must agree with the Romane Church in many heads of religion either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or else you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it But he must agree with it in many heads of religion Therfore either the Romane Church razeth not the foundation or you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessarie heads of religion with it I denie the consequence of your proposition because by paring of the errors which Master Perkins requires he shall keepe himselfe from razing the foundation though he hold the same necessary heads for example he must holde with you that a true ChristiaÌ„ must haue a right faith in Christ but he must reiect the faith you professe as not right Again he must hold that no other foundation can be laid but Iesus Christ not that you lay him aright for the foundation speaker W. P. They call him our Lord but with this condition that the Seruant of Seruants of this Lord may change and adde to his commaundements hauing so great a power that he
required it Chrysostome and Theophylact denie all recompence and reward of labours past and referre all to grace He doth not say that the wages of righteousnes is euerlasting life saith Caietan but the gift of God is euerlasting life that we may vnderstand that we attaine to euerlasting life for our end not by our merits but of his free gift wherefore also he addes In Christ Iesus our Lord Behold the merit behold the righteousnes the reward whereof is euerlasting life but to vs it is a gift by reason or in regard of Christ Iesus himselfe speaker D. B. P. In which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paul might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie paâ—tly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and only cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the only fountaine of merit and all good workes speaker A. W. The reasons you giue why the Apostle would not speak as was fittest for his purpose are too weake First you say he would keepe vs in humilitie but his principall end was more to be respected which was the stirring of vs vp to holinesse of conuersation Beside if it be as you teach Christians are acquainted with this doctrine of meriting euerlasting life and therefore the concealing of it here was to small purpose I would your Councill of Trent had thought vpon this reason and then perhaps they would not haue valued the good workes of men at so high a rate The difference you speake of was put before in handling the doctrine of iustification Neither could any Christian be so foolishly proud as to think he could of himself do good works how then could he looke for euerlasting life simply by his owne strength speaker W. P. Again Tit. 3. 5. We are saued not by works of righteousnesse which we haue done but according to his mercie he saued vs. And Ephes. 2. 8. 10. By grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes which God hath prepared that we should walke in them If any works be crowned it is certaine that the sufferings of Martyrs shal be rewarded now of them Paul saith Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of this life are not worthie of the glorie to come Where then is the value and dignitie of other workes To this purpose Ambrose saith The iust man though he be tormented in the brasen bull is still iust because hee iustifieth God and saith he suffereth lesse then his sinnes deserue speaker D. B. P. Now to those texts cited before about iustification VVe are saued freely not of our selues or by the workes of righteousnes vvhich vve haue done I haue often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces without the helpe of Gods grace and therefore they cannot serue against workes done in and by grace Now to that text which he hudleth vp togither with the rest although is deserued a better place being one of their principall pillers in this controucrise It is The suffering of this life are not vvorthy of the glorie to come The strength of this obiection lyeth in a false translation of these words Axia pros ten doxan equall to that glorie or in the misconstruction of them For we grant as it hath bin already declared that our afflictions and sufferings be not of equall in length or greatnesse with the glorie of heauen for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life and they cannot be so great as will be the pleasure in heauen notwithstanding we teach that this shorter and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man in the seruice of God doth merit the other greater and of longer continuance and that by the said Apostles plaine words for saith he That tribulation vvhich in this present life is but for a moment and light doth vvorke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting vvaight of glorie in vs. The reason is that iust mens workes islue out of the fountaine of grace which giueth a heauenly value vnto his workes Againe it maketh him a quicke member of Christ and so receiuing influence from his head his vvorkes are raised to an higher estimate it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes speaker A. W. For the translation we haue the warrant of the Syriak interpretation which is all one with ours as your own men expound it and Theophylact in his Commentarie saith not onely that they are not equall but also that they are not worthie Indeed the Apostles purpose is to compare the sufferings of this life with the glorie of the life to come and to shew how wonderfully that exceeds these But yet we may also from thence conclude that because of this inequalitie there can be no proper and true merit by these f As for that you alleage of their working an euerlasting waight of glorie in vs it is to be vnderstood that this is by Gods bountie not the worthinesse of the person or matter Which must needes be apparant to euery man that considers what infirmities accompanie the sufferings of the best of Gods children By being a member of Christ he doth not receiue abilitie to merit but priuiledge to be partaker of his head our Sauiour Christs glorie neither by being the temple of God are we made able to deserue nor by being partaker of the diuine nature which is nothing else but to haue the spirit of God dwelling in vs by the graces of righteousnesse and holinesse which is the image of God according to which wee were at the first created For these graces being not perfect in vs bring foorth vnperfect fruites which can neuer merit truly and properly speaker A. W. Neither is that glory in heauen vvhich any pure creature attaineth vnto of infinite dignity as Master Perkins fableth but hath his certaine bounds and measure according vnto each mans merittes othervvise it vvould make a man equall to God in glorie for there can be no greater then infinite as all learned men do confesle You should haue shewed where Master Perkins saith that the glorie of any creature can be infinite as well as you reprooue him for saying so and that with such skorne as you doe Master Perkins knew as well as you can teach him that no finite nature is capable of any infinitnes but yet he truly denies full proportion betwixt our present sufferings and our glorie to come which your selfe confesse to bee true speaker W. P. Reason IV. Whosoeuer will merit must fulfill the wholelaw but none can keepe the whole lawe