Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 2
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 vsus 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 vntounto punishment. III. the fault or the offending of God, vnderunder 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 eueryevery 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 vntounto the person: and in that respect is as though it were not; it being pardoned.
Annotations vponupon 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.VVhat is, but … peccadillo …you must needes shevv you are spanish.
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 rRom. 5. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 21.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 vntounto 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 vsus 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, VVhat vaine i…ions are these?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 vsus.
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 There can, though the same t…ing can not be vertue and vice in the same respect. He is not content it should be subiect, and therefore he labours to purge and free it. It is taken avvay, that it raignes not: not that it hath no svvay. And there ansvvered.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 …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 odd… 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 s1. Cor. 13. 9.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 vsus 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 D. B. P. But Saint Paul expounds himselfe otherwise. Lib. 1. cont. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 10. Lib … de nupt… & concup. cap. 23. Is eueryevery one a Papist t…at agrees vvith you in any one poyn…?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: a… 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 ma…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 (tAug. contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 6. cap. 5. 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 uFrustra.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 *Aug. in Ioan. tract. 41.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 vsus to consume sinne, and deliuer man. And that it is not onelyonly 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 (xAug. contra Iulian P…g. lib. 5. cap. 3. 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 yReddita est meritis inobe dientis.laid by desert vponupon the disobedient; and the cause of sinne, by the zDefectione con…ionis.fault of consent, or the aContagione na…cen ….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 bAug. vbi supra.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 cIn peccatum.for sinne. Further it is plaine, that Austin acknowledged it to be sinne, because he dAug. contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 2.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 eAd Rom. 7.Chrysostome and Theophylact vnderstand, to be our …lothfull and corrupt will, and a violent inclination to euill. And fLombard. lib. 3. ist. 19.Peter Lombard saith, that we are not altogether redeemed by Christ from the guilt or fault, but so that it reignes not in vsus.
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 vvhichwhich he ha…a. How proues this, that sinne there must be taken properlie: it rather proues, that it must be taken improperly: for if it He …ated it … regenerate; he did it vvilling … …s … …ate.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; vvhichwhich Lib. …. de Gen. cont. M…nic…. cap. 14.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 y• 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 gArist. Ethi… lib. 7. cap. 3.euen naturall men doe, that are ouercome of their affections. Witnes Medea in hMeta…or. lib. 7.—Video me…ora proboq… deteriora … quor.—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 hauehave a greater hatred of the sinnes they fall into, and vponupon 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 iRom. 7. 15. Vers. 23. 25.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 kDe Genes. contra Mani…. lib. 2 cap. 1…S. Austin, it makes not any whit against vsus, who acknowledge that reason, especially being regenerate, oftentimes ouercomes concupiscence & shall hauehave reward for it. Yet are not Austins words as you report them; but thus: Reason sometimes manfullie lRef…t, atque compe…t.bridles and restraines concupiscence mEtiam com….euen when it is stirred: when it so happens we fall not into sin, but nCum aliquā ta luctatione, corona…ur.with some little wrastling are crowned. But sometimes againe, as oRom. 7. 2….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 Sinne is implied in that body of death.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 vvhichwhich 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 Chemnit. exam. part. 1. de reliq. orig. pecca Whitak. de orig. peccat. lib. 3. cap. 4.properly, our Diuines proue by the description the Apostle makes of it in pRom. 7. 18. Vers. 15. Vers. 23.that chapter: It is not good. It hinders vsus from doing good. It drawes vsus 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, qHeb. 12. 1.It is an euill that doth compasse vsus about. rGal. 5. 14. Rom 7. 8.It fights against the Commandement, Thou shalt not lust. sCol. 3. 5. 9. D. B. P. This conclusion is faultie.It is an euill to be crucified and mortified. VponUpon 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: …l… sinne is done and committed properly by the person in vvhom it is: but this vvas not done by S. Paul. Ergo.
Let vsus 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 tRom. 7. 1….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 Vers. 16. Vers. 19. Vers. 25. foreign.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 vsus 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 vsus.
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 D. B. P. The flesh and the soule are not contrarie, but the flesh and the spirit.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 onelyonly 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. uRom. 8. 7. foreign.The wisedome of the flesh is …nmitie against God; signifying the very best part of a mans soule. Hence it is that he calles a naturall man, foreign, animalem, and wils vsus to *Eph. 4. 23. Col. 2. 18.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; xGal. 5. 20.Idolatrie, witchcraft, hatred, debate, heresies, &c. The Apostle (yAug. de ciuit. Dei, lib. 14. c. 3 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 hauehave no flesh. Yea zDe amiss. gra. lib. 5. c. 15Bellarmine 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 hauehave that sinne dvvelling in them, if they vvalke not according vntounto the fleshly desires of it: therefore it is no sin properly: For the vvages of sin is death, that is eternall Rom. 6.damnation.
speaker A. W.
If (say you) there be no condemnation to them that hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 aRom. 8. 1.place alleaged by you, serues not to prooue either of your propositions, as you hauehave 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 bRom. 2. 4. 5.iustification, and cRom. 6. 7.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 vvhichwhich 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 Ma…or, vvhichwhich (as the learned knovv) should consist of three vvords, containes foure seuerall points, and vvhichwhich is vvorst of all, not Jt may consist of 40. poynts, and yet but three vvords according to Logick.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 hauehave 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 vvhichwhich 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 vvhichwhich is cured by the Grace of God, giuen to the baptised, and so that vvhichwhich vvas principall in Originall sinne, do…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 dRom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 16.Apostle speakes of, against the commandement. If you do not, what hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vvhichwhich remaineth, make the person to sin, (vvhichwhich vvas the second point,) vnlesse he vvillingly consent vntounto 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 vsus beleeue, though he inforce vsus 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 vvhichwhich vve should hauehave been exempted, had it not been for Originall sinne, after vvhichwhich 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 1. Cor. 15.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 e1. Cor. 15. 19. foreign. Rom. 7. 24. foreign.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 fReuel. …. 17.holy Ghost saith of the Church of Laodicea, that she was gforeign.miserable and wretched (the word foreign signifying there, either the miserie of sinne, or pitie for that miserie) and beggerly and blinde, and naked; Houle yee rich men (saith hIam. 5. 1.S. Iames) for the iforeign.miseries that shall come vponupon you. The Apostle speakes not a word of any worldly miseries (as you expound him) but of the miserie he was in by the law of sinne, which he serued; and surely if in it selfe it be not sinne, why should the Apostle so much complaine of it, since by the trouble it put him to, it did but occasion him to shew his valour (and as you Papists say) was a means to make him deserue a crowne of glorie?
speaker W. P. Reason II. Infants baptized and regenerate, die the bodily death before they come to the yeeres of discretion: therfore original sin in them is sin properly: or els they should not die, hauing no cause of death in them: for death is is the wages of sinne, as the Apostle saith, Rom. 6. 23. & Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne. As for actuall sinne they hauehave none, if they die presently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason, or affection.
speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere. The cause of the death of such Innocents, is either the distemperature of their bodies, or externall violence: and God vvho freely bestowed their liues vponupon them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their liues from them, especially when he meanes to recompence them with the happy exchaunge of life euerlasting. True it is, that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should hauehave died, but hauehave bin both long preserued in Paradise, by the fruit of the wood of life, and finally translated without death into the Kingdome of heauen: and therfore A ridiculous translation. VVood is not vv…ont to beare f…uite. Rom. 5. Rom. 6.is it said most truely o… S Paul. Death entred into the vvorld by sin. But the other place, the vvages of sinne is death, is fouly abused, for the Apostle there by death vnderstandeth eternall damnation, as appeareth by the opposition of it to life euerlasting: and by sinne there meaneth not Originall, but Actuall sinne, such as the Romans committed in their infidelity, the wages whereof if they had no… repented them, had b…n hel fire: now to inferre that Innocents are punished with corporall death, for Originall sinne remaining in them: because that eternall death is the due hire of Actuall sinne, is either to sh…w great want of iudgement, or else very strangely to peruert the words of holy Scripture. Let this also not be forgotten, that he himselfe acknowledged in our Consent: EueryEvery one baptized is no… regenera…e.that the punishment of Originall sin was taken away in Baptisme from the regenerate: how then doth he here say, that he doth die the death for it?
speaker A. W. Master Perkins reason is thus to be framed:
That, which is the cause of bodilie death to infants Baptised and regenerate, is sinne properly:
But Originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants Baptised and regenerate.
Therefore it is sinne properly.
The proposition he proues by two kRom. 6. 23. & 5. 12.places of Scripture: the assumption by shewing, that they hauehave no actuall sinne; and therefore, since death is not, but where sinne is, originall sinne is cause of bodily death to infants, that dye before they come to any vse of reason or affection. First you deny the assumption, viz. that originall sinne is the cause of bodily death to infants. But the reason of your deniall is insufficient. For it doth not follow, that originall sinne is not the cause of death to them, because the meanes of their death is distemperature, or externall violence. For then the death of many reprobate men, were no iudgement of God against sinne: and though God, of his absolute power, may take away any mans life, because he gaue it him: yet it pleased his Maiestie to binde himselfe to a course in the creation, that death should be the consequent of sinne. lGen. 2, 17.The day thou eatest thou shalt dye; so that wheresoeuer we see death, we may conclude there is sinne, either really, as in all Adams posteritie, or by imputation, as in Christ.
Then you come to the proofe of the proposition, where you graunt the mRom. 5. 12.one place to be rightly alleaged, because death indeede had not found any place of entrie, had it not been for sinne. nRom. 6. 23.The other text you say is fo…lly abused; first, because the Apostle vnderstands by it eternall damnation: he doth so principally; but why may not death be taken as largely here, as oGen. 2. 17.it is there, from whence all these phrases of Scripture come? But there it signifies both kinds of death. Here S. Paul chiefely puts them in minde of the greater, hauing shewed before, that bodily death came into the world by the meanes of sinne; and although the Apostle be occasioned to deliuer that speech, by reason of the Romans actuall transgressions; it doth not abate, but sharpen the edge of his exhortation, to expound the place of all sinne whatsoeuer: for if there be no sinne, no not originall, but shall hauehave death for wages, certainely these actuall transgressions shall be punisht with it.
Master Perkins in pIn our Consent.the place alleaged speakes of that punishment, which is condemnation, as the very words following declare; in which he prooues, that the punishment is taken away, by that of the Apostle: qRom. 8. 1.There is no condemnation to them, that are in Christ Iesus. It is true, that bodily death also is chaunged from being a punishment; yet the reason of that death is the dwelling of sinne in the regenerate, which, by the dissoluing of the bodie through death, must be abolisht. If it had pleased God to hauehave giuen Master Perkins life, that he might hauehave seene this your exception, being better acquainted with your sleights, and his owne meaning, he would hauehave answered you more fully, as in other poynts, so in this also.
speaker W. P. Reason III. That which lusteth against the spirit, and by lusting tempteth, and in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne, is for nature sinne it selfe; but concupiscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit, Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I hauehave said, Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man, but eueryevery man is tempted when he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence, and is inticed: then when lust conceiueth, it bringeth forth sinne. And therefore it is sinne properly: such as the fruite is, such is the tree.
speaker D. B. P. Ansvvere, The first proposition is not true: for not eueryevery thing that intiseth vsus to sinne, is sinne: or else the Apple that allured Eue to sinne, had been by nature sinne: and eueryevery thing in this world one vvay or an other tempteth vsus to sinne: according vntounto that of S. John. All that is in the vvorld, is the Concupiscence of the flesh, and the Concupiscence of 1. Epist. 2.the eyes, and Pride of life: So that it is very grosse to say, that eueryevery thing vvhichwhich allureth to sinne, is sinne it selfe, and as vvide is it from all morall But not from spirituall.vvisdome to affirme, that the first motions of our passions be sinnes. For euen the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish, betweene sodaine passions of the mind and vices: teaching that passions may be bridled by the vnderstanding, and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason, and so made vertues rather then vices. And that same text vvhichwhich M. Perkins bringeth to persvvade these temptations to be sinnes, proues the quite contrary. God tempteth no man; but eueryevery man is tempted, vvhen he is dravvne avvay by his ovvne concupiscence, and is allured: aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceiued, it bringeth forth Iacob. 1.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 o… 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.
rArist. Ethic. lib. 2. cap. 1.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 sRom. 7. 7.the law of God, which forbad it, was vnknowne vntounto 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, si…eth out very profoundly in these words. VVhen the Apostle S. Iames saith, eueryevery man Lib. 6. in Iud. cap. 5.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 vvhichwhich 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 vsus, 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 Lib. 4. in. Iohan. cap. 51.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: vvhichwhich bringeth forth, either good, or bad fruit, according vntounto the disposition of it: concupiscence is onelyonly an intiser vntounto 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 th… 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 vsus 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, tExod. 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7.Thou shalt not lust, consent increaseth the wickednes of it: The outward act makes vp the sinne which the Apostle and the uAustin, Cyril.Fathers here speake of. It should seeme the author of your glosse saw this; who expounds, Brings forth sinne, *Glossa ordin. Iacob. 1. 14. Perducit ad actum.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, August. cont. Iu…. lib. 5. cap. 3because 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 Lib. 5. cont. Iulianum c. 3.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 inti…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 w…ke, is to be seene euidently: where he saith; That grace in Baptisme doth renevve Lib 6. cap. 5.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 vsus to euil. To this place of S. Augustine I will ioyne that other like, Tract. 41. in Iohan.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 vntounto 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 This vvas ansvvered before.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 vponupon 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 vponupon earth. And as long as it may be increased, That which is lesse thē it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no iust man vponupon 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 hauehave no sinne, there is no truth in vsus: for which also though we profit neuer so much, it is necessarie for vsus to say, Forgiue vsus 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 o…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 hauehave no sin, there is no truth in vsus, 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 vponupon 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, aAd Valer. l. 1 c. 24.This is not to hauehave sinne, not to be guiltie of sinne. And, bLib. 2. cont. Iul.The law of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ended. And, cTract. 42. in Iob.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 And already ansvvered.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. xAugust. ad Vale…ian. lib. 1. cap. 24. Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 3. num. 10.This is not to hauehave 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 hauehave any certainety of the iudgement of antiquity. Hitherto somewhat honestly: What followeth? Moreouer betweene him and vsus, 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 h…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 In some questions of which he did collect their opinions; as Caluin expounds himselfe in the former sentence.often against them. Secondly, that he is …tly on our side: teaching concupiscence not to be sinne, vnlesse we doe consent vntounto it. Lastly, learne to mislike the blind boldnes of such Masters: who hauing so highly cō 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 vponupon his onelyonly credit, then vponupon the authority of all the auncient Fathers. For a tast of who…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 vsus there is this difference; but this yVideri potest interesse.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 Homil. 11. in epist. ad Rom.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 vsus, and therefore may sometimes be alleadged for vsus) hath these vvords: Sinne is at the Serm. de sex tribul.doore, but if thou doe not open it, it vvill not enter in: lust tickleth at the heart; but vnlesse thou vvillingly yeeld vntounto it, it shall doe thee no hurt: vvith…old thy consent, and it preuaileth not.
speaker A. W. S. Augustine and S. Cyrill, hauehave 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 vsus. And And ansvvered alreadie.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 hauehave taught, that sinnes are not taken avvay in Baptisme, but See my ansvvere to the Epistle dedicatorie, and to the Prologue.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 vsus 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. zSee my ansvvere to the Epistle dedicatorie, and my defence of the Prologue.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 hauehave 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 bQuoad imputationem.imputation to the person: secondly in regard of cQuoad existentiam.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 vntounto 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, And I hope sufficiently defended. A smal summe. Ioh. 13. Neither ours, nor any Apostle a… all. Lib. 9. epist. 39that is, is not imputed to the person, but remaines in him still. This answere is sufficiently (I hope) confuted in the Annotations vponupon 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 onelyonly making cleane of his feete, and then he is wholy cleane. aThis Gregory vvas next neighbour to Boniface the third, the first Pope, in vvhom Antichrist vvas discoue…ed.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 vsus) auowes the proposition of my syllogisme, that they which neede to hauehave their feete washt, are not wholie cleane. Now the assumption our Sauiour makes, affirming that hee which is washt, hath yet neede to hauehave 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. Epist. ad Oceanum. Psal. 50.How are vve iustified and sanctified, if any …inne be le…t remaining in vsus? 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 bPsal. 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 6, 7. 8.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 vntounto the precious blood of our Sauiour, to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vsus from sinne, as Adams transgression was of force to infect vsus. Yea the Apostle teacheth vsus directly, that we recouer more by Christs grace, then we lost through Adams fault, in these words: But not as the offence, so also Rom. 5.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 vponupon 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 vsus, 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 s…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 vponupon vsus 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 cRom. 5. 16.Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes, but of grace, that is, the fauour and merciemercy of God; and of the gift by grace, that is, forgiuenes of sinnes, as I will shew (if it please God) hereafter, vponupon another occasion.
speaker W. P. Obiect. II. EueryEvery 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon vsus willingly; though in vsus it be otherwise vponupon iust cause. Actuall sinne was first in him, and then originall corruption; but in vsus 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 Lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 17.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 vntounto both, naturall, and supernaturall reason that S. Augustine auerreth Lib. de vera Relig. cap. 14.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 dA second ansvvere of Master Perkins omitted.Master Perkins addes a …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 eRetract. lib. 1. cap. 15. Bellarm. de amiss grat. lib. 4. cap. 10.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 vsus guiltie before God, but onelyonly 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. *Contra Iul. lib. 6. c. 6.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 vsus 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. S…e S. Thomas: who deliuereth for the forme of Originall sinne, the priuation of Originall iustice, which iustice made the 1. 2. q. & art. 3will 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 Originall sinne is in all parts of the …inde.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 consist…d in deordination of it, is taken quite away by Baptisme, and so consequently the sinne it selfe, vvhichwhich 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 onelyonly the absence of righteousnes, but also an habituall inclination to euill; which is not wholy taken away in this life, but onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Wounded in the …oot…, not plucked vp by the rootes.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, fSee 12. Art. part. 1. art. 4. …as that it neither shal, nor can recouer, though it liue and bring forth fruites of sinne, for the time of our continuance in this mortall carcasse.