though not meritoriously by our holy actions which make vs euery day more and more fit to serue and please God But Master Perkins vnderstanding your opinion better than your selfe will be knowne to doe frames his reason against this position That workes are part of that righteousnes which we must pleade before God for the deseruing of euerlasting life or that our iustification before God is partly of workes and partly of faith which is the doctrine of your Church howsoeuer by you it be blanched Our reasons speaker W. P. I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Some answer that ceremoniall workes bee excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all workes whatsoeuer as by the text will appeare For vers 24. hee saith We are iustified freely by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting speaker D. B. P. Ans. The Apostle there speakes of the iustification of a sinner for he saith before that he hath proued both Iew and Greeke to be vnder sinne and that all haue sinned and need the glory of God Wherefore this place appertaines not vnto the second iustification and excludes only either workes of the law as not necessarie vnto the first iustification of a sinner against the Iewes who thought and taught them to be necessary of else against the Gentiles any worke of ours from being any meritorious cause of that first iustification for vve acknovvledge veâ—â—e willingly as you haue heard often before that euery sinner is iustified freely of the meere grace of God through the merit of Christ only and without any merit of the sinner himselfe speaker A. W. Your answere of the second instification is idle because the distinction as I haue shewed is vaine Master Perkins prooueth that iustification is wholy of faith because the Apostle excludeth workes from it whereas you teach that faith and workes together make vp that iustice or righteousnes whereby a man is iustified before God speaker D. B. P. And yet is not a sinner being of yeares of discretion meerely passiue in that his iustification as M Perkins very abâ—urdly saith for in their owne opinion he must beleeue which is an action and in ours not only beleeue but also Hope Loue and Repeet speaker A. W. Master Perkins makes not a sinner meerely passiue in his iustification but in receiuing the gift of faith and in being stirred vp to beleeue And yet is he not in these neither passiue as fondly you imagine we say for he heares and sometimes meditates feares hopes c. but in this respect he is said to bee passiue because his yeelding to beleeue proceedes not from any strength of his free will vpon the good motion inspired but from the spirit of God inclining him ineuitably to beleeue freely speaker W. P. And vers 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kind of workes are thereby excluded and speciallie such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good works For if a sinner after that hee is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might hee haue some matter of boasting in himselfe speaker D. B. P. And this kind of iustification excludeth all boasting in our selues as well as theirs For as they must giant that they may not bragge of their faith although it be an act of theirs so necessaâ—ily required at their iustification that without it they could not be iustified euen so let them thinke of the rest of those good preparations which we hold to be necessarie that we cannot truely bpast of them as though they came of our selues but we confesse all these good inspirations as all other good to descend from the bounteous liberality of the â—ather of lights and For the yeelding of our consent to them we can no more vaunt then of consenting vnto â—aith all which is no more then if a man be mired in a lake and vnable of himselfe to get out would be content that another of his goodnesse should helpe him out of it speaker A. W. From this ariseth the true difference betwixt you and vs concerning boasting that we haue nothing left vs to brag of because not onely the abilitie but the very act of beleeuing is brought to passe by Gods spirit inâ—uitably but your many actions of fearing hoping repenting louing beleeuing are caused by your owne free will without any certaintie of euent on Gods part as a cause thereof speaker D. B. P. Yet obserue by the way that S. Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting For he â—orieth in the hope of glorie of the Sonne of God and in his tribulations Againe He defiueth that vveâ— may glorie in measure and that he might glory in his power And that he vvas constrained to glory in his visions and reuolations So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord and in his heauenly gifts so it be in measure and due season Acknowledging them from whence they come But to boast and say that either God needed vs or that our good parts were cause that God called vs first to his seruice is both false and vtterly vnlawfull speaker A. W. The Apostle excludes no boasting but in a mans selfe and all that he must needs shut out if he will reserue Gods glorie entire to him For he that may truly say that he is beholding to his own free will for his iustification as he may who by the good vse of it at his choise without being certainly inclined thereto by the spirit procured his own iustification hath cause to boast of his owne goodnes not caused by God in respect of the act of beleeuing Now he that boasts of the inheritance of heauen which God onely hath prouided for him and fitted him to boasteth not of himselfe though in the middest of tribulations he breake out into this boasting But how proouâ—â— this that therefore all boasting is not forbidden in the matter of iustification To which the next place alleaged no way belongs being spoken by the Apostle of himselfe in respect of those gifts that God had bestowed vpon him for the worke of his ministerie The last being of the same nature is so farre from prouing the lawfulnes of boasting that the Apostle is saine to excuse himselfe for it as a thing inexpedient But howsoeuer it can by no meanes prooue that the Apostle shuts not all boasting out of iustification speaker W. P. And that wee may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph 2. 8. 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of
worke speaker A. W. I denie the consequence of your proposition For though saith alone be the whole cause of iustification yet not euery faith but such an one as is accompanied with hope and charitie To your proofe I answere that such a faith is neither the whole nor any cause of iustification and so though that be as you say in act yet no such effect will follow speaker D. B. P. Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot applie to themselues Christs righteousnes vvithout the preseace of hope and charitie For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honor which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing els but the plaine vice of presumption as hath been before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but doe nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie when it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophie that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sence and reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the prefence of the whole cause and not only of thâ— instrumentall cause speaker A. W. To the assumption I answere Faith considered without any act of hope or charitie to iustification doth iustifie but faith that is without these doth not iustifie To your proofe I say further that to our iustification God accounteth for righteousnes neither our hope of heauen nor our loue towards himselfe nor our estimation of his honour but onely our beleeuing in Iesus Christ. The similitude is true and fit True because the eye doth see though as an instrument fitted to that office by God and thus Philosophers Poets Orators and all kinde of people doe speake He that would be more curious than wise might finde fault with you also and say that the act of seeing also is mans and the soule the instrustrument whereby he doth see as the hand is the instrument with which he reacheth The fitnes of the similitude appeareth thus It is man that beleeueth as it is man that seeth The generall instrument as I may speake for both these actions is the soule though by diuers faculties the particular for sight is the eye for beleeuing faith outwardly there is none The eye seuered from the head seeth not and yet it is the eye that seeth and not the head so saith that is without hope and charitie iustifieth not and yet hope and charitie doth not iustifie You answere that it is not to purpose because wee require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall But you deceiue your selfe for the question is not of the whole cause or principall efficient which is God for it is he onely that iustifieth but of the instrument if wee may so call it To speake plainly the matter is as I haue often said what it is that God respects in vs to our iustification We say it is onely our beleeuing in Christ you say it is our beleeuing louing and hoping because we teach that together with faith by which on our part we are iustified we receiue hope charitie and other graces of sanctification which are all present in the heart when it beleeueth to iustification but are no way any causes of it speaker D. B. P. And to returne your similitude vpon yourselfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight speaker A. W. I denie your similitude as faultie in the reddition or latter part of it For faith receiueth no influence from any other vertue whereby it hath life to worke acceptably in Gods sight but the acceptablenes of faith proceedes from the meere acceptation of God counting it for righteousnes And whereas wee say that such a faith onely iustifieth as hath hope and loue for companions it is not our meaning that these make saith acceptable but that hee which beleeueth and hath not these vertues idly presumes of faith when he hath it not because the spirit of God together with true faith powreth these graces also into our soules But of this whole point of iustification I shall one day if it please God write more distinctly and fully speaker W. P. Reason IV. If faith alone doe iustifie then wee are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therfore not iustified by faith alone Answ. The proposition is false for more things are requisit to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes speaker D. B. P. The fourth reason if faith alone doe iustifie then faith alone vvill saue but it will not saue ergo M. Perkins first denieth the proposition and saith That it may iustifie and yet not saue because more is required to saluation then to iustification Which is false for put the case that an Innocent babe dye shortly after his baptisme wherein he was iustified shall he not be saued for want of any thing I hope you will say yes euen so any man that is iustified if he depart in that state no man makes doubt of his saluation therefore this first shift was very friuolous speaker A. W. It had been the part of a scholler to haue refuted his reason as well as to condemne his answere But indeede the reason is sound that iustification being but the subordinate meanes to the maine end saluation more is required to this than to that not that any man can faile of saluation which hath attained to iustification but because God hath appointed to make supplie of other graces that we may come by degrees to glorification Your reason is nothing worth For the comparison of equalitie and likenes is insufficient For though infants need no more to saluation yet men of discretion doe I appeale to your owne doctrine Doe not you teach that good workes are necessarie to saluation and yet you grant that infants may be saued without them yea and men of yeres too if they haue no time to doe them after their first iustification Therefore more may bee required to saluation than to iustification though infants want nothing after they are once iustified yea infants are iustified without faith as many as are iustified speaker W. P. And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if wee speake of faith as it is an instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation speaker D. B. P. Which M. Perkins perceiuing flies to a second that for faith
in the state of grace but in the state of nature namely in the first conuersion of a sinner as his plaine words are in this place The difference stands in the cause of freedome for it is impossible that a man should beleeue without freedom of will beleeuing being an action of the will But the question is whether the will work with Gods grace by it selfe by it owne naturall power or haue this operation from grace being in it selfe not actiue but passiue And this is the very opinion of Luther Caluin and generally all Protestant Diuines who in this point thus dissent from you that they ascribe the very act of the will in repenting beleeuing c. to the especiall worke of Gods spirit in their hearts that repent and beleeue whereas you contrariwise hauing furnisht man with freedome of will by nature or I know not what grace make his assent for I must speake of faith as you doe to proceede not from the spirit of God inclining him certainly to beleeue but from the good vse of his free will yeelding of it selfe to the good motion of Gods spirit yet so as that it might for all the motion and operation of Gods spirit forbeare to assent if it were not led to it by the goodnes of free will In a word you ascribe no more to God but the power that the will hath to will that which is good wee acknowledge that the very act of willing well both before and after grace is caused by the spirit of God to and in euery good desire that wee bring well to passe It is more than Master Perkins affirmes that the will being outwardly moued and inwardly fortified with the vertue of grace is able to effect and doe any worke appertaining to saluation For this vertue is not of such strength but that it needes the particular assistance of Gods spirit to incline and frame it to euery good worke of that nature speaker D. B. P. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome is most manifestly to be seene in the Councell of Trent vvhere in the sixt Session are first these vvords in effect concerning the vnablenesse of man to arise from sinne of himselfe Euery man must acknowledge and confesse that by Adams fall we were made so vncleane and sinfull that neither the Gentiles by the force of nature nor the Ievves by the letter of Moses lavv could arise out of that sinfull state After it shevveth hovv our deliuerance is vvrought and hovv freedome of vâ—ill is recouered in special and vvherin it consisteth saying The beginning of iustification in persons vsing reason is taken from the grace of God preuenting vs through Jesus Christ that is from his vocation vvhereby vvithout any desert of ours vve are called that vve vvho vvere by our sinnes turned avvay from God may be prepared by his grace both raising vs vp and helping vs to returne to our ovvne Justification freely yeelding our consent vnto the said grace and vvorking vvith it So as God touching the hart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost neither doth man nothing at all receiuing that inspiration vvho might also refuse it neither yet can he vvithout the grace of God by his free vvill moue himselfe to that vvhich is iust in Gods sight And that you may be assured that this Doctrine of the Councell is no other then that vvhich vvas taught three hundred yeares before in the very middest of darknes as heretikes deeme See vvhat Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principall pillers hath vvritten of this point in his most learned Summe Where vpon these vvords of our Sauiour No man can come to me vnlesse my Father dravv him He concludeth it to be manifest that man cannot so much as prepare himselfe to receiue the light of grace but by the free and vndeserued helpe of God moouing him inwarâ—ly therevnto speaker A. W. The Councill of Trent as closely as it carries matters could not but bewray it selfe in this point wherein it leaues to the will of man inlightened by the holie Ghost the act of refusing and receiuing grace Which must needs be naturall because there was no former worke of God whereby this power to receiue grace was bestowed vpon it And this doth Thomas by you alleaged make more plain denying that there is any grace in the will of man as from God for the preparing of himselfe to receiue habituall grace because then we should need another grace for the former and another for that before the former and so without end What then doth God in this case He moues the heart inwardly saith Thomas or he breathes into vs a good purpose A man would thinke that Thomas hereby acknowledged the receite of some speciall grace but it is not so he meanes no more but this that God puts a good motion into vs for the receiuing of habituall grace which it is in the power of our will by nature either to receiue or refuse So that still in the matter of iustification the reason that this man is iustified that is not shall be from man and not from God Are they not in the middest of darknes that write such things III. Our reasons speaker W. P. Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholy and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the second is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truly good This appeareth The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth frameth or imagineth is wholly euill And Paul saith The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God Which words are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated wisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not only contrary to God but enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very hart it selfe that is the will and mind from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmity vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruit is such is the tree such as the braunches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not only a want absence or depriuation of originall righteousnes but a pronenes also by nature vnto that which is euill which pronenes includes in it an inclination not to some few but to all and
vvhen it is offered vs that is vvhether it lie in our povver to refuse it And secondly vvhen vve concurre and vvorke vvith it vvhether vve could if vve listed refuse to vvorke vvith it In both vvhich points vve hold the affirmatiue part and most sectaries of this time the negatiue Of vvhich our Authour is silent only by the vvay in his fourth reason toucheth tvvo texts out of S. Paul vvhich are commonly alleaged against free vvill The firâ—â— I haue saith he laboured more abundantly then all they yet not I but the grace of God vvhich is in me attributing the vvhole vvorke to grace To vvhich I briefely ansvvere that they doe corrupt the text to make it seeme more currant for them the Greeke hath only He sun emoi vvhich is vvith me not vvhich is in me so that the vvord in true construction makes much more for vs then against vs Saint Paul affirmeth the grace of God vvhich vvas vvorking vvith him to haue done these things And so Saint Augustine vvhom they pretend to follovv most in this matter expoundeth it Yet not I but the grace of God vvith me that is not I alone but the grace of God with me And by this neither the grace of God alone neither he alone but the grace of God vvith him thus Saint Augustine The like sentence is in the booke of Wisdome Send that vvisdome from thy holy heauen that it may be vvith me and labour vvith me speaker A. W. Master Perkins tooke that as the most principall point which doth most diminish the glorie of God the end of all true religion Now what opinion is more derogatorie to Gods glorie than that which giues mans will a power by nature to receiue grace ofered vpon an inward motion of God without any incliniâ—g of the will by him And this answers your former quesion denying that it lies in our owne power to refuse graâ—e though we freely assent vnto it There is a necessity of inâ—…llibilitie so that it cannot come to passe that a man inclinâ—d by Gods spirit should not receiue grace there is notwthstanding a freedome of will because the will is not compelled to assent The second question is like the former and answered in like sort viz. that we might refuse in reâ—…ect of the nature of our will which is not forced to the choise that in the euent we cannot refuse because God frames our will ineuitably to make that choise You saw it was not for you to deale with Master Perkins reasons as they were set downe by him for then it would haue been looked for that yoâ— should haue answered directly to all the places of Scripâ—ure hee brings against the strength of frâ—â—will by nature Therefore you shift off the matter and outof nine texts alleaged in this question you chuse onely thâ—e Against which you thinke you are able to say somewhâ— And what is it you say That Master Perkins attributes he whole to grace vtterly vntrue For hee saith plainly â—at there is a supernaturall cooperation of mans will with Gods sâ—rit by grace enabling him to will his conuersion And addes fterwards Not I that is I by any thing in me but Gods grace â—…e enabling my will to doe that good I do If that translation â—rrupt the text Hierome corrupted it not we and to sayâ—e truth it is all one to vs whether you reade in me or whâ—me so you acknowledge the strength whereby the Apole workes to be of God and not of nature But for the prase the grace of God in the Scripture signifies either the loue and fauour of God which is wholy without a man or some gift of his which is a qualitie in the soule Now it is a great deale more likely that the Apostle speakes of some gift of God within him whereby hee is made able to labour than of the fauour of God without him wherby his labour is blessed We subscribe to S. Austin That in all our good workes we have a part or rather that the worke it selfe is wholieours though both the grace whereby we are enabled to do it and the inclination whereby we are brought to doe iâ— proceede from the spirit of God speaker D. B. P. The second text is It is God that woreth in vs both to vvill and to accomplish We graunt that it is God buâ—ot he alone without vs for in the next words before Saint Paul saith Worke your saluation vvith feare and trembling So that God worketh pincipally by stirring vs vp by his grace and also helping forward our wil to accomplish the worke but so sweetly and conâ—ormablie to our naure that his working taketh not away but helpeth forward our will toconcurre with him Againe the whole may be attributed vnto God considering that the habits of grace infused be from him as sole efficient cause of them our actions indued also with grace being onely disposiâ—ons and no efficient cause of those habits but this is an high point of â—choole Diuinitie very true but not easily to be conceiued of the vnleaâ—ed speaker A. W. We also grant as I haue said that it is God with vs herein wee differ that you ascribe no more to God in our first conuersion but a stirring of vs vp and helpng forward of our will leauing the euent to our choise anâ— so vncertaine we affirme that God doth so work that he â—…clines the will so that the euent shall in fallibly ensue therâ—…on The whole may not be attributed to God though the habits of grace infused be from him as a sole efficient case of them For the question is not how we come by theseâ—abits but whether the actions done when we haue the hbits be ours or no speaking of good workes after iustifiâ—tion If the question be of our first conuersion we say â— tâ—… act of beleeuing is ours but the grace by which we are eabled to beleeue is giuen by God and made effectual 〈◊〉 made to produce this effect of beleeuing by God also speaker D. B. P. One other obiection may be collected ouâ— of 〈◊〉 Perkins third reason against free will which is touched as he saith by the holy Ghost in these words VVhen vve vvere dead in sinnes If a man by sinne become like a dead man he cannot concurre with God in his rising from sinne Ansvvere Sure it is that he cannot before God by his grace hath quickned and as it were reuiued him to which grace of God man giueth his free consent How can that be if he were then dead Marry you must remember what hath been said before that albeit man in sinne be dead in the way of grace yet he liueth naturally and hath free will in naturall and ciuill actions which will of his being by grace fortified and as it were lifted vp vnto a higher degree of perfection can then concurre and worke with grace to faith and all good workes necessarie to life euerlasting As for
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
2. Synod 7. I honour the historie of the Images and doe properly worship them Finally in the 7. general Councell holden 900. yeeres past they are condemned of heresie that denie the vse and vvorshipping of holy Images speaker A. W. Lactantius though he were an ancient Christian was not diuine and in these verses if they be his he sheweth himselfe liker a light Poet then a graue writer whose authority should be taken in so great a matter Ierom reporteth what Paula did in Ierusalem For which he that well considereth what it was may find more cause to commend her zeale then to like of her actions She went into the Sepulcher and kist the stone of his resurrection which the Angell had remoued from the doore of the Tombe The place of his bodie where the Lord had lien as if she had thirsted for the desired waters she lickt with her faithfull tongue who sees not more zeale then knowledge in this behauiour Neither Pâ—ter nor Iohn nor any of the Disciples are reported to haue done any such thing though they came to the graue by and by after our Sauiours resurrection Was she more deuout no but more ignorant and passionat This testimony of Basil is no where to be found but in this Councell which was packed for the nonst to confirme Idolatrous Image worshippers I shewed the like practise of the Councell before concerning other writers Now for a conclusion of this point I will briefly note the beginning of Images among the Christians and speake a little of that seauenth Councell so often alleadged against vs. The first vse of any Images after our Sauiours ascension was brought in by Simon the Sorcerer who was also the first and principall Heretik Of whom Theodoret and Austin write that he gaue his owne and his strumpet Selenes Images to his followers to be worshipped by them After him one Marcellina of the sect as it is said of the Carpocratians worshipped the Images of Iesus Paul Homer and Pythagoras The Gnosticks presently after her worshipped the Images of Christ and are condemned for it by Irenaeus They haue painted Images saith Epiphanius of Carpocrates and the Gnosticks which they say are the Images of Iesus and that they were made vnder Pontius Pilate while our Sauiour liued but they keepe these Images secret yet as he obserueth they worshipped those Images Amongst true Christians the beginning of Images may wel be thought to haue bin such as Eusebius guesseth it was namely an imitation of the Gentiles who vsed to make and keepe the Images of them by whom they had receiued any speciall good Yea the Gentiles being newly conuerted could not by and by be weaned from all vse of Images more then from other superstitions It was necessary saith Tertullian in former times to yeeld many things to the Christians who for the most part were conuerted from Paganisme to religion when they were old and so could hardlie leaue those things to which all their life time they had bin accustomed But as yet they had no Churches nor vse of Images in their assemblies That seemes to haue growen by the painting of the histories of Martyrs in tables and setting them vp in Churches Which aduantage the Deuill that alwaies watcheth his oportunitie to bring in Idolatry by little and little greedilie apprehended and followed and at the last brought to such a height that the Emperour Leo the third surnamed Isaurius was faine to call a Councell at Constantinople about the yeere 729. wherein it was decreed that the Images should be pulled downe This Gregorie the second Bishop of Rome who some 13. yeeres before had caused Images to be allowed in a Councell at Rome tooke very hainously and so much the rather because the Emperour had required obedience of the Latin Church to the decrees past in that Councell at Constantinople But the Bishop was so farre from yeelding obedience that he tooke this commandement of the Emperour as an occasion to withdraw his allegeance from his Soueraigne and seized into his hands all the authoritie that was yet remaining to the Empire in Italie This contention after the death of Leo grew more hot in so much that his sonne Constantine Copronymus to make some good end of the matter assembled another Councell at Constantinople about the yeere 755. which he calleth the seauenth general Councel where there were present 308. Bishops and wherein Images were again condemned About some 34. yeeres after Irene daughter to a King of the Tartars and widow to the Emperour Leo the 4. a Pagan by birth and little better in religion during the nonage of her sonne Constantine called a Councell at Constantinople wherein a great number of Bishops maintained by the word of God that Images ought to bee abolished Which the Empresse perceiuing found meanes to break vp the Councill and afterwards appointed another again the next yeere at Nice in Bythinia wherein it was decreed that Images should bee worshipped and that Councill of Nice should be counted the seuenth generall Councell and not the other which had been held before at Constantinople against Images This is that seauenth Councell which our Papists so magnifie and it passeth vnder the name of that famous Councell of Nice wherein Arius was condemned euery man not knowing that this was a second Councell betwixt three and foure hundred yeere after the former But that all men may be the better able to iudge of this foresaid Councell let me propound the speeches of some of the Bishops on the behalfe of Images I receiue and embrace honorablie saith Constantine Bishop of Constans in Cyprus holy and reuerend Images according to the seruice of adoration which I performe to the Consubstantiall and life giuing Trinitie And them that do not so thinke nor glorifie them I separate from the Catholike and Apostolicall Church and lay them vnder the Cursse and ioyne them with such as haue denied the Incarnation of Christ our God for our saluation The holy Father hath said plainly that the Image of the King is called the King and yet there are not two Kings so that it is cleere that he which shall adore the Image and say it is Christ sinnes not The most holy Patriarke Tharasius said let vs obserue that the old Scripture â—ad signes and that out of it the new hathtaken Cherubins of glorie shaddowing the propitiatory The holie Synode answered very well Sir so is the truth The most holy Patriarke said if the old Scripture had Cherubins shadowing the Propitiatorie we also will haue the Images of Iesus Christ and of the holy mother of God and of the Saints shadowing our Altars Theodosius Bishop of Ancyra said whatsoeuer things are written are written for our learning therfore the holy Images and Pictures grauen and painted are painted and set vp for our learning zeale and example Elias the most holy Bishop of Creet said According