worlde there will remaine no compunction or satisfaction It is easie to answere without the helpe of any newe edition For it will he too late then to repent and so there is no place lest to compunction that is contrition of hart neither consequently to confession or satisfaction as if he had said before we goe out of this worlde there is place for both compunction and satisfaction and so that place is rather for vs. Trem. in Esa Now to Chrysostome who saith That God so blotteth out our sinnes that there remaynes no print of them which thing befalles not the body for when it is healed there remayneth a skarre but when God exempteth from punishment he giues thee iustice All this is most true and much against M. PERKINS doctrine of the infection of originall sinne but nothing touching satisfaction for we holde that the soule of a sinner when he commeth to be justified is washed whiter then snowe so that there is no stayne or print left in it of the filth of sinne It is also freed from all eternall punishment but not from some temporall Now gentle Reader prepare thy selfe to beholde a proper peece of cousonage Luke 22. Ambrose saith I reade of Peters teares but I reade not of his satisfaction The colour of the craft lyeth in the ambiguity of this worde Satisfaction which is not alwayes taken for the penance donne to satisfie for the former fault But is sometime vsed for the defence Act. 24.10 and excuse of the fact So speaketh S. Paul Bono animo pro me satisfaciam with good courage I will answere in defence of my selfe or giue you satisfaction 1. Pet. 3. in like manner Ready alwaies to satisfie euery one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you In this sence doth S. Ambrose vse the word as is most plainely to be seene to them that reade the place and conferre it with the very like of his Lib. 10. in Luc. I finde not saith he what Peter said but I finde that he wept I reade his teares but I reade not his satisfaction but that which cannot be defended may be washed away So that nothing is more manifest then that satisfaction in this and the like places is taken for defence and excuse of his fault which Peter vsed not but sought by teares and bitter weeping to satisfie in part for it for this bewayling of our sinnes is one speciall kinde of satisfaction as S. Ambrose testifieth saying That he who doth penance Libr. 2. de penit ca. 5. must with teares wash away his sinnes The other place cited out of S. Ambrose de bono mortis let vs adore Christ that he may say vnto vs feare not thy sinnes nor the waues of worldly sufferinges I haue remission of sinnes is rather for vs then against vs for if by adoring and seruing of God we may be put out of feare of our sinnes and the punishment of them then doth it followe that prayers and such like seruice of Christ doth acquit vs of sinne and satisfie for the paine due to them Hierome saith The sinne that is couered is not seene not being seene In psal 31. it is not imputed not being imputed it is not punished Answere To witte with hell fire which is the due punishment of such mortall sinne whereof he speaketh or sinne may be said to be couered when not only the fault is pardoned but all punishment also due vnto it is fully paide So doth S. Ambrose take that worde couered saying Libr. 2. de penit ca. 5. The Prophet calleth both them blessed as well him whose iniquities is forgiuen in Baptisme as him whose sinnes are couered with good workes For he that doth penance must not only wash away his sinnes with teares but also with better workes couer his former sins that they be not imputed vnto him Now we must backe againe vnto Chrysostome belike he had forgotten this when he cited the other or else this was reserued to strike it dead He saith Some men endure punishment in this life and in the life to come Hom. 44. sup Math. others in this life alone others alone in the life to come other neither in this nor in the life to come there alone as diuers here alone the incestuous Corinthian neither here nor there as the Apostles and Prophets as also Iob and the rest of this kinde for they endured no sufferings for punishment but that they might be knowne to bee conquerours of the fight Answere Such excellent holy personages sufferinges as are mentioned in the Scriptures were not for their sinnes for they committed but ordinary light offences for which their ordinary deuotions satisfied abundantly the great persecutions which they endured were first to manifest the vertue and power of God that made such fraile creatures so inuincible then to daunt the aduersaries of his truth and with all to animate and encourage his followers Finally that they like conquerours triumphing ouer all the torments of this life might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdome of heauen All this is good doctrine but nothing against satisfaction that their surpassing suffering were not for their owne sinnes and thus much in answere vnto M. PERKINS Arguments against satisfaction Now to the reasons which he produceth for it And albeit he like an euill master of the campe rang our Arguments out of order Li. 3. instit cap. 4. num 29. placing that in the fore-front of our side vvhich Caluin presseth out against vs yet will I admitte of it rather then breake his order Leui. 4.5.6 1. Moyses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for the sinnes of seuerall persons and ordeyned that they should be of greater and lesser prices according vnto the diuersity of the sinnes Whence we argue thus These mens faultes vpon their true repentance joyned with faith and hope in CHRIST to come were pardoned Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to bee offered for them their paines and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice being painefull vvorkes donne to appease GODS justice were vvorkes of satisfaction M. PERKINS answereth many thinges as men doe commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose First that those sacrifices were tipes of Christes suffering on the crosse what is this to the purpose Secondly that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation and what needed that when they had offended God only and not the congregation as in many offences it happeneth Againe if satisfaction must be giuen to the congregation how much more reason is it that it be made to God Reade those Chapters and you shall finde that they were principally made to obtayne remission of God as these wordes also doe witnesse Leuit. 4. vers 20. And vpon that sacrifice the sinne shall be forgiuen them So that sacrifices were to satisfie God who thereupon forgaue the sinne and
this wee must beleeue that there is nothing else which wee may beleeue ANSWERE By the Gospell there is vnderstood all our Christian doctrine written and vnwritten and not onelie the written worde of the foure Euangelists else wee should not beleeue the Actes of the Apostles or their Epistles no more than Traditions which Christian doctrine written and vnwritten we onely beleeue by diuine faith to all other Authors we giue such credit as their writings do deserue If anie man desire to see TERTVLLIANS judgement of Traditions let him read his booke of prescriptions against Heretikes where he auerreth that Traditions serue better than the Scriptures themselues to confute all Heresies Heretikes alwaies either not allowing all the bookes of Scripture or else peruerting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures And in his booke De Corona militis he formallie proposeth this question Whether Traditions vnwritten are to be admitted or no and answereth by manie instances that they must be receiued concluding thus For these and the like poynts if thou require law out of the Scriptures thou shalt finde none but Tradition is alleadged to be the Author of them Custome the confirmer and Faith the obseruer So that nothing is more certaine than that TERTVLLIAN thought vnwritten Traditions necessarie to be beleeued Come we now vnto his second testimonie out of S. IEROM * In cap. 23 Mat. who writing as he saith of an opinion that S. IOHN Baptist was killed because he foretold the comming of Christ the good-man would saye ZACHARIE S. IOHNS Father for the Scripture sheweth plainely why S. IOHN lost his head * Mat. 14 But S. IEROM there sayeth this Because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures may as easelie be contemned as approoued But of which particular M. P. shewing himselfe a doughtie Logician would inforce an vniuersall that sorsooth all may be contemned that is not proued by Scripture As if you would prooue no Protestant to bee skilfull in the art of true reasoning because M. P. behaues himselfe in it so vnskilfully But S. IEROM in the same place declareth why that might be as easely reprooued as allowed not hauing anie ground in the Scripture because saith he It is taken out of the dreames of some Apocryphall writings opposing Scripture to other improoued writings and not to approoued Traditions to which hee saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians before the middle That the Church of God doth attribute the like authoritie as it doth vnto the written Law M. P. His third Author is S. AVGVSTINE * Lib. 2. de doct Chri. cap. 9. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scriptures are found all those poynts which containe faith and maners of liuing well ANSWERE All things necessarie to be beleeued of euerie simple Christian vnder paine of damnation that is the Articles of our Beleefe are contayned in the Scriptures but not the resolution of harder matters much lesse of all difficulties which the more learned must expressely beleeue if they will be saued which distinction S. AVGVSTINE else-where doth signifie * De peccatorū meritis cap. vlt. And is gathered out of manie other places of his workes as in that matter of rebaptizing them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by Heretikes He saith * Lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. The Apostles truely haue commanded nothing hereof in their writings but that custome which was layed against S. CYPRIAN is to bee beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradition as there be many things which the vniuersall Church holdeth and therefore are to be beleeued The same saith he of the custome of the Church in Baptizing infants * De genes ad litra lib. 10. cap. 23. And in his Epist 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture and yet neuerthelesse is defended to be vsed in the assertion of faith As also saieth he we neuer read in those bookes that the Father is vnbegotten and yet wee hold that he is so to be called * Lib. 3. cap 3. cont max Arianum And S. AVGVSTINE holdes that the holie Ghost is to be adored though it be not written in the word The like of the perpetuall Virginitie of our B. Ladie * Haeresi 4. out of which and many more such like we gather most manifestlie that S. AVGVSTINE thought many matters of faith not to be contayned in the written worde but to be taken out of the Churches treasurie of Traditions M. P. His last testimonie is taken out of Vincentius Lirinensis who sayth as he reporteth that the Canon of the Scripture is perfecte and fullie sufficient for all things ANSWERE I thinke that there is no such sentence to be found in him he saies by way of objection What neede we make recourse vnto the authoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstanding if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect Hee affirmeth not that they be fullie sufficient to determine all controuersies in religion but throughout all his booke he prooues the cleane contrarie that no heresie can be certainelie confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholike Church Thus M. P. hauing ended with the Law Testimonie addeth in a postscript two other slender reasons vnto his former The first that Christ and his Apostles vsed alwaies to confirme their doctrine with the testimonies of Scriptures and not with Tradition ANSWERE Fist for our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS he out of his diuine wisdome deliuered his doctrine most commonly in his owne name But I saye vnto you And verie seldome confirmeth it with any testimonie out of the Law The Euangelists do often note how CHRIST fulfilled the old prophecies but neuer or very seldome seeke to confirme his doctrine by testimonies their owne they doe sometimes but to saye they neuer wrote any thinge out of Tradition proceedes of most grosse ignorance Where had Saint MATHEVV the adoring of the Sages S. IOHN Baptists preaching briefelie that was done before his owne conuersion but by Tradition S. MARK wrote the most part of his Gospell out of Tradition receiued from S. PETER as witnesseth EVSEBIVS * Lib. 2. hist cap. 14. S. LVLE testifyeth of himselfe that he wrote his whole Gospell * Cap. 1. as he had receiued it by Tradition from them who were eye-witnesses What desperate carelesnesse was it then to affirme that the Apostles neuer vsed Tradition to confirme any doctrine when some of them built not onely parcels but their whole Gospels vpon Traditions His other reason is that if we beleeue vnwritten Traditions were necessarie to saluation then we must aswell beleeue the writings of the auncient Fathers as the writings of the Apostles because Apostolicall Traditions are not else-where to be sound but in their bookes but that were absurde for they might erre ANSWERE That doth not follow for three causes First Apostolicall Traditions are aswel kept in
spirits that we are the sonnes of God and coheires of Christ with this condition If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him So that the testimonie is not absolute but conditionall and then if we faile in performance of the condition God standes free of his promise and will take his earnest backe againe And so to haue receaued the earnest of it will nothing auaile vs much lesse assure vs of saluation This is the direct answere to that place although the other be very good that the testimonie of the spirit is but an inward comfort and joy which breedeth great hope of saluation but bringeth not assurance thereof This M. PERKINS would refute by the authority of S. Bernard in the place before cited Epist 107. see the place and my answere there The third reason is That which we must pray for by Gods commaūdement that we must beleeue but euery man must pray for saluation therefore we must beleeue that we shall haue saluation The proposition he confirmeth thus in euery petition must be two thinges one a desire of the thing we aske an other a particular faith to obtaine it which is proued by Christs wordes Whatsoeuer you shall request when you pray Marke 11. beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be done This Argument is so proper for their purpose that we returne it vpon their owne heades We must pray for saluation therefore we are not yet assured of it For who in his wittes prayeth God to giue him that whereof he is assured already And a godly act of faith it is in that prayer to beleeue that God will giue that which he is assured of before hand such foolish petitions cannot please God and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied that any faithfull man may pray for his saluatiō but rather thanke the Lord for it But to answere directly he who prayeth must beleeue he shall obtayne that which he prayeth for if he obserue all the due circumstances of prayer which be many but to this purpose two are required necessarily the one that he who prayeth be the true seruāt of God which first excludeth all those that erre in faith touched in these wordes What you of the faithfull shall desire when you pray shall be giuen you The other is when we request matters of such moment that we perseuer in prayer continue our suite day by day of these suites of eternall saluation we must take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken Luke 18. We must alwayes pray and neuer be wearie And then no doubt but we shall in the end receiue it But because we are in doubt whether we shal obserue those necessarie circūstances of prayer or no therefore we can not be so wel assured to obtayne our suite although we be on Gods parte most assured that he is most bountifull and readier to giue them we are to aske 1. Ioan 5. But saith M. PERKINS S. Iohn noteth out this particular faith calling it Our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will But where finde we that it is Gods will to assure euerie man at the first entrance into his seruice of eternall saluation is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it vpon his faithfull seruice and good behauiour towardes him The fourth reason is Whatsoeuer God commaundeth that a man must and can performe But God commaundeth vs to beleeue our saluation ergo we must beleeue it The proposition is true yet commonly denyed by all Protestants for God commaundes vs to keepe his commaundements and they hold that to be impossible but to the assumption That God commaundes vs to beleeue our saluation is proued saith M. PERKINS by these wordes Repent and beleeue the Gospell Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici Where is it written in that Gospel beleeue your owne particular saluation shew vs once but one cleare text for it and we will beleeue it I doe beleeue in Christ and hope to be saued through his mercy and merits but knowe well that vnlesse I keepe his wordes I am by him likened to a foole Math. 7. Math. 26. Math. 25. that built his house vpon the sandes He commaundes me to watch and pray least I fall into temptation and else where warneth me to prepare oyle to keepe my lampe burning against his comming or else I am most certayne to be shut out with the foolish Virgins An hundred such admonitions finde we in holy Scriptures to shake vs out of this security of our saluation and to make vs vigilant to preuent all temptations of the enemie and diligent to trayne our selues in godly exercises of all vertue The fift and last reason is this The Papists teach assurance of hope Rom. 5. euen hence it followeth that he may be infallibly assured for the property of a true and liuely hope is neuer to make a make a man ashamed Answere hope indeede of heauen makes a man most couragiouslie beare out all stormes of persecution and not to be ashamed of Christs Crosse but to professe his faith most boldly before the most bloudy tyrants of the world our harts being by charity fortified and made inuincible And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place and saith before Ver. 2. that the faithfull glory in the hope of the sonnes of God And doe not vaunt themselues of the certainty of their saluation This certainty of hope is great in those that haue long liued vertuously specially when they haue also endured manifolde losses much disgrace great wronges and injuries for Christs sake for he that cannot faile of his word hath promised to requite all such with an hundred folde But what is this to the certainty of faith which the Protestants will haue euery man to be endued with at his first entrance into the seruice of God When as S. Paul insinuateth that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost Heb. 6 yea after they haue tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come that is haue receiued besides faith great fauours of Gods spirit and felt as it were the joyes of heauen haue after all this so fallen from God that there was small hope of their recouerie CHAPTER 4. OF IVSTIFICATION M. PERKINS Pag. 60. FIRST I will set downe the Doctrine on both partes that it may be seene how farreforth we agree Secondly The mayne differences wherein we are to stand against them euen to death Our Doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner I propound in foure rules The first Rule That iustification is an action of God whereby he absolueth a sinner and accepteth him to life euerlasting for the righteousnes and merits of Christ 2. Rule That iustification stands in two thinges First in the remission of sinnes by the merite of Christs death Secondly in the imputation of Christs righteousnes which is an other action
for Christs wisedome power and other gifts are not imputed vnto vs as it is euident Why thē is his justice more then the rest we confesse that in a good sence all Christs gifts are ours that is they were all employed to purchase our redemption we doe dayly offer them to God that he wil for his Sonnes sake more and more wash vs from our sinnes and bestow his graces more plentifull vpon vs thus are all Christs riches ours so long as we keepe our selues members of his misticall body but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched how one man may formally be made just by the justice of an other rather then wise by the wisdome of an other 2. Object If we be righteous or iust by the righteousnes of Christ imputed vnto vs then is euery iust man as righteous as Christ himselfe hauing the same iustice his which is Christs but that is too too absurd ergo M. PERK answere Christs righteousnes is not applied vnto vs in the same measure as it is in Christ in him it is infinit but of it so much is applied to this or that man as will serue for his iustification And to helpe this answere foreward I will adde his marginall note euen as any starre partakes the whole light of the Sunne with the rest so farreforth as the light makes it to shine Reply That which is applied of Christs justice to this or that man is either infinite then the man is as just as Christ for there can be no greater then infinit in the same kinde Or it is not infinit but in a certayne measure as he seemeth to graunt and then it is no part of Christs infinit justice for all the partes of an infinit thing are infinit according vnto true Philosophy It remayneth then that a certayne limited portion of justice is deriued out of Christs infinit justice and powred into this or that man as in his owne example The light of euery starre is receiued from the Sunne beames Yet is not the light in the starre the same which is in the Sun for one accident cannot be in two subjects so far distant neither is it of like vertue to lighten the skyes as it is euident but is a farre dimmer light somewhat like vnto that of the Sunne from whence it came Euen so in our justification from the Sonne of justice CHRIST IESVS certayne beames of particular justice are conueyed into this or that mans soule whereby it is both lighned by faith and inflamed by charitie but there is exceeding difference betweene their two justices more then there is betweene the light of the sunne the light of a starre which S. August in expresse tearmes deliuereth saying How much differēce there is betweene the light that doth lighten Li. 12. conf cap. 15. that which is lightened that is the sun the starre light so much difference is there between the iustice that doth iustifie that iustice which is made by that iustification to wit betweene the justice of Christ and that which is in euery good Christian The third reason for the Catholike partie If men be made trulie and really just by Christs justice imputed vnto them in like manner Christ should be made really vnjust by the iniquity and sinnes of men imputed vnto him For there is no reason to the contrary but one may aswell be made vnjust by imputation as just especially considering that euill is made more easelie and more wayes then good M. PERKINS answere is that we may say Christ was a sinner trulie not because he had sinne in him but because our sinnes were laide on his shoulders That reason is naught for he is not trulie a sinner that paies the debt of sinne which an innocent and most just person may performe but he that either hath sinne trulie in him or is so by imputation stroken that the sins are made his owne really and he in all cases to be delt with all as if he sinned himselfe as they holde that one justified by imputation of Christs justice is really in Gods sight just and is both loued in this life and shall be rewarded in the next as if he were trulie just indeede But to auouch our Sauiour Christ to be so a sinner is to say that he was auerted from God the slaue of the Diuell and sonne of perdition which is playne blasphemy That sentence out of the Prophet Isay 53. He was counted with sinners is expounded by the Euangelists that he was so taken indeede but by a wicked Iudge and a reprobate people And therefore if you allowe of their sentence range your selfe with them as one of their number S. Chrysostome by him produced confirmeth the same saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner not that he was one trulie Christ I knowe is called sinne by S. Paul but by a figure signifying that he was a sacrifice for sinne as hath beene before declared The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly Heb. 4 affirmeth in playne tearmes that Christ was tempted like vnto vs in all thinges excepting sinne 4 Obiect If a man be righteous only by imputation he may together be full of iniquity whereupon it must needes followe that God doth take for iust and good him that is both vniust and wicked but that is absurd when Gods iudgment is according to truth Here M. PERKINS yeeldeth That when God doth impute Christs iustice vnto any man he doth together sanctifie the partie giuing original sinne a deadly wounde Of orig sin pag. 31. And yet else where he said That originall sinne which remayned after iustification in the partie did beare such sway that it infected all the workes of the said partie and made him miserable c. But it is good hearing of amendment if he will abide in it Let vs goe on 5 Obiect or fift reason is inuented by M. PERKINS but may bee rightly framed thus Christ restored vs that iustice which we lost by Adams fall but by him we lost inhehent iustice ergo By him we are restored to inherent iustice The Maior is gathered out of S. Paul Rom. 5. who affirmeth that we receiue more by Christ Lib. 3. c. 20. li. 6. de gen 24. 26. 26. then we lost by Adam And is S. Ireneus and S. Augustines most expresse doctrine who say How are we said to be renewed if we receiue not againe which the first man lost c. Immortality of body we receiue not but we receiue iustice from the which he fell through sinne The sixt and last reason for Catholikes is The iustice of the faithfull is eternall dureth after this life and is crowned in heauen but Christs imputed iustice ceaseth in the end of this life ergo M. PERKINS answereth First that imputed righteousnes continueth with vs for euer and that in heauen we shall haue no other Secondly that perhaps in the end of this life inward
him but what is this to justification by only faith Marry M. PERKINS drawes it in after this fashion As nothing was required of them who were strong by serpents but that they should looke vpon the brasen serpent So nothing is required of a sinner to deliuer him from sinne but that he cast his eye of faith vpon Christs righteousnes and apply that to himselfe in particular But this application of the similitude is only mans foolish inuention without any ground in the text Similttudes be not in all poynts alike neither must be streatched beyond the very poynt wherein the similitude lyeth which in this matter is that like as the Israelites in the Wildernes stoung with serpents were cured by looking vpon the brasen serpent so men infected with sin haue no other remedy then to embrace the faith of Christ Iesus All this we confesse but to say that nothing else is necessary that is quite besides the text and as easely rejected by vs as it is by him obtruded without any authority or probability His 2. reason is collected of exclusiue speeches as he speaketh vsed in Scriptures Gal 2.16 As we are iustified freely not of the lawe not by the lawe not of workes not of our selues not of the workes of the lawe but by faith all boasting excluded Luke 8.50 only beleeue These distinctions whereby works the law are excluded in the worke of justification include thus much that faith alone doth justifie It doth not so for these exclusiue speeches do not exclude feare hope and charity more then they exclude faith it selfe Which may be called a worke of the lawe aswell as any other vertue being as much required by the lawe as any other But S. Paules meaning in those places is to exclude all such workes as either Iewe or Gentile did or could bragge of as donne of themselues and so thought that by them they deserued to be made Christians For he truly saith that all were concluded in sinne and needed the grace of God which they were to receiue of his free mercy through the merits of Christ and not of any desart of their owne And that to obtayne this grace through Christ it was not needefull nay rather hurtfull to obserue the ceremonies of Moyses lawe as Circumcision the obseruation of any of their feastes or fastes nor any such like worke of the lawe which the Iewes reputed so necessary Againe that all morall workes of the Gentiles could not deserue this grace which workes not proceeding from charity were nothing worth in Gods sight And so all workes both of Iewe and Gentile are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification and consequently all their boasting of their owne forces their first justification being freely bestowed vpon them Yet all this notwithstanding a certaine vertuous disposition is required in the Iewe and Gentile whereby his soule is prepared to receiue that great grace of justification that say we is faith feare hope loue and repentance that say the Protestants is faith only Wherefore say we as the excluding of workes and boasting exclude not faith no more doe they exclude the rest faith being as well our worke and a worke of the lawe as any of the rest and all the rest being of grace as well as faith and as farre from boasting of as faith it selfe Now that out of S Luke beleeue only is nothing to the purpose For he was bid beleeue the raysing of his daughter to life and not that Christs righteousnes was his and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtayne a myracle but not to obtayne justification of which the question only is Consider now good Reader whether of our interpretations agree better with the circumstances of the text and the judgement of the auncient Fathers The texts see thou in the Testament Take for a taste of the Fathers judgement S. Augustines exposition of those places of S. Paul of one of the chiefest of which thus he speaketh Men not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith We esteeme a man to be iustified without the lawe De gra lib. aâ—b c 7. thought him to say that faith sufficed a man althoug he liued euill and had no good workes which God forbid that the vessell of election should thinke And againe De predest sanct c 7. Therefore the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes because saith is first giuen and by it the rest which are properly called workes and in which we liue justlie are by petition obtayned By which it is manifest that S. Paul excluding the workes of the lawe and the workes donne by our owne only forces doth not meane to exclude good workes which proceede from the helpe of Gods grace THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT IVSTIFIE MASTER PERKINS third Argument Very reason may teach vs thus much that no gift in man is apt as a spirituall hand to receiue and apply Christ and his righteousnesse vnto a sinner sauing faith loue hope feare repentance haue their seuerall vses but none of them serue for this ende of apprehending but faith only Amswere Mans reason is but a blinde mistris in matters of faith and he that hath no better an instructor in such high misteries must needs know little But what if that also faile you in this poynt then euery man cannot but see how naked you are of all kinde of probability I say then that reason rather teacheth the contrary For in common sence no man apprehendeth and entreth into the possession of any thing by beleeuing that he hath it For if a man shoulde beleeue that he is rich of honour wise or vertuous Doth he thereby become presently such a one nothing lesse His faith and perswasion is no fitte instrument to apply and drawe these thinges to himselfe as all the worlde sees How then doth reason teach me that by beleeuing Christes righteousnesse to bee mine owne I lay hand on it and make it mine Againe Christs righteousnes according to their owne opinion is not receiued into vs at all but is ours only by Gods imputation what neede we then faith as a spirituall hand to receiue it If they say as M. PERKINS doth that faith is as it were a condition required in vs which when God seeth in vs he presently imputeth Christs righteousnesse to vs and maketh it ours Then will I be bolde to say that any other vertue is as proper as faith to haue Christ applyed vnto vs there being no other aptnesse requisite in the condition it selfe but only the will and ordinance of God then euery thing that it shal please him to appoynt is alike apt and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to vs Christs righteousnesse Moreouer true diuine reason teacheth me that both hope and charity doe much more apply vnto Christians all Christes merits and make them doe then faith For what faith assureth me of in
Arke were to be worshipped because it represented Gods foote-stoole much more may the Image be worshipped M. P. answereth that the words must be englished thus Bow at or before the arke not to the arke but to God before the Arke REPLY If it were so yet must they admit that we must kneele at or before Images so we kneele to honour or pray to God against which some of their Preachers do cry like mad-men but the Hebrew phraise carryeth that wee must kneele to the arke as they who be skilful in the language do know that the arke was worshipped of the Israelites is otherwise very euident for first none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was and it was carried before the campe with great solemnity * 1. Reg 4 Cap. 6. to search out a reasting-place for the whole hoast And when they were to fight against the Philistins * they had great confidence in the presence of the arke and cap. 6. 50000. of the Bethsamites were slaine for seeing the arke * 2. Reg. 2 Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the arke Doth not all this coruince in what reuerence the arke was had euen by Gods owne testimony To this may be added the authority of S. IEROM * Ep 17. Cap. 3. who doth teach that it was the more worshipped for the Cherubins and pictures of angels that were erected at the ends of it whereby he declareth that he thought Images worthy of religious worshippe To this we may joyne that of S. PAVL * Heb. 11. that IACOB by faith adored the top of his sonne IOSEPHS rod so doth the Greeke text of S. PVAL saye as ERASMVS also translateth it The Protestants mangle the text pittifully to auoyde the place see the Annot. of Rhemes Testament The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to MOSES Put off thy shoes for the place where thou standest is holy Now if places he hollie and to be reuerenced by reason of the presence of Angels why not aswell the Image that representeth an angell or some Saints which is equall to Angels M. P. his answere rather confirmeth than solueth this argument for he sayeth that the Ceremonie of putting off his shoes was commanded to strike MOSES with a religious reuerence not of the place but of the person there present which was not God but an Angel as the text there expresseth * Exod. 3. The place then being holy required the reuerende respecte of putting off his shoes and that reuerence done to the place stroke MOSES with a religious reuerence of the Angell speaking in the person of God euen so holye pictures being firste duely reuerenced doe strike men with a religious regarde of the Saint represented To this let vs annexe that dayes be truely called holie and worshipped as the first and last daies be truely called holy and worshipfull as the first and last daies of the feast of Easter be * Exod. 12.16 And the vestments of Priests * Exod. 28.5.2 because they are dedicated and employed to holie vses euen so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints and erected to mooue and teach vs to embrace heauenly courses The third reason proposed by M. P. in fauour of the Catholikes is It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king Therefore much more to the Images of God and his Saints in heauen glorifyed being absent from vs. To this hee aunswereth that it is but a ciuill worship to kneele to the chaire of estate and that very commendable to shew our loyaltie vnto our Prince But kneeling vnto the Images of Saints is religious and therefore not alike REPLY He proposeth our argument to the halfes or else this answere had bene preuented For thus runneth our reason As the chaire of estate is to bee worshipped with ciuill reuerence in respect of the temporall Prince whom it representeth euen so the Images of holy personages that raigne now in heauen are to be worshipped with a holy and religious kinde of curtesie for as Temporall honour is due vnto a Temporall Prince so religious and spirituall honour is due vnto spirituall and most holie personages And as a good subject testifyeth his loyaltie and good affection towards his Prince by honouring his regall throne So doeth a good Christian giue testimonie of his dutiful both estimation and deuotion toward those heauenly creatures by giuing honor vnto their Images At leastwise why do not the Protestants exhibit ciuill reuerence aswel vnto the representations of Gods Saints as to the shaddowes of the secular majestie vnlesse it be because they are fallen out with the Saints of God and are become adorers of sinfull men M. P. makes a third poynt of difference that we may not worship God in any such Image in which he hath appeared vnto men In this we do not differ vnlesse he takes it otherwise then he deliuereth it Those Images we hold more reuerend than any others as representations neerer approching vnto the diuinitie yet because they do not expresse the deitie God is not directly apprehended nor worshipped in them but onely by collection as for example The forme of a graue old man in DANIEL doth not represent Gods persoÌ„ but we gather by that ancient forme Gods eternity wherby we arise to a meere perfect conceit of God whom we adore now other Images of Christ his Saints do carry our minds directly vpon their proper persons whome in their Images wee adore and worshippe vnto their degrees But wee worshippe Images with farre meaner reuerence than any of the Saints in regard onely that they do represent such personages and do induce vs more to loue and honour them and do stur vp our dulnesse more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints and the Saints in their degrees as also to imitate their holy example as hath bin said more than once that all may vnderstand how far off we are from giuing Gods honor vnto either Saint or Image But this poynt of difference is made to bring in a common argument of theirs to wit that the worshipping of the golden Calfe is condemned as flat Idolatrie * Exod. 32 yet the Israelits worshipped not the Calfe but God The Calfe to which we say they did not worship the true God the Calfe but the god of the Egiptians which was taken by them to haue the shape of a blacke Calfe with white spots * Lib. 18. de ciuit c. 5 See S. AVGST * 1. De nat deor And therfore making the goldeÌ„ calfe to represent this false god attributing their deliuerance vnto that supposed god not vnto the God of Israel committed idolatrie which the text prooueth most manifest these be thy gods that brought thee out of Egipt M. P. answereth Verse 4. that the meaning is nothing else but that the golden Calfe was a signe of the presence of the true God such glosses without any authority of the auncient fathers is ridiculous being against the plaine text but sayeth he wee must not thinke them so madde as to take a Calfe made with their eare-rings to be their God no but we may well thinke them so vngratefull vnto the true God their deliuerer that they did ascribe their deliuerance not to him but vnto that God which the Aegiptians serued whose purtraiture was that Calfe But now before we end this question I must let you vnderstand what worthy men they were that first began to wage battel against images they were the Iewes in their Talmud Ord. 2. tract 1. dist 2. See Synod 7. act 5. A barbarous Persian Xenias as witnesseth NICIPHORVS Lib. 16. c. 27. Then Mahomet the great god of the Turks Alcoran ca. 15. 17. with such like infidels sorcerers and the skumme of the earth See Card. BELLARMINE de Imag. lib. 2. c. 6. I will with one or two testimonies of the auncientest Fathers finish this controuersie LACTANT In car de pass Christ Kneele downe and adore the venerable wood of the Crosse HIEROM in vita paula She adored prostrate before the Crosse as if she had seene CHRIST hanging on it BASIL against Iulian cited ast 2. Synod 7. I honor the h storie of the Images and do properlie worship them Finally in the 7. generall Councell holden â—00 yeares past they are condemned of heresie that deny the vse and worshipping of holy Images FINIS