many saith Saint Iohn as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God namely to them that beleeue in his name In these words to beleeue in Christ and to receiue Christ are put for one and the same thing Now to receiue Christ is to apprehend and applie him with all his benefits vnto our selues as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell For in the sixt chapter following first of all he sets forth himselfe not only as a Redeemer generallie but also as the bread of life and the water of life secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his bodie and drinkers of his blood and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood and to beleeue in him are all one Now then if Christ be as foode and if to eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ be to beleeue in him then must there be a proportion betweene eating and beleeuing Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall receiuing and apprehending of him And as the bodie hath his hand mouth and stomacke whereby it taketh receiueth and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part so likewise in the soule there is a faith which is both hand mouth and stomacke to apprehend receiue and applie Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule And Paul saith yet more plainely That through â—aith we receiue the promise of the spirit Gal. 3. 14. Now as the propertie of apprehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith so it agreeth not to hope loue confidence or any other gift or grace of God But first by â—aith wee must apprehend Christ and applie him to our selues before we can haue any hope or confidence in him And this applying seemes not to be done by any affection of the will but by a supernaturall act of the mind which is to acknowledge set downe and beleeue that remission of sinnes and life euerlasting by the merit of Christ belong to vs particularly To this which I haue saide agreeth Augustine Why preparest thou teeth and bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten And tract 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen that I may hold him sitting there Send vp thy faith and thou laâ—est holde on him And Bernard saith Homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now yet goe to follow him and seeke him beleeue and thou hast found him for to beleeue is to find Chrysost. on Mark homil 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luk. lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched by faith Christ is seene Tertul. de resurrect carnis He must be chewed by vnderstanding and be digested by faith Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs that we may yea that we must certainely by faith beleeue but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules and therefore wee may and must particularly and certainely by faith beleeue the same The first part of this reason is true and cannot be denied of any The second part is prooued thus Saint Paul saith Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare but the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba father adding further that the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption the spirit of God and our spirits that is the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost The Papists to elude this reason alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnesse of our adoption by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour being such as are weake and oftentimes deceitfull But by their leaues the testimonie of the spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties to put all out of question Bernard saith That the testimonie of the spirite is a most sure testimonie Epist. 107. Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement that we must beleeue but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes and for life euerlasting of this there is no question therfore he is bound to beleeue the same The proposition is most of all doubtfull but it is proued thus In euery petition there must be two things a desire of the things we aske and a particular faith whereby we beleeue that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith Whatsoeuer ye desire when you pray beleeue that you shall haue it and it shall be giuen vnto you And S. Iohn further noteth out this particular faith calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs whatsoeuer we aske according to his will And hence it is that in euery petition there must be two grounds a commaundement to warrant vs in making a petition and a promise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof And vpon both these followes necessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God commandeth in the Gospell that a man must and can performe but God in the Gospell commandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes and life euerlasting and therefore we must beleeue thus much and may be assured thereof This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements of the law and of the Gospell The commandements of the law shew vs what we must doe but minister no power to performe the thing to be done but the doctrine and commaundements of the Gospell doe otherwise and therefore they are called spirit and life God with the commaundement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done Now this is a commandement of the Gospell to beleeue remission of sinnes for it was the substance of Christs ministery repent and beleeue the Gospell And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour and that the promises made in him are true for so the diuels beleeue with trembling but it is particularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour and that the promises of saluation in Christ belong in speciall to me as Saint Iohn saith This is his commaundement that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him which none can doe vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour And therefore in as much as we are enioyned to put our confidence in Christ we are also enioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him which stands in the remission of our sins and our acceptation to life euerlasting
as you haue heard out of the Councell of Trent in the beginning of this question that many actes of faith feare hope and charity do goe before our iustification preparing our soule to receiue into it from God through Christ that great grace speaker A. W. If the matter be not great it was but a small fault to be short in it yea the contrarie had been a fault indeed It is not handled by the way but propounded in plaine tearmes as a second difference betwixt vs and you speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins Doctor like resolueth otherwise That faith is an instrument created by God in the hart of man at his conuersion vvhereby he apprehendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification This ioyly description is set downe without any other probation then his owne authoritie that deliuered it and so let it passe as already sufficiently confuted And if there needed any other disprofe of it I might gather one more out of his owne explication of it where he saith that the couenant of grace is communicated vnto vs by the word of God and by the Sacraments For if faith created in our harts be the only sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend that couenant of grace then there needs no Sacraments for that purpose and consequentlie I would faine know by the way how little infants that cannot for want of iudgement and discretion haue any such act of faith as to lay hold on Christ his iustice are iustified Must we without any warrant in Gods word contrary to all experience beleeue that they haue this act of faith before they come to any vnderstanding speaker A. W. If it would haue serued your turne to cauil at you would haue found Master Perkins reason and not haue iested at his authoritie I will plainly propound it for all men to iudge of your dealing That whereby Christ is to be receiued is an instrument to applie Christ. But faith is that whereby Christ is to be receiued Therefore faith is an instrument to applie Christ. To this you answere nothing but frame an argument against the question as you would haue it thought out of Master Perkins his owne explication of it Your argument is If faith created in our hearts be the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace then there need no Sacraments You should adde as supernaturall instruments to that purpose But there is need of the Sacraments Therefore faith is not the onely sufficient supernaturall instrument to apprehend the couenant of grace First there is more in your conclusion than in the question The question is whether faith be a supernaturall instrument created to that purpose or no your conclusion is that faith is not that onely supernaturall instrument Secondly I denie the consequence of your proposition you may as well say for that Master Perkins sets downe too that if faith be the onely instrument then the word is needlesse The Word and Sacraments applie Christ outwardlie as meanes on Gods part faith receiues it in on our part the holie Ghost inlightening and inclining our hearts thereunto Little infants in my poore opinion haue no act of faith but are iustified without any thing done by them God for Christs sake according to his euerlasting election forgiuing their sinnes and adopting them for sonnes and heires of glorie speaker W. P. In this their doctrine is a twofold error I. that they make faith which iustifieth to go before iustification it selfe both for order of nature and also for time whereas by the word of God at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then iustified and sanctified For he that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the bodie and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life Ioh. 6. 54. speaker D. B. P. But to returne vnto the sound doctrine of our Catholike faith M Perkins finds two faults with it one that we teach faith to goe before iustification whereas by the word of God saith he at the very instant when any man beleeueth first he is then both iustified and sanctified What word of God so teacheth Marry this He that beleeueth eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ and is alreadie passed from death to life I answere that our Sauiour in that text speaketh not of beleeuing but of eating his bodie in the blessed Sacrament which who so receiueth worthely obtaineth therby life euerlasting as Christ saith expressely in that place And so this proofe is vaine speaker A. W. If you had meant plainly you should haue reported Master Perkins reproofe of your opinion truly as he hath deliuered it that you make faith goe before iustification not onely in order of nature onely which we grant but in time also which we denie If I should onely say the contrarie that our Sauiour doth not speake there of the Sacraments I might conclude by as good reason as you doe and so this answere is vaine But I oppose to your authoritie not mine owne which is nothing worth but your owne writers yea the Councill of Trent which leaues it free to al men to expound that chapter either of the spirituall eating of Christ by faith only or of eating him really in the Sacrament And this libertie is grounded vpon the diuersitie of opinions among the Fathers concerning the sense of that chapter This is sufficient to make Master Perkins reason good against your deniall speaker D. B. P. Now will I proue out of the holy Scriptures that faith goeth before iustification first by that of S. Paul VVhosoeuer calleth on the name of our Lord shall be saued but how shall they call vpon him in vvhom they doe not beleeue hovv shall they beleeue vvithout a preacher c. Where there is this order set downe to arriue vnto iustification First to heare the preacher then to beleeue afterwards to call vpon God for mercy and finally mercie is graunted and giuen in iustification so that prayer goeth betweene faith and iustification speaker A. W. Prayer commeth betweene in nature but not in time for hee that rests vpon God for saluation in Christ doth withall call vpon God for pardon of his sinnes whereupon iustification followes immediatly though not alwaies in a mans owne feeling speaker A. W. This S. Augustine obserued when he said Faith is giuen first by which vve obtaine the rest And againe By the lavv is knovvledge of sâ—nne by faith vve obtaine grace and by grace our soule is cured The rest that Austin speakes of are graces of sanctification or as he calles them there good workes in which we liue and these are supplied euery day by God or at least the increase and vse of these vertues whereby wee liue godly in the world such is the cure of the soule by grace to the louing of righteousnes and doing the works of the law speaker D. B. P. If we list to see the practise of
commendation for discerning so much of the truth so may they bee excused if seeing Rome in their time a Christian famous Church they did not take it to be the seate of Antichrist But Hierome seemes rather to make against you because euen then he calles it Babylon in respect of Antichrist to come Your second and third reasons are of no more force For S. Iohn as I haue shewed spake not of Rome as it was then but as it was to be afterward and now hath been almost one thousand yeeres euen in temporall authoritie to which one of the Popes swords belongs Master Perkins rightly applies to Rome the words that fifteene hundred yeeres since were spoken of her as she is now the Popes Legates were nothing inferiour either for authoritie or exactions to the Romane Proconsuls But as it was foretold in a mysterie vnder a colour of spirituall gouernment ouerruling both in Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill matters he that remembers the bloodie massacre of so many thousands in a few daies not many yeeres agoe in France shall see that the Church of Rome shed blood enough at that one time to make her drunke as long as she shal continue yet what a small part was it of that which from time to time she hath bezeled in This section is nothing to purpose For who denies that there were as well Christians as Heathen in Rome in the Emperours daies The distinction Master Perkins denies is that S. Iohn speakes of Rome as it was vnder the Emperours and not of it as it hath been and is vnder the Popes which the authors you alleage meddle not with speaker W. P. S. Iohn writ a prophecie and therefore might well vse allegories besides he describes his Babylon so plaine that your selues are forced to confesse he meanes Rome by it S. Peter deales as an Apostle not as a Prophet and no where giues any inckling that by Babylon Rome should be meant Eusebius sets it not downe as his owne opinion but only recites it out of Papias from whom also it is apparant that Hâ—â—rome had it and in whom Eusebius saith there were many fabulous matters But let the distinction be as they suppose yet by their leaues hereby the whore must be vnderstood not onely heathenish Rome but euen the Papal or Ecclesiasticall Rome for the holy Ghost saith plainly that she hath made all nations drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication yea it is added that she hath committed fornication with the Kings of the earth wherby is signified that she hath indeauoured to intangle all the nations of the earth in her spirituall idolatrie and to bring the Kings of the earth to her religion Which thing cannot be vnderstood of the heathenish Rome for that left all the Kings of the earth to their owne religion and idolatrie neither did they labour to bring forraine Kings to worshippe their Gods Againe it is said that the ten hornes which be ten Kings shall hate the whâ—re and make her desâ—late and naked which must not be vnderstood of heathenish Rome but of Popish Rome for whereas in former times all the Kings of the earth did submitte themselues to the whore now they haue begun to withdraw themselues and make her desolate as the King of Bohemia Denmarke Germanie England Scotland and other parts therefore this distinction is also friuolous They further alledge that the whore of Babylon is drunke with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs shed not in Rome but in Ierusalem where the Lord was crucified and the two Prophets being slaine lie there in the streets But this place is not meant of Hierusalem as Hierome hath fully taught but it may well be vnderstood of Rome Christ was crucified there either because the authority whereby he was crucified was from the Romane Empire or else because Christ in his members was and is there daily crucified though locally in his owne person he was crucified at Ierusalem And thus notwithstanding all which hath bin said wee must here by the whore vnderstand the state of the Empire of Rome not so much vnder the heathen Emperors as vnder the head thereof the Pope speaker D. B. P. Well M. Perkins is content in fine to allowe of that distinction of Heathenish and Ecclesiasticall Rome which before he esteemed â—o foolish And then will prooue that not the Heathenish but Ecclesiâ—stâ—caâ—◠〈◊〉 is resembled to the purpell Harlot See what confidence this man hath in his owne shutle wit that now will prooue this and shortly after disproue it but let vs giue him the hearing The holy Ghost sayth plainely that she hath made all the vvorld drunke vâ—â—th the vvine of the vvâ—ath of her fornication and yet addeth that she hath committed fornication vvith the Kings of the earth But this cannot be vnderstood of heathenish Rome for that left all the Kingdomes of the earth vnto their owne Religion and Idolatry and did not labour to bring them to worship the Roman Gods Ergo it must be vnderstood of Papall Râ—me I answere The Roman Empire being the head and principall promoter of all kinde of Idolatrie and maintaining and aduancing them that most vehemently opposed themselues against the Christian Religion who with any shew of reason can denie but they chiefly coÌ„mitted spirituall fornication with the Kings of the earth if not by persvvading them to forsake their false Gods vvhich the Pagan Romans vvorship asvvell as they yet by encouraging and commanding them to perseuere in that filthie Idolatrie and to resist and oppresse the Christians vvheresoeuer Neither is that true that the Roman Emperours did not labour to bring other Nations to vvorship nevv Gods vvhen Nero and Domitian would be worshipped as Gods and for feare of Adrian one Antinous his seruant was worshipped as a God of all men as Iustinus Martyr testifieth These words of the text then agree very well with the Emperours who both were Idolaters and the chiefe Patrons of Idolatry but can in no sort be applied to the Romane Church which was thâ—n as the Protestants cannot deny a pure Virgin and most free from all spirituall fornication But that it is now become Idolatrous M. Perkins doth proue by his second reason gathered also I warrant you right learnedly out of the text it selfe where it is said that the ten Hornes which signifie ten Kings shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked which as he saith must be vnderstood of Popish Rome For whereas in former times all the Kings of the earth did submitte themselues to the whore now they haue begunne to withdraw themselues and to make her desolate as the Kings of Bohemia Denmarke Germanie England Scotland and other parts In these his words is committed a most foule fault by grosse ouersight and ignorance in the very text What be England Scotland Denmarke as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholike Emperour it must be omitted as also many states of Germanie be these
Kingdomes your principall pillers of the new Gospell comprehended within the number of the ten mentioned there in S. Iohn which hate the harlot Yes marie Why then they are enemies of Christ and Satans souldiers for in the 13. verse it is said of these that they shall deliuer their power vnto the beast which signifieth either the Diuell or Antichrist and shall sight with the Lambe and the Lambe shall ouercome them because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings Is not this doating in an high degree to infame so notoriouslie them of whom he would speake most honour and to make the special Patrons of their new Gospel the Diuels Captaines and fiercely to wage battaile against Christ Iesus See how heate of wrangling blindeth mens iudgements But you proceed and say that we further hold that the blood of the Saints and Martyrs was not shed in Rome but in Ierusalem Here is a confusion of Men and matters for we say that the blood of many Saints reheaised in the Apoc. was shed in Rome by the tyrannicall Emperours but the martyring of those tvvo principall witnesses Enoch and Elias recorded in the cleauenth of the same shall be at Ierusalem aswell because the text is very plainc for it specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streetes of that great Citie where their Lord was crucified as for that the ordinarie interpreters of that place doe so take it But M Perkins holdeth that the place where Christ was crucified signifieth here not Ierusalem but Rome because Christ was crucified there in his members so it might aswell signifie any other place of persecution as Rome The reason therefore being naught worth befo rt fiath it with the name of S. Ierome but citeth in the margent a letter of two vertuous Matrons Paula and Eustochium Good Sir if S. â—â—reme had meant that that Epistle should haue had his authoritie he would haue set it out in his owne name vvhich seeing he thought not expedient set the authoritie of it aside and vige his reasons iâ— you thinke it vvorth your labour and you shall be ansvvered In the meane season I hope all sober Christians vvill take the place vvhere our Sauiour Christ vvas nailed on the Crosse to signifie rather Ierusalem then Rome And consequently all that you haue alleadged out of Scripture to proue the vvhore of Babylon to figure the Ecclesiasticall state of Rome not to be vvorth a rush speaker A. W. To make the world drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication is not to inforce men by file and sword as the Roman Emperors did but to allure them by poysoned doctrine and counterfeite holines which course hath been almost proper to the Church of Rome The like signification hath the other speech of committing fornication with the Kings of the earth which argueth a delight whereby they were drawne not a violence of inforcement yea the idolatrie the Apostle speakes of is not the grosse worshipping of salse gods by profest idolatrie but in a mysterie the false worshipping of the true God Against his reason you except not but charge him with doting in a high degree for making the Kings of England Scotland c. Satans souldiers And such in deed they were when they gaue their power to the beast and as long as they continued the Popes seruants but the Apostle shewes that at the last after their drunkennes and fornication the Lord hauing discouered their shame vnto them they should hate the whore c. which they haue happily done yea euen Bohemia though a Popish Emperour for this present gouerns it and shall in Gods good time wholy consume her flesh with fire It is neither diuinity nor reason to imagine that Henoch and Eltas hauing been taken from the earth by God to their reward should come againe into the world and be slaine by Antichrist As vntrue is it that by that great city Ierusalem is meant for that terme is neuer giuen to it in all the Reuelation but to Rome ordinarily especially chapters 17. 18. yea our Sauiour himselfe was not crucified in Ierusalem but without it In the great city that is in the Romane Empire he was indeed crucified yet is he also daily crucified in his members by the instigation and appointment of the Pope of Rome by whom all the later persecutions of true Christians haue been raised in seuerall countries howsoeuer the secular power hath been the instrument of his crueltie speaker W. P. M. Perkins brings not onely Hieroms name but his iudgment that Epistle being of his writing in the name of those two Matrons yet we stand nor vpon his authoritie though we might well inough against you and your ordinarie interpreters without name but vpon the reasons before deliuered which proue that the great city is not Ierusalem but Rome Which exposition besides the authoritie of the text hath the sauour and defence of auncient and learned men Bernard saith They are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Againe The beast spoken of in the Apocalyps to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters chaire as a lyon prepared to his pray It will be said that Bernard spake these latter wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true indeed but wherefore was he an vsurper He rendreth a reason thereof in the same place because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Almaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Clergie and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeeres are the beast in the Apocalyps because now they are onely chosen by the colledge of Cardinals To this agreeth the decree of Pope Nicholas the second ann 1059. that the Pope shall afterward be created by the suffrages of the Cardinall Bishops of Rome with the consent of the rest of the Clergie and people and the Emperor himselfe and all Popes are excommunicate and accursed as Antichrists that enter otherwise as all now doe Ioachimus Abbas saith Antichrist was long since borne in Rome and shall be yet aduanced higher in the Apostolike See Petrarch saith Once Rome now Babylon And Ireneus booke 5. chap. last said before all these that Antichrist should be Lateinus a Romane speaker D. B. P. Novv let vs come to the auncient and learned men vvhom you cite in fauour of your exposition The first is S. Bernard vvho saith that they are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Of vvhom speaketh that good religious Father forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome Good vvho vvere as he saith the ministers of Christ because they vvere lavvfully called by the Pope to their places but serued Antichrist for that
they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approouing the lavvfull officers of Rome to be Christs Ministers The second plaâ—e is alleadged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those vvords vvere not spoken of the Pope but of his enemy The reason yet there set dovvne pleaseth you exceedingly vvhich you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that the Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bâ—â—nard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius vvas chosen by the King of Almaine France England c and their vvhole Clergie and people For if fnnocentius vvere an Antichrist and vsurper because he vvas elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your vvords declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrary But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficieth for this present that you finde no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might meruaile if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poison might be sucked specially weighing wel what he hath written vnto one of them to whom he speaketh thus Goe to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time VVho art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in povver Peter thou art he to vvhom the Keyes were deliuered to vvhom the sheepe vvere committed There are indeede also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleere opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but very Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it that the Pope was to be created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops at once but of the matter of election else where M. Perkins hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Authour flieth to a late hereâ—â—ke called Ioachim and quoteth Iewell for relator of it A worshipfull testimony of one heretike and that vpon the report of an other and he the most lying Authour of these daies As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easilie be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answere it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martyr Ireneus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Roman Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name out of these words of the Reuel the number of the beast is 666. And obseruing the letters of the Greeke Alphabet by which they doe number as wee doe by ciphers saith that among others the word Lateinos doth containe those letters which amount iust to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might be Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he saith there lastly that it is most vncertaine what his name shall be See the place gentle reader and learne to beware of such deceitefull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authours and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amend Jreneus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuers words esteemeth Lateinos to be the vnlikeliest And yet M. Perkins reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Ireneus into Romane an appellatiue which noteth onely his country Fie vpon that cause which cannot be vpholden and maintained but by a number of such paltrie shirtes Thus come we at length to the end of M. Perkins proofes and reproofes in his prologue where we finding litle fidelitie in his allegations of the Fathers badde construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture briefely great malice but slender force against the Church of Rome we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians Goe out of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Romane Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drew out her most pure blood so let vs file in matters of faith and Religion from all heretakes that of late also spared not to shedde abundance of the same most innocent blood vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues speaker A. W. They were the Ministers of Christ by their profession as the Pope calls himselfe the seruant of seruants though both he is in truth Antichrist and they his ministers M. Perkins reason out of Bernard lyeth thus He that gets into Peters chaire without the consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Christendome is the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse But all the Popes from that schisme hitherto haue so gotten into Peters chaire viz. with consent of the Cardinals onely Therefore all the Popes since that schisme are the beast in the Apocalypse The proposition is Bernards in effect though notin words for he pronounces the Pope to be the Beast in the Reuelation because he was not chosen by consent of the Princes Clergie and people of Almaine France England c. And this Master Perkins sets downe very plaine at these words And thus Bernard c. How wide then are you from his meaning who make the quite contrarie collection in his name For if Innocentius say you were Antichrist and an vsurper because he was chosen by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chisen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope He concludes out of Bernard that he was Antichrist because he was not chosen by the Kings Clergie and people but onely by the Cardinals you that he was true Pope because he was not chosen by the Kings and but onely by the Cardinals The reason out of Bernard you answere not but shift off the matter with alleaging
this recorded in holy writ read the second of the Acts and there you shall find how that the people hauing heard S. Peters Sermon were stroken to the hearts and beleeued yet were they not straight way iustified but asked of the Apostles what they must doe who willed them to doe penance and to be baptized in the name of Iesus in remission of their sinnes and then loe they were iustified so that penance and baptisme went betweene their faith and their iustification speaker A. W. Those men S. Luke there speaks of were not yet come to a iustifying faith when they askt the Apostle what they should doe no nor to the knowledge of the Gospell but onely to a sight of their owne sinnes in consenting to the murthering of Christ. speaker A. W. In like manner Queene Candaces Eunuch hauing heard S. Philip announcing vnto him Christ beleeued that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God no talke in those daies of applying vnto himselfe Christs righteousnes yet was he not iustified before descending out of his chariot he was baptized And three daies passed betweene S. Paules conuersion and his iustification as doth euidently appeare by the history of his conuersion speaker D. B. P. The Eunuch had heard the Gospell expounded out of Esay and namely that men were to be iustified by the acknowledging of Christ his desire of baptisme was a proofe of his faith according to that he had learned and baptisme the seale of his pardon or iustification vpon that his beleefe of forgiuenes by Christs sufferings It appeares by the storie that there were three daies betwixt the vision and the baptisme of the Apostle but it is not any way shewed that hee had iustifying faith the first day and yet was not iustified till the third day it is but your conceit that tie iustification to baptisme speaker W. P. The second is that faith being nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde stirreth vp the will which being mooued and helped causeth in the heart many spirituall motions and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification But this indeede is as much as if wee should say that dead men onely helped can prepare themselues to their future resurrection For we are all by nature dead in sinne and therefore must not onely bee inlightened in minde but also renewed in will before wee can so much as will or desire that which is good Now we as I haue said teach otherwise that faith iustifieth as it is an instrument to apprehend and applie Christ with his obedience which is the matter of our iustification This is the truth I prooue it thus In the Couenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof and the condition The substance of the couenant is that righteousnesse and life euerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is that wee for our parts are by faith to receiue the foresaid benefits and this condition is by grace as well as the substance Now then that wee may attaine to saluation by Christ hee must bee giuen vnto vs really as hee is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid Couenant And for the giuing of Christ God hath appointed speciall ordinances as the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments The word preached is the power of God to saluation to euery one that beleeues and the end of the Sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefits to them that come to bee partakers thereof as is most plainely to bee seene in the supper of the Lord in which the giuing of bread and wine to the seuerall communicants is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood with all his merits vnto them And this giuing on Gods part cannot bee effectuall without receiuing on our parts and therfore faith must needs bee an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth that wee may finde comfort by this giuing speaker D. B. P. The second fault he findeth with our faith is that we take it to be nothing else but an illumination of the mind stirring vp the will which being so moued and helped by grace causeth in the heart many good spirituall motions But this sayes M Perkins is as much to say that dead men only helped can prepare themselues to their resurrection Not so good Sir but that men spiritually dead being quickned by Gods spirit may haue many good motions for as our spirit giueth life vnto our bodies so the spirit of God by his grace animateth and giueth life vnto our soules But of this it hath been once before spoken at large in the question of free will speaker A. W. Is not the latter your doctrine also that a man vpon those good motions inspired disposeth himselfe to iustification by the good vse of his free will let the Councill of Trent be iudge as your selfe alleaged it before speaker W. P. The III. difference concerning faith is this the Papist saith that a man is iustified by faith yet not by faith alone but also by other vertues as hope loue the feare of God c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment Reason I. Luke 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Whence they gather that the woman here spoken of was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue Ans. In this text loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes but onely a signe to shew and manifest that God had alreadie pardoned them Like to this is the place of Iohn who saith 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Wee are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren where loue is no cause of the change but a signe and consequent thereof speaker D. B. P. Obserue first that Catholikes do not teach that she was pardoned for loue alone for they vse not as Protestants do when they find one cause of iustification to exclude all or any of the rest But considering that in sundrie places of holy write iustification is ascribed vnto many seuerall vertues affirme that not faith alone but diuers other diuine qualities concurre vnto iustification and as mention here made of loue excludeth not faith hope repentance and such like so in other places where faith is only spoken of there hope charity and the rest must not also be excluded This sinner had assured beleefe in Christs power to remit sinnes and great hope in his mercie that hee would forgiue them great sorrow and detestation of her sinne also she had that in such an assemblie did so humblie prostrate her selfe at Christs feete to wash them with her teares and to wipe them with the haires of her head And as she had true repentance of her former life so no doubt but she had also a firme purpose to lead a new life So that in her conuersion all those vertues meete
into hell rather than those into heauen these into hell our Sauiour tels them that hee doth not erre in the difference hee makes which must be according to workes These haue done well and therefore are they that must be saued Those euill and therefore are the men that must be condemned So that his iudgement is right because it is according to works though workes bee not the meritorious cause of life trulie and wholie speaker D. B. P. But if any desire besides the euidence of the text to see how the auncient Fathers take it Let him read S. Augustine Where he thus briefly handleth this text Come yee blessed of my Father receiue VVhat shall vve receiue A Kingdome For vvhat cause Because I vvas hungrie and you gaue me meate c. Of the reall imputation of Christs merits there vvas no tydings in those daies And that iudicious Doctor found that good vvorkes vvas the cause of receiuing the kingdome of heauen speaker A. W. In this and such like sentences of the Fathers we must remember that obseruation of Sixtus Senensis a learned Papist and not presse their words to the vttermost It followes in Austin immediatly what is so little worth what so earthly as to breake bread to the hungry That is the price of the kingdome of heauen Now will any man be so absurd as to imagin that Austin thought that the giuing of a peece of bread to a poore body was in deede the price of heauen by which it might be truly and wholie bought If it be of no greater value it was scarse worth the purchasing with the blood of the Sonne of God The reuerend Father rhetorically amplifies the point to inforce his exhortatiō to works of charity which is also our Sauiours reason in that parable Now that the reward we receiue is not truly and wholie deserued by the works there mentioned it may appeare because Chrysostome and Theophylact stand so precisely vpon the manner of speach He saith not Take it say they but possesse it as an inheritance whereas you say it is both an inheritance and a reward Besides another saith That God did not make the kingdome of heauen of no greater value then mans righteousnes could deserue and after not according to the narrownes of mans righteousnes And lastly God saith he appointed not the reward of the saincts according to the reward of men but according to his owne bountie speaker D. B. P. Here by the vvay M. Perkins redoubleth that common slaunder of theirs that vve take avvay a part of Christs mediation For saith he if Christs merits vvere sufficient vvhat need ours It hath been often told them but they vvil neuer learne to vnderstand it I vvil yet once againe repeate it We hold our Sauiours merits to be of infinite value and to haue deserued of God all the graces and blessings vvhich hath or shall be bestovved vpon all men from the beginning of the vvorld vnto the end of it yet his diuine vvill and order is that all men of diseretion hauing freely receiued grace from him doe merit that crovvne of glorie vvhich is prepared for them not to supply the vvant of his merits which are inestimable but being members of his mystical body he vvould haue vs also like vnto himselfe in this point of meriting and further desirous to traine vs vp in all good vvorkes he best knevv that there could be no better spurre to pricke our dull nature forvvard then to ordaine and propose such heauenly revvards vnto all them that vvould diligently endeuour to deserue them speaker A. W. Master Perkins truly chargeth you to make your selues partners with Christ in the worke of your saluation for he that is by his owne works a deseruer of euerlasting life is in some part at least a sauiour of himselfe so that howsoeuer you magnifie in words the infinitnes of Christs satisfaction and merits yet in truth you make it either not sufficient or not effectuall to the sauing of them who must by their works truly and wholie merit euerlasting life and receiue it not as ioint heirs with Christ by the right of sonnes but as hirelings for wages due to their works If you would graunt vs an assured interest to heauen by vertue of our being sonnes and claime no more of God but increase of glorie vpon his promise according to our works without pleading desert you and we should agree in this point neither should we be driuen either to ouer valew our owne righteousnes by thinking it deserues heauen or to despaire altogether of saluation because we cannot do such works as do truly and fully merit heauen That God would haue vs like vnto his Sonne in true obedience and patient suffering we finde in the scriptures and beleeue that we should also be like him in meriting when you prooue by the same authoritie we will beleeue In the meane while giue vs leaue rather to rest vpon Christ only and his merits the sufficiencie whereof we certainely know then to trust to our owne deserts which when they are at the best seeme to vs worthie of damnation rather then reward which notwithstanding we assuredly looke for vpon Gods promise and acceptation not vpon our desert or perfection which comes alwayes short of that which is inioyned vs. But it is Gods purpose to traine vs vp in good works it is so out of question for we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them And is there no sufficient meanes thinke you to prick vs forward to do good works vnlesse we may perswade ourselues we shal merit heauen by them See the difference betwixt children and seruants And yet forsooth you would beare the world in hand that you do all of pure loue to God whereas indeed you would do nothing at all but that your pride is satisfied for the present by the perswasion of the good vse of your free will and your hope fed with opinion of euerlasting life to be paid you hereafter as the deserued hire of your worthie works we on the other side being led with the affection of children pricked on with the feeling of Gods incomprehensible mercie incouraged by his gratious promises of accepting our poore indeuours to do him seruice rauisht with the expectatiō of such a reward as is assured vs though without desert ashamed in our selues euery day of our vnkindnes and vnthankfulnes in doing no more yea condemned in our owne hearts for doing our best works so vnperfitly yet by the blessing of God and assistance of his spirit presse forwards to the reward that is prepared for vs through the way of good works which our father hath set vs in I haue bin caryed on in this course farther then I purposed Let euery man that hath a true desire to glorifie God more than himselfe iudge betwixt vs and you
of an Idoll And afterward For this cause namely to roote out the matter of Idolatrie the law of God proclaimes Make no Idoll and adding nor likenes of any thing in heauen in earth or in the Sea forbids the seruants of God all ouer the world to vse that Craft In another place Iohn saith Babes keepe your selues from Idols he saith not now from Idolatrie as from the seruice of them but from Idols that is from the shape of them For it is an vnworthie thing that the image of an Idoll and dead thing should bee made the image of the liuing God That I will not let passe saith Lilius Giraldus that we Christians as sometimes also the Romanes had no Images in the Primitiue Church Optatus an ancient Bishop of Africa counted it a defiling of the Altar to haue an Image set vpon it and saith that when it was reported that Paul and Macarius would come and place an Image on the Altar they that heard it were astonied at it and accounted it as execrable to partake with it Images saith Austin are of more force to corrupt the miserable soule because they haue a mouth eyes eares nosthrils hands and feete than to instruct it because they speake not heare not smell not handle not walke not out of which place of Austin Cassander concludes that there was no vse of Images in Churches in Austins time The reason is alike wheresoeuer they be vsed to religion Arguments of the Papists speaker W. P. The reasons which they vse to defend their opinions are these I. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubines which were images of angels on the Mercieseat where God was worshipped and thereby was resembled the Maiestie of God therefore it is lawful to make images to resemble God Answ. They were erected by special commandement from God who prescribed the verie forme of them and the place where they must be set and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them otherwise hee had sinned let them shew the like warrant for their images if they can Secondly the Cherubins were placed in the holie of holies in the most inwarde place of the Temple and consequently were remoued from the sight of the people who onely hearde of them and none but the high Priest saw them and that but once a yeere And the Cherubins without the vaile though they were to be seen yet were they not to be worshipped Exod. 20. 4. Therefore they serue nothing at all to iustifie the images of the Church of Rome Obiect II. God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham Gen. 18. 1. 13. and to Daniel who sawe the ancient of daies sitting on a throne Dan. 9. Now as God appeared so may he be resembled therefore say they it is lawfull to resemble God in the forme of a man or any like image in which he shewed himselfe to men Answ. In this reason the proposition is false for God may appeare in whatsoeuer forme it pleaseth his maiestie yet doth it not follow that man should therefore resemble God in those formes man hauing no libertie to resemble him in any forme at all vnlesse he bee commaunded so to doe Againe when God appeared in the forme of a man that forme was a signe of Gods presence onely for the time when God appeared and no longer as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of Christs bodie and blood not for euer but for the time of administration for afterward they become againe as common bread and wine And when the holy Ghost appeared in the likenesse of a doue that likenesse was a signe of his presence no longer then the holy Ghost so appeared And therefore hee that would in these formes represent the Trinitie doth greately dishonour God and doe that for which hee hath no warrant speaker D. B. P. Hauing confuted the Protestants arguments against the making of Images to represent some property or action of God I now come vnto the Catholike proofe of them The first reason set dovvne by M. Perkins I reserue to the next point the second is God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham and to Daniel VVho savv the auncient of daies sitting on a throne Now as God hath appeared so may he bee purtraied and dravvne M. Perkins his ansvvere is not so vnlesse it be expresselâ—â— commanded by God Reply This first is flat against his ovvne second conclusion where he holdeth it lawfull to present to the eye in Pictures any histories of the Bible in priuate plaâ—es both the foresaid apparitions be in the Old Testament and therefore may be painted in priuate places which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same liknes as there he appeared And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of God the same serueth to expresse them in liuely colours Not so saith M. Perkins because when God appeared in the forme of man it was a signe of Gods presence for that time only and for no longer be it so it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing that the memory of such maiestie ioyned with louing kindnesse might endure longer And if it pleased God that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembred euen so the same might be ingrauen in brasle to recommend it to vs so much the more effectually For as the famous Poet doth by the light of nature sing Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures Quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus speaker A. W. It is your aduantage that Master Perkins is not aliue to answere you who was better able to expresse his own meaning than any otherman can be But in my opinion it was his purpose in that second conclusion to graunt the pourtraying of those histories onely which had nothing to bee painted that was forbidden as he alwaies tooke the resembling of God to be That was generall as rules of Grammar are exceptions are not contradictions but rather parts of those rules If you speake of that reason which moued God to inspire Moses for the writing of that storie we grant that hee might to the same end haue also enioyned the painting or engrauing of it But since it pleased him not so to doe wee answere that your argument prooues nothing There is the same reason say you for painting that and such stories therefore they may as well be painted as written The consequence is false For the one was inspired as I said and the other not Vpon the writing because it is Gods word wee may looke for a blessing from him Not so vpon our owne deuices accompanied with danger of Idolatrie For my part sauing other mens better iudgement I perswade my selfe that God who commanded the Israelites to write the words of the law about their houses and in other places for instruction and remembrance would haue enioyned the painting of his especiall miracles and workes in their fauour