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
then admitting the purpel harlot to signifie the Roman state wee doe say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had beene a little before vnder that bloodie Tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentary on the Apocalyps vnder Saint Ambrose name sayth the great where sometime doth signifie Rome specially vvhich at that time vvhen the Apostle vvrote this did persecute the Church of God but othervvise doth signifie the whole Citie of the Diuell And Saint Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth that she had before his dayes blotted out that blasphemie vvritten in her forhead because then the state was Christian which before had beene Heathen so that vnto the partie Pagan and not vnto the Church of God he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot which also the very text it selfe doth conuince for it hath That she vvas drunke vvith the blood of the Martâ—rs of Iesus Now the Church of Rome hath not then by the confession of all men drawne any blood of Christs Saints but in testimonie of his trueth had powred out abundance of her best blood Wherefore it is most manifest that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome so pure and free from slaughter but the Romane Empire vvhich vvas then full gorged vvith that most innocent and holy blood Againe that vvhoore is expounded To be a Citie vvhich had kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth But the Church of Rome had then no kingdome ouer the earth or any temporall dominion at all but the Romane Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer many Kings vvherefore it must be vnderstood of them and not of the Church Novv to take Kingdome not properly for temporall soueraignty but for spirituall Iâ—…isdiction as some shifters doe is to she vvithout any vvarrant from the natiue signification of the vvord vnto phantasticall and voluntarie imagination And vvhereas M. Perkins saith that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty against the Saints is all one vvith the heathâ—…sh Empire he both seeketh to deceiue and is greatly deceiued he vvould deceiue in that he doth applie vvords spoken of Rome aboue 1500. yeares agoe vnto Rome as it is at this day and yet if that were granted him he erreth foâ—â—e in euery one of his particulars For first touching princâ—â—e dominion the Romane Empire held then all Italy all Fraunce all Spayne all England a great part of Germanie of Asia and also of Afrike hauing their Proconsulles and other principall Officers in all those Countries drawing an hundred thousand millions in mony and many other commodities out of them Wherefore in princely dominion and magnificall state it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy more then an hundred degrees And as for persecution the Empire slew and caused to be slaine more Saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of reprobates and obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeares Hauing thus proued that the whoore of Babilon signifieth the heathen state of Rome and not the Ecclesiasticall let vs now heare what you say against it Marry that the distinction of the Empire of Rome and Church of Rome is foolish and coyned of late to serue our turne which to be farre otherwise I proue out of those verie Authors who doe interpret that harlot to signifie Rome who are neither foolish nor of late daies you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries And farther we gather it out of S. Hierome in the Epistle which you cite for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babilon for the multitude of the wicked which yet remained in it pointeth out a more pure part saying There is in deede the holy Church there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith praised by the Apostle c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome Againe Tertullian who liued in the second hundred yeare vnder those persecuting Emperours saith in one place that Babilon is a figure of Rome in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints And in an other that Rome was most happie for her holy Church vnto vvhich the Apostles vvith their blood had poured forth their vvhole doctrine see a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holie Church of Rome Which finallie may be gathered out of the expresse word of God VVhere the Church in Babilon coelect is distinguished from the rest of that citie which was Pagan You say but without any authour that Babilon there doth not signifie Rome but either a citie in Aegypt or Assyria But Eusebins lib. 2. hist. c. 14. and S. Jerom. de Eccles. script vers Marcus with other Authors more worthie of credit doe expound it of Rome And you your selues take Babilon so Rome where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it as in the 17. of the Reuel but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it because it would proue too plainely that S. Peter had been at Rome speaker A. W. Master Perkins hauing prooued that by Babylon Rome is signified proceedes to answere two obiections First that the citie of Rome stands not now vpon seuen hils But it did in S. Iohns daies as his reason lies and at this day popish Churches or Monasteries are situated vpon them vnder the Popes authoritie Secondly that by the whore the companie of the wicked vnder their head the diuell is vnderstood But this the text will not beare the whore being opposed to the Kings of the earth and ruling ouer them vpon this foundation Master Perkins thus builds his reason Either Rome Heathenish or Rome Christian is the whore of Babylon But Rome Heathenish is not Therefore Rome Christian is This is plainly his reason and not that which you gather The proposition is euident because the state of Rome was neuer but either Heathenish or Christian. The assumption Master Perkins proues But I must be faine to leaue his course and to follow this reformers steps The state of Rome must be taken as it is the seate of Antichrist but it was not the seate of Antichrist in S. Iohns daies for Antichrist according to your doctrine is not yet come Againe it was no mysterie for heathenish Rome to be an Idolatrous and bloody persecutor of the Christians Thirdly the state that S. Iohn calles the harlot continues till the finall destruction spoken of by him and S. Paul but the estate of heathenish Rome was decayed long since Your proofe is insufficient for you alleage but two of many that make Rome Babylon who as they deserue
their own as you write before of Hierome vrge their reasons and you shall haue answere Obiections of Papists speaker W. P. The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrary are these Obiect I. In baptisme men receiue perfect and absolute pardon of sinne and sinne beeing pardoned is taken quite away and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne Answ. Sinne is abolished two waies first in regard of imputation to the person secondly in regard of existing and beeing For this cause God vouchsafeth to man two blessings in baptisme Remission of sinne and Mortification of the same Remission or pardon abolisheth sinne wholy in respect of any imputation thereof vnto man but not simply in regard of the being thereof Mortification thereof goeth further and abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule the very concupiscence or corruption it selfe in respect of the being thereof And because mortification is not accomplished till death therefore originall corruption remaineth till death though not imputed speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins answereth that it is abolished in regard of imputation that is is not imputed to the person but remaines in him still This answere is sufficiently I hope confuted in the Annotations vpon our consent In confirmation of our Argument I will adde some texts of holy Scripture First He that is vvashed needeth not but to vvash his feete for be is vvholy cleane Take with this the exposition of S. Gregory the great our Apostle He cannot saith he be called vvhaly cleane in vvhom any part or parcell of sins remaineth But let no man resist the voice of truth who saith he that is washed in Baptisme is wholy cleane therefore there is not one dramme of the contagion of sinne left in him vvhom the cleanser himselfe doth professe to be wholy cleane speaker A. W. Because you content your selfe with your former answer I will make no further replie but proceed to examine your reasons The place you bring is allegoricall and therefore being not expounded in the Scripture vnfit to prooue any matter in controuersie But if wee take it as spoken of baptisme it makes more against you than for you as appeares by this syllogisme He that hath foule feete is not wholy cleane But he that is washed hath foule feete Therefore he that is washed is not wholy cleane So that our Sauiours speech must be thus vnderstood He that is washed lackes but onely making cleane of his feete and then he is wholy cleane Gregories speech for it is more than I know that he is a Saint and I am sure hee was none of our Apostle that neuer bestowed any paines to teach vs auowes the proposition of my syllogisme that they which neede to haue their feete washt are not wholie cleane Now the assumption our Sauiour makes affirming that hee which is washt hath yet neede to haue his feete washt that he may be wholy cleane so that your proofes confirme my reason speaker D. B. P. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Ierome affirme saying How are vve iustified and sanctified if any â—inne be leâ—t remaining in vs Againe if holy King Dauid say Thou shalt vvash me and J shall be vvhiter then snovv how can the blacknes of hell still remaine in his soule speaker A. W. There is no such thing in the epistle and if there were it could make nothing for your purpose because Hierome disputes there not of originall but of actuall sinne viz. of that which was thought to be a sinne but indeede as hee plainly shewes was none the marying of a second wife after baptisme Besides he speakes not of rooting out sinne but directly as wee doe of taking it away by pardoning of it So also doth Dauid as it is manifest Neither did hee meane that God should wash by baptisme and so clense him from originall sinne but that he should take away the guilt and staine of the murther and adulterie that hee had committed speaker D. B. P. Briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong vnto the precious blood of our Sauiour to hold that it is not aswell able to purge and purifie vs from sinne as Adams transgression was of force to infect vs. Yea the Apostle teacheth vs directly that we recouer more by Christs grace then we lost through Adams fault in these words But not as the offence so also the gift for if by the offence of one many died so much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpon many If then we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace then we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly Baptised man then was in Adam in the state of innocency albeit other defects and infirmities doe remaine in vs for our greater humiliation and probation yet all filth of sinne is cleane scoured out or our soules by the pure grace of God powred abundantly into it in Baptisme and so our first Argument sâ—ands insoluble speaker A. W. If we through Christ say you receiue more abundance of grace than we lost by Adam there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the estate of innocencie But we through Christ receiue more abundance of grace than we lost in Adam Therefore there is no more sinne left in the newly baptized man than was in Adam in the state of innocencie I denie the consequence of your proposition For though wee receiue more grace yet it is not bestowed vpon vs at once but growes by little and little receiuing perfection at our death and not before Your assumption is true in respect of the assured continuance of grace which Adam had not but the measure is not greater For Adam was created in true holines and righteousnes perfect according to his nature But the place you alleage proues not the point The Apostle speakes not there of inherent righteousnes but of grace that is the fauour and mercie of God and of the gift by grace that is forgiuenes of sinnes as I will shew if it please God hereafter vpon another occasion speaker W. P. Obiect II. Euery sinne is voluntarie but originall sinne in no man after baptisme is voluntarie and therefore no sinne Answ. The proposition is a politike rule pertaining to the courts of men and must be vnderstood of such actions as are done of one man to another and it doth not belong to the court of conscience which God holdeth and keepeth in mens hearts in which euery want of conformitie to the law is made a sinne Secondly I answer that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam for he sinned and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause Actuall sinne was first in him and then originall corruption but in vs originall corruption is first and then actuall sinne speaker D. B. P. Reply Full
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