A REFORMATION OF A CATHOLIC DEFORMED: BY M.W. PERKINS. WHEREIN THE CHIEF CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION, ARE METHODICALLY, and learnedly handled. Made by D.B.P. THE FORMER PART.  Take ye great heed of false Prophets, which come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly are ravening Wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. MATH. 7.15. 
Printed with Privilege. 1604.   

TO THE MOST PVISSANT, PRUDENT, AND RENOWNED PRINCE, JAMES THE FIRST, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, FRANCE, AND IREland, defender of the Faith, etc.  
MOST GRACIOUS AND DREAD SOVEREIGN. Albeit, my slender skill cannot afford any discourse worthy the view of your Excellency, neither my deadded, and daily interrupted, and persecuted studies, will give me leave to accomplish that little, which otherwise I might undertake and perform: Yet being emboldened, both by your high Clemency, and Gracious favour, ever showed unto all good literature, especially concerning divinity: & also urged by mine own bounden duty, and particular affection; I presume to present unto your highness this short ensaying treatise. For your exceeding Clemency, mildness, and rare modesty, in the most eminent estate of so mighty a Monarch; as it cannot but win unto your great love, in the hearts of all considerate Subjects: so on the other side doth it encourage them confidently to open their minds, and in dutiful manner to unfold themselves unto their so loving and affable a Sovereign. And whereas (to the no vulgar praise of your Majesty's piety) you have made open and often profession of your Vigilancy and care, to advance the divine honour of our Saviour Christ, and his most sacred Religion: Then what faithful Christian should stagger, or fear to lay open, and deliver publicly, that which he assureth himself to be very expedient, necessary, and agreeable towards the furnishing, and setting forward of so heavenly a work? Moreover, if I your Majesty's poor subject, have by study at home, and travail abroad, attained unto any small talon of learning, and knowledge: to whom is the use and fruit thereof more due, then unto my so gracious, and withal, so learned a Liege? Finally, for a proof of my sincerity, affection, and dutiful love towards your Majesty, this may I justly say, that in time of uncertain fortune (when assured friends are most certainly tried) I both suffered disgrace, & hindrance for it, being styled in Print, A Scotist in faction: therein farther employing my pen in A twofold discourse (which I hope hath been presented to the view of your Majesty) the one containing a defence of your highness honour: the other of your title, and interest of the Crown of England. And if than my zeal and love of truth, and obligation to your Majesty, drew me out of the compass of mine own profession, to treat of law courses: I trust your benign Grace will now licence me, out of the same fountain of fervency and like zeal unto God's truth, no less respecting your Majesty's eternal honour, and heavenly inheritance, something to say in matters of divinity: having been the best part of my study, for more than thrice seven years.  
Whereinto I may conveniently enter with that golden sentence, with which your Majesty began the Conference, holden in january last, between certain of your subjects, about some controversy in Religion: A love principium: 
Apoc. cap. 1.8.  or conformable to that in holy writ, I am Alpha, and Omega, that is, The beginning, and the end, saith our Lord: And applying it unto Princes, I may be bold to say, that nothing is more expedient, and necessary for Kings: nothing more honourable, and of better assurance for their estate, then that in the very beginning of their reign, they take especial order, that the supreme, and most puissant Monarch of heaven and earth, be purely, and uprightly served, aswell in their own exemplare lives, as throughout their Dominions. For of Almighty God his mere bounty and great grace, they receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Sceptres: and cannot possess and enjoy them (their mighty Forces, and most prudent Counsels notwithstanding) one day longer, then during his divine will and pleasure. Which that wise King witnesseth, 
Proverb. 4  speaking in the person of God's wisdom, Per me Reges regnant. By me Kings do reign. And Nabuchodonozer sometime King of Babylon, 
Dan. 4.  was turned out to graze with beasts, for seven years, and made to know and confess, that the highest doth command over the Kingdoms of men, and disposeth of them, as pleaseth his divine wisdom. But I need not stand upon this point, being so well known, and duly confessed by your Majesty.  
But sithence there be in this our most miserable age, great diversities of Religions, and but one only, wherewith God is truly served and pleased, as saith the Apostle. One body, one Spirit, 
Ephes. 4.  as you are called into one hope of your vocation, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: My most humble suit and supplication, to your high Majesty is, that you to your eternal good, will embrace, maintain, and set forth that only true, Catholic, and apostolic faith, wherein all your most royal progenitors lived and died: or if you cannot be won so soon, to alter that Religion in which it hath been your misfortune, to have been bred and brought up: That then in the mean season, you will not so heavily persecute, the sincere professors of the other.  
Very many urgent, and forcible reasons might be produced, in favour and defence of the Catholic Roman Religion, whereof divers have been in most learned treatises, tendered to your Majesty already. Wherefore I will only touch three: two of them chosen out of the subject of this book: The third selected from a sentence of your Majesties, recorded in the aforesaid Conference.  
And because that argument is, as most sensible, so best assured, which proceedeth from a principle that is either evident in itself, or else granted, and confessed for true: My first proof shall be grounded upon that your Majesties own resolute, and constant opinion (as it appeareth in the said conference) to wit: 
Pag. 75.  That no Church ought farther to separate itself from the Church of Rome, either in doctrine or ceremony, than she hath departed from herself, when she was in her flourishing, and best estate. From whence I deduce this reason: The principal Pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate, taught in all points of Religion, the same Doctrine, that she now holdeth and teacheth; and in express terms condemneth for error and heresy, most of those Articles, which the Protestants esteem to be the principal parts of their reformed Gospel: Therefore if your Majesty will resolutely embrace, and constantly defend that doctrine, which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate; you must forsake the Protestant, and take the Catholic into your Princely protection.  
To demonstrate unto your Majesty, that we now hold in all points, the very same Doctrine, which the most approved ancient Doctors, and holy Fathers held and delivered: Because it is to long for an Epistle, I reserve it to the book itself, for the points it handleth; and will here briefly note out of it, some such old reproved errors, that the Protestants do revive, receive, and avow, as the very sinews of their Gospel. Martin Luther the ringleader of the new pretended reformation, layeth for the groundwork of his Religion, That man is justified by only faith: and in this he is applauded and followed of all Protestants: and yet as testifieth the most sound witness of antiquity, 
Au de side & operibus ca 14.  S. Augustine, that only faith is sufficient to Salvation, was an error sprung up in the Apostles days; against which, the Catholic Epistles of S. Peter, and S. james, and S. john, were principally directed. And the author of that error was that infamous Sorcerer Simon Magus; 
Cap. 20.  as the blessed Martyr Ireneus hath recorded in his first book against heresies.  

Test. Socr. ib. 1. hist. cap. 17. S. Hier. pref. lib. count Pela. & S. Aug. de fide cont. Manich. Epiph. her. 64. PERKIN. Pag. 29. Aug. retra. lib. 2 c 22. & here. 82. PERKIN. Pag. 163.  another principal pillar of Friar Luther's Religion, consisteth in Denial of free will; wherein he jumpeth with the old rotten heretic Manes, of whom the Manicheans were named.  
One Proclus an erroneous Origenist taught that sin was not taken away in Baptism, but only covered, as is recorded by that holy man, and ancient Father Epiphanius. M. PERKINS (in the name of Church of England) affirmeth in like manner, the original sin remaineth still, and reigneth in the regenerate, albeit it is not imputed unto them.  
jovinian was accounted a Monster by S. Augustine, for defending honest Marriage to be of equal virtue, and merit with chaste Virginity: and saith further that this heresy was so sottish & fleshly; that it could not deceive any one learned Priest, but only some few simple & carnal women. Yet this our English champion blusheth not to affirm that marriage is not only equal, but better also in divers respects than Virginity.  
The same old reprobate heretic, barked also against approved feasts and fasting days, so do most of our Ministers at this time.  
Vigilantius was sharply reproved by Saint Hierome, in a book written against him, and hath been ever since unto this day, esteemed a wicked heretic, for denying prayer to saints, and honour to be done unto their Relics: And yet, what point of Doctrine is more currant among the Protestants, than this.  
In like sort, one Aerius to the Arrian heresy, added this of his own; That we must not pray for the souls of our friends departed; 
Aug. ad q. vult heres. 53.  as S. Augustine hath registered. And do not all Protestants embrace and earnestly defend the same;  
A common custom it was of the Arrians, and of other more ancient heretics, to reject all Traditions, and to rely only upon the written word, 
Lib. 3. c. 20 Lib 1. con. Maximinu.  as testifieth S. Ireneus and S. Augustine. Do not ours the same, rejecting all Traditions, as Man's Invention.  
Xenaias a Barbarous Persian indeed, yet in show a counterfeited Christian; is noted for one of the first among Christians, that inveighed against the Images of Saints, and the worship done by true Christians unto them; 
Niceph li. 10. cap. 27.  as both Nicephorus, and Cedrenus in compendio do record. The reprobate jews indeed before him, and after even until this day, the miscreant Turks (enemies of all Christianity) do dwell still in the same error: And yet is not this most vehemently averred by our Protestants, and all Caluinists; although they cannot deny but that above 900. years ago, in the second general Council holden at Nice, they are by the consent of the best, and most learned of the world, for ever accursed, that do deny reverence and worship, to be given unto the Images of saints.  
I will omit sundry other heads of the Protestants Religion, by all approved antiquity reproved, and condemned, that I pass not the bounds of an Epistle, and seem over tedious unto your Majesty. Especially considering that these are sufficient, to convince that those points (wherein the Protestants affirm the present Church of Rome, to have so far degenerate from the ancient) are the very essential parts of faith, then maintained by the Romans: And the contrary opinions nothing else, but wicked heresies, of old invented, and obstinately held against the same Roman See, even as they are now in our time: and of old also condemned by the same Church in her most flourishing and best estate. Wherefore your most excellent Majesty, being resolute in that singular good opinion, (that no Church ought farther to departed from the Church of Rome, than she is departed from herself in her flourishing estate,) must needs recall the Church of England, from such extravagant opinions, to join with the Roman church in the aforesaid articles, which she in her best time held for parts of pure faith: And in all others also which they cannot directly prove (in a lawful disputation before your Majesty) to have been altered by her, particularly naming the point of Doctrine; the author of the change: the time and place, where, & when he lived: who followed him, who resisted him, and such other like circumstances, which all be easily showed in every such revolt or innovation: because the vigilant care of the Pastors of Christ's flock, have been always so great, as no such things could be unknown, let slip, or unrecorded.  
Thus much for my first reason, collected from the untruth of the Protestants religion.  
The second shall be grounded upon the ungodliness of it, where I will let pass that high point of impiety, that they make God (who is goodness itself) the author of all wicked actions, done in the world: And will besides say nothing of that their blasphemy against our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, that he overcome with the pains of his passion upon the Cross, did doubt, (if not despair) of his own salvation: being unwilling to touch any other points, than such as are afterwards discussed in this book.  
The triumphant Citizens of heaven (who enjoy the presence of God, and happiest life that can be imagined) are by Protestants disdaynefullie termed, Deadmen, and esteemed neither to have credit with God to obtain any thing, nor any care or compassion on men, among whom they once lived and conversed so kindly.  
And as for the poor souls departed, who in Purgatory fire pay dear for their former delights and pleasures: they deprive them of all human succour, by teaching the world to believe that there is no such matter.  
Concerning us Christians yet living on earth, there is no less impiety in their opinions: For they teach that the best Christian is no better in effect, than a whited Sepulchre, being inwardly full of all wickedness, and mischief; and only by an outward imputation of Christ's righteousness unto them, are accepted of God for just. To think that there is inherent in the soul of Man, any such grace of God, as doth cleanse it from sin, and make the man just in his sight; is with them, to raze the foundation of Religion, and to make Christ, a Pseudochrist: wherein, I know not whether they be more envious against the good of Man, than they are injurious, either to the inestimable value of Christ's blood, as though it could not deserve any better estate for his favourites: or unto the virtue and efficacy of the holy Ghost; as not being able (by likelihood) to purge men's souls from sin, and endue them with such Heavenly qualities. I omit the disgrace thereby done to the Blessed Godhead itself, making the Holy of Holies, rather willing to cover and cloak our iniquity, then to cure it: And contrary to his infinite goodness, to love them whom he seethe defiled with all manner of abominations.  
Unto these paradoxes, impious against God, and slanderous to Man. If it will please your Majesty to add, the profane carnality of some other points of the Protestant Doctrine; you will (doubtless) in short time loathe it. As for example: That it is as good & godly, by eating, to feed the body, as to chastise it by fasting. That it is as holy, to fulfil the fleshly desires of it by Marriage, as by Continency, to mortify them; yea that it is flat against the word of GOD to vow Virginity: And also contrary to his blessed will to bestow our goods on the poor, and to give ourselves wholly to prayer, and fasting. All which, this Advocate of the English Congregation teacheth expressly. 
Pag. 132. 162. 166.   
Is this the purity of the Gospel? Or is it not rather the high way to Epicurism, and to all worldly vanity, and iniquity.  
I need not join hereunto, that they teach it to be impossible to keep God's Commandments; and therefore in vain to go about it: And farther, that the best work of the righteous man, is defiled with sin. Wherefore, as good for him to leave all undone, as to do any.  
Nay, if this position of others were true, it would follow necessarily, that all men were bound under pain of damnation, never to do any good deed, so long as they live: for that their good deed being stained with sin, cannot but deserve the hire of sin, which according to the Apostle is: Death everlasting. If your Majesty's important affairs, 
Rom. 6.  would once permit you to consider maturely of these impieties, and many other like absurdities, wherewith the Protestant Doctrine is stuffed: I dare be bold to say that you would speedily either command them, to reform themselves, and amend their errors; or fairly give them their Congee. I will close up this my second reason, with this Epiphoneme. That it is impossible for a Protestant, firmly cleaving to the grounds of his own Religion, to hope for any salvation. For they do, and needs must grant, that no man can be saved without a lively faith; and also that a lively faith cannot be without charity, for otherwise it were dead: Now then to the purpose; No Protestant can have charity: for as witnesseth S. john. 
1. Epis. cap. 5. 3.  This is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments. But it is impossible (according to the Protestants) to keep the commandments: therefore also impossible to have charity; Which is the fullness of the law: 
Rom. 13.  & consequently impossible to have a lively faith, which cannot be without charity. And so finally through want of that lively feeling faith, whereby they should lay hold on Christ's righteousness, to hale and apply that unto themselves, they can have no hope at all, of any favour, and grace at God's hands: Without which they must needs assure themselves of eternal damnation, in steed of their pretended certainty of salvation. To these two arguments, gathered out of the treatise following, I add a third, collected from these your own memorable words related in the above named conference: viz. Are we now come to that pass, 
Pag. 69.  that we must appeach Constantine of Popery and superstition? Which argueth that your Majesty judgeth them, to have little regard of either piety or civility, that would admit such a thought into their mind, as that the first Christian Emperor (our most renowned countryman, should be nuzzled & brought up in superstition: wherein your Majesty hath great reason, for he was most carefully instructed, & taught the Christian Religion, by such holy Confessors, whose sincerity in faith had been tried in the hot furnace of many strange persecutions: And he farther had the good hap to see, and hear together in the first general Council of Nice, many of the holiest, and best learned Bishops of Christendom. Therefore, is it most unlikely that so Royal a Person, devoted to Religion, and having so good means to attain to the perfect knowledge thereof, as no man could have better; should nevertheless in the purest time of it, be mislead into error, and superstition. If then, it may be proved, that this most Christian Emperor (the glittering ornament of our noble Island) did believe such articles of the present Roman Church, as the Protestants teach not to be believed: Will not your Majesty rather join in faith with so peerless a Prince, who by the consent of all antiquity, was for certain right well informed, then with these, whom (doubtless) most men deem to be pitifully deceived? Now that Constantine was of the same opinion, in matter of Religion, with the present Church of Rome, may evidently be gathered out of this that followeth.  
First, he was so affectionate unto the sign of the Cross, that he would have it gloriously appear, both abroad in his banners, and at home in his Palace: 
Euseb. de vita Constan. lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib 2. c. r 4. Lib. 4. c. 26.  and in the midst of the City of Rome, with this Poesy: In this sign of salvation, I have delivered the City. With it also he blessed his visage.  
With fasting and other corporal affliction, he chastized his body, that he might please God.  
He with incredible admiration, honoured professed Virgins, and made laws in their favour.  

Ibidem lib. 3. cap. 47. & alibi. Chry. hom. 66. ad pop. Antioch.  He builded many Churches in honour of the Apostles, and Martyrs.  
And as S. chrysostom recordeth: He that was revested in purple, went to embrace the Sepulchres of S. Peter, and S. Paul, and all Princely state laid aside, stood humbly praying unto the Saints, that they would be intercessors for him unto God.  
He farther took order for the burying of his own body, in the midst of the Tombs of the twelve Apostles, that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers, 
Euseb. in vita Const. lib. 4. ca 60. Ibid cap. 71.  which should be there offered in the honour of the Apostles. Neither was he frustrated of his holy desire, for as it followeth in the 71. Chapter of the same book, at his funerals, the people joining with the Priests, with many tears, and great sighs, powered out prayers for the good emperors soul.  
Again, at a solemn feast which he held at the dedication of the Church built by him in jerusalem; some of his clergy preached and expounded the holy Scriptures: 
Ibidem de vita Const. lib. 4. ca 45.  and other some with unbloody Sacrifice, and Mystical consecrations, appeased the Godhead, and prayed for the health of the Prince.  

Zozom. lib 1. hist. Eccl. cap 21.  Moreover this zealous Emperor reprehended Acasius, (a Novatian heretic) for saying, that it was not in the power of Priests, but of God only to forgive sins.  
Finally, toward true Bishops, the lawful Pastors of Christ's Church, he carried such a reverend respect: 
Socr. hist. lib 1. cap. 5.  that being in the Council of Nice, he would not sit down, before they had beckoned unto him so to do. And was so far from taking upon him to be supreme judge, in causes Ecclesiastical; that he openly there professed, that it did not belong to him to judge of Bishops, but to be judged by them. 
Ruffi lib. 1. hist. cap. 2.   
If then this right Puissant Emperor, and most sincere Christian, reverenced the Sacrifice of the Mass, and believed that there was power in Priests to remit sins, that Saints were to be prayed unto, and that prayer was to be made for the dead, and such like, as appeareth by the evident testimony, of most approved Authors, that lived with him: hath your Majesty any cause to doubt, but that in matters of faith, he agreed with the present Roman Church? Wherefore my hope and trust in Almighty God is, that you in your high wisdom, upon mature and due consideration, how many old condemned errors the Protestants hold; and with all well weighing that the whole frame of their Doctrine tendeth to the disgracing of God, and his Saints, to the discouragement of men, from well doing, and doth (as it were) loosen the reins unto all fleshly liberty: will in time make a most Godly resolution, to imitate that famous Emperor Constantine. He contrary to his former education, embraced with all his power that same Roman Religion, which we now profess: And (which is worthy to be observed) he feared nothing the contrary disposition of the multitude, or greater part of his subjects, that were wholly led another way. But following the blessed example of his most virtuous Mother S. Helena, reposed himself in the powerful assistance of the Almighty, and chased all other Religions into corners, setting up and firmly establishing the Roman. There can be no cause alleged, why your Majesty may not do the like, if it shall please God effectually to stir up your gracious mind, and to bend your heart to undertake it: for at that time there was more likelihood of resistance, than now: and now much more help at hand, if any resistance should be offered.  
Pardon me dear Sovereign, if before I finish this argument, I seem overbold here to present unto your memory, that all your most gracious and Godly Progenitors, and all our holy Predecessors, who now (assuredly) stand before the tribunal of God; do demand and expect no less at your hands. For they founded not Bishoprics, Deaneries, and other spiritual livings: they builded not Colleges, and Schools, for Protestants or their favourers. Ponder well therefore I beseech your Majesty, whether they do not, or may not justly challenge of you, (to whom the administration of justice belongeth,) to see and provide: that such Churches, church-livings, and spiritual rewards of learning, as they erected and bequeathed to Roman Bishops, and Priests, be disposed of, and bestowed according to their erections, and foundations. If it shall please the Protestants to erect any new Churches, or bestow any other revenues towards their Minister's maintenance, let them have them hardly, and enjoy them quietly: only let them be content, out of their equity: to leave us that which was provided for us, and bequeathed unto us by our most Religious Ancestors.  
If all these reasons, and exceeding many other which might be mustered, and produced to the same purpose, will not suffice to effect in your Majesty, a love and desire, to embrace that ancient Roman faith, which all your Renowned Progenitors, so highly reverenced, loved, and esteemed. Yet let me (prostrate on my knee) most humbly beseech your highness, in the name of thousands: that so far forth they may prevail with you, as you will not permit those rigorous laws, framed against recusant Catholics, to be put in practise and executed. For how can it seem conformable to reason, in your Majesty's deep wisdom, and judgement? that your loving Subjects should by compulsion and constraint, under that intolerable penalty of loss of all their goods, conform themselves to such articles of Religion, that by the purest antiquity were censured to be erroneous and execrable? And what misery, and pity were it, to drive them perforce, either to swallow down the deadly poison of their souls, or else to endure besides the disgrace of the state, the loss of their worldly wealth and liberty. Consider, and weigh with yourself, my most gracious Liege, whether it will not be thought over great severity, to press men (even against human nature and condition,) with patience to hear their own profession and belief, both untruly slandered, and most bitterly reviled and inveighed against: as in most Ministers sermons it is commonly. Yea to give patiented ear to them that blush not publicly, to call our blessed saviours body in the holy SACRAMENT, an abominable Idol; his glorious and immortal Saints, senseless dead Men; his Vicar and Vicegerent on earth Antichrist, and every Catholic an Idolater. With infinite other intolerable reproaches; Our constant hope, even yet, (though against hope) is, that your Majesty out of your own sweet natural disposition, and most mild carriage in government hitherto, will not only moderate, but suspend all such extremity: And not suffer it to be extended against them, who in former doubtful times, were (in manner) the only men, that defended and made manifest to the world, your Title and interest to the Crown of England; and were no less willing to receive you, when the time came: and as forward to have assisted you (if need had required) as any sort of Subjects within the land. And never since wittingly offended your sacred Majesty in any thing. It may be objected that they do not conform themselves unto a statute law, made against their Religion: Be it so. Then their Religion toward God, not any contempt of their lawful Superior, doth command them from the conformity, which is pardonable. Considering that they be no inventors, or followers of novelties, but only hold on and persevere in the faith of their forefathers. And what subject is the among the most dutiful, that doth not often transgress and give offence to one statute law or other: yet for no other law, men are so hardly dealt withal, albeit they violate many of them together. Only Catholics are for the transgressing of one, huspeled and handled as though they were some heinous rebels, and traitors: Who (be it spoken without disparagement to others) are (by them that live near them) esteemed commonly, the most orderly subjects; as true of their words, as sound in their deeds, of as great charity and hospitality towards their neighbours, and compassion of the poor: briefly, of as moderate and civil carriage and behaviour, as most men in their Country: So that to beggar and undo them (as the execution of that law established, must needs do the poorer sort of them,) would be little less then undo and destroy all good order, and Discipline in the common weal.  
Before I make an end, I beseech your Majesty, that the old worthy saying of Cassian may diligently examined: Cui bonum? For whose commodity, to what end and purpose must such numbers of most civil subjects, be so grievously molested? What is the cause, why your peaceable and joyful government, should be so mingled with such bitter storms of persecution. Is it to extinguish the Catholic faith? It lieth not in man's power to suppress and destroy that, which the Almighty supporteth and maintaineth. 
Matth. 16.  The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Catholic Church. And let but those grave & wise counsellors, (who have managed the state in our late Queen's days) inform your Majesty whether all those terrible persecutions that then were most vehemently pursued, did any whit at all, diminish the number of recusantes: or rather did not greatly multiply and increase them, from one at the first to an hundred and more in continuance. But it may be, they intend by those penal laws, to enrich your Majesty, and to fill your coffers: Surely the receipts will fall out much to short, to grow to any such reckoning. And what delight to enrich your treasury, and stuff your coffers with regrets, and out cries of the husband, wife, children, widows, and poor infants, when as the best and most assured treasury of a King, (is by the prudent esteemed) to consist in the love, and hearty affection of his people? Or are these penal laws, and forfeitures ordained for rewards unto such dependants, as for these or the like do follow you? But the revenues, preferments, & offices, belonging to your crown of England, are abundantly able to content and reward them, that shall deserve well of the common weal, without that so heavy agrievance and heart bleeding of others your Majesty's good subjects. And your Majesty's high wisdom, and long experience in government, can best remember you, that such men are not so mindful of benefits received, as the daily want and misery, will continually renew and revive the memory of the oppressed.  
And when they shall see no hope of remedy, the state being now settled, and a continual posterity like to ensue of one nature and condition: God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity may constrain and drive then unto at length.  
If then there be no greater reason of weight and moment, why such dutiful and well deserving Subjects, should be so grievously afflicted for their conscience. Let others conceive as they shall please, I will never suffer myself to be persuaded, that your Majesty will ever permit it, before I see it done: If it be further objected, why should not your Majesty aswell punish Catholics in your Kingdoms, as Catholics do Protestants in some other Countries: I answer, that in all Countries where multitudes of both sorts are mixed, as it is in England: The Protestants are tolerated, as in France, Polonia, Bohemia, the Catholic states of Germany, and Cantounes, according to that of the Gospel. Suffer both the wheat and cockle to grow until harvest. 
Math. 13.  In Spain, and Italy, where scarce any Protestants be, the case is otherwise. But what is that to England? Where are very many Catholic Recusants, and catholicly affected in every degree, not only of the Temporalty, but in the Clergy also, hardly of the highest degrees of honour to be excepted: therefore for their number and quality to be tolerated.  
Lastly, if there were no other cause, but the innumerable benefits which every degree and order of men throughout England, have, and do daily receive from our most Catholic Ancestors: As the constituting of so many wholesome laws; founding of so many honourable, and rich rewards of learning, as bishoprics, Cathedral Churches, Deaneries, archdeaconry, Residencies, Prebends, and Benefices: the erecting, and building, of so goodly Schools, Colleges, and Hospitals, and endowing of them with so ample possessions, which all proceeded out of the bowels of the true wisdom, piety, and virtue of their Catholic Religion: Is not this much more than a sufficient motive why their heirs in faith, should be most benignly, and lovingly dealt with? and not for the profession of the same Religion, so severely afflicted? Let the Protestants in those countries, where they are most molested, appear and show, that their predecessors in belief, have been so beneficial unto the public weal: And I dare undertake, that for their Ancestors sake, they shall find much more favour, than we sue for. Wherefore they can have no just cause, to repine at your Majesty's goodness, if upon men of that Religion, which hath been so beneficial unto your whole Realm, you take extraordinary compassion.  
It lying then in your Majesty's free choice and election, whether you will enlarge and extend your Royal favour, unto an infinite number of your most dutiful and affectionate Subjects, who are the most unwilling in the world to transgress any one of your laws, were they not thereunto compelled by the law of God: or else utterly to beggar and to undo, both them, and theirs, for their constant profession of the Ancient Roman faith. My confidence in the sweet providence of the Almighty is, that he will mercifully incline your Royal heart, to choose rather to pardon, then to punish; because the way of mercy, consorteth better with your kind and tender nature: it is of better assurance to continue your peaceable and prosperous Reign: it will purchase mercy at God's hands, according to his own promise. Blessed be the merciful, 
Math. 5.  for they shall obtain mercy.  
I need not add what a Consolation, and Comfort it will be, to many score thousands of your subjects, and the greatest obligation that can be devised, to bind them to you, and yours for ever: Now what applause, and congratulation from foreign Catholic countries, would follow this your famous Fact. Undoubtedly all the glorious company of Kings and Queens, (now in heaven) of whom your are lineally descended: and among all the rest, namely, your most sacred and dear Mother, that endured so much for her constancy in the same Catholic faith, cannot but take it most kindly, if for God and their sakes, you take into your Princely protection their followers in the Roman faith, and defend them from oppression.  
Thus most humbly craving pardon of your Highness, if I have in any thing exceeded the limits of my bounden duty, I beseech our blessed Saviour to endue you, both with the true knowledge of his divine verity, and with the spirit of Fortitude, to embrace and defend it constantly; or that at the least, graciously to tolerate and permit it.  
Your most Excellent Majesties, most obedient, and loyal subject, and servant. W.B.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
GENTLE READER, I mean not here to entertain thee with many words: the principal cause that moved me to write, was the honour and glory of God, in defence of his sacred verity, than the employing of his talon bestowed upon me: as well to fortify the weaker sort of Catholics in their faith, as to call back and lead others (who wander up and down like to lost sheep, after their own fancies) into the right way.  
I took in hand particularly the confutation of this book, not only for that I was thereunto requested, by a friend of good intelligence and judgement, who thought it very expedient: but also because perusing of it, I found it penned more Scholarlike, than the Protestants use to do ordinarily: For first the points in controversy, are set down distinctly, and for the most part truly. Afterward in confirmation of their opinion, the chief arguments are produced from both Scriptures, Fathers, and reason: Which are not vulgar, but culled out of their Rabbins, Luther, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Kemnitius, and such like, though he name them not. Lastly, he placeth some objections, made in favour of the Catholic Doctrine, and answereth to them aswell as he could. And (which I speak to his commendation) doth perform all this very briefly and clearly. So that (to speak my opinion freely) I have not seen any book of like quantity, published by a Protestant, to contain either more matter, or delivered in better method. And consequently more apt to deceive the simple: especially considering that he withal counterfeiteth to come as near unto the Roman Church, as his tender conscience will permit him, whereas in deed he walketh as wide from it, as any other noveller of this age.  
Wherefore I esteemed my spare time best employed about the discovering of it, being (as it were) an abridgement of the principal controversies of these times, and do endeavour after the same Scholastical manner, without all superfluity of words, no less to maintain and defend the Catholic party: then to confute all such reasons, as are by M. PERKINS alleged for the contrary.  
Read this short treatise good Christian diligently, for thou shalt find in it the marrow and pith of many large volumes, contracted and drawn into a narrow room. And read it over as it becometh a good Christian, with a desire to find out, and to follow the truth, because it concerneth thy eternal salvation: and then judge without partiality, whether Religion hath better grounds in God's word, more evident testimony from the purest antiquity, and is more conformable unto all Godliness, good life, and upright dealing, (the infallible marks of the best Religion) and speedily embrace that. Before I end this short preface, I must entreat thy patience to bear with the faults in Printing, which are too too many, but not so much to be blamed, if it be courteously considered; that it was Printed far from the Author, with a Dutch composer, and overseen by an unskilful Corrector, the greatest of them shall be amended in the end of the book.  
 
Before the Printing of this part was finished, I heard that M. PERKINS was dead. I am sorry that it cometh forth to late, to do him any good. Yet, his work living to poison others, a preservative against it, is never the less necessary.   


MASTER PERKINS IN THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.  It is a policy of the Devil, to think that our Religion, and the Religion of the present Church of Rome, are all one in substance, or that they may be reunited. 
BEFORE I am to deliver my opinion concerning this point, I had need to be informed, what this Author meaneth by these words our Religion: For there being great diversities of pretended Religions currant in the world, all contrary to the Church of Rome, how can I certainly know, whether of them he professeth? Wherefore (good Sir) may it please you to declare, what Religion you understand, when you say our Religion? Is it that which Martin Luther (a licentious Friar) first preached in Germany? or rather that, which the martial Minister Zwinglius, contended with sword and shield, to set up in Switzerland? or perhaps that, which john Caluin, by sedition wrought into Geneva, expelling the lawful Magistrate thence, and by the aid of Beza (a dissolute turncoat) spread into many corners of France? Or if by your Religion, you mean only to comprehend the Religion now practised in England, yet are you farther to show, whether you understand that established by the State, or the other more refined (as it is thought by many) and embraced by them, who are called Puritans, for of their leaven, savoureth that position of yours: That the article of Christ's descent into hell, crept into the Creed by negligence; and some other such like in this book. These principal divisions of the new Gospel (to omit sundry sub-divisions) being famous, and received of diverse in England, according to each man's fantasy, it is meet you express, whether of them you speak of, that it may be duly considered, how the Roman Religion and it agree, and what union may be made between them. Now if you mean the hodge-podge and confusion of all these new Religions together, as by the opposition here unto the Church of Rome, and by the articles following may be gathered: then I am clear for you in this, that there can be no more concord between these two Religions, than there is between light and darkness, faith and infidelity, Christ and belial. Notwithstanding I think that the reason by you produced to prove the impossibility of this union, is of no value, to wit, that they of the Roman Church have razed the foundation, for though in words they honour Christ, yet in deed they turn him into a Pseudochrist, and an Idol of their own brain: A very sufficient cause (no doubt) of eternal breach and division, if it could be verified. But how prove you, that we Roman Catholics, who believe jesus Christ to be perfect God, & perfect Man, and the only Redeemer of Mankind, make him a false Christ, and an Idol? or before you go about to prove it, tell me I pray you, how this can well stand with your own definition of a reformed Catholic in your preface? There you affirm him to be a Catholic reform to your liking, that holdeth the same necessary heads of Religion, with the Roman Church. Now, can there be any more necessary head of Religion, then to have a right faith in Christ? can any other foundation be laid besides JESUS Christ? 
1. Cor. 3.  If then your reformed Catholic must agree with the Roman Church, in necessary heads of Religion, as you hold he must: either the Roman Church razeth not the foundation, & maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist, as you say here, or else you teach your disciples very perniciously, to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with it. But to leave to you the reconciliation of these places, let us examine briefly, how you confirm your paradox, that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ: which you go about to prove by four instances. The first is, because the servant of his servants may change and add to his commandments, having so great power that he may open, and shut heaven to whom he will, and bind the very conscience with his own laws, and consequently be partaker of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Here are diverse reasons huddled up in one, but all of little moment: for all these several faculties, which the Pope enjoyeth, being received by the free gift of Christ, and to be employed in his service only, and to his honour and glory: are so far off from making Christ a Pseudochrist, that they do highly recommend his most singular bounty towards his followers, without any derogation to his own divine prerogatives. The particulars shall be more particularly answered in their places hereafter. Now I say in a word, that Christ's Vicar cannot change any one of God's commandments, nor add any contrary unto them: but may well enact & establish some other conformable unto them, which do bind in conscience: for that power is granted of God to every sovereign governor, 
Rom. 13.  as witnesseth S. Paul saying. Let every soul be subject to higher powers. And that (as it is in the 5. verse. following) of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. So that to attribute power unto one that is under CHRIST, to bind our consciences; is not to make CHRIST a Pseudochrist, but to glorify him, much acknowledging the power, which it hath pleased him to give unto men. In like manner, what an absurd illation is that, from the power to open and shut heaven gates, which all (both Catholics and Protestants, confess to have been given to Saint Peter, and the rest of the Apostles,) to infer: that CHRIST is made a Pseudochrist; as who should say, the master spoiled himself of his supreme authority, by appointing a steward over his household, or a porter at this gates, he must be both Master and Man to, belike. And thus much of the first instance.  
Come we now to the second: It is, that we make Christ an Idol, for albeit we call him a Saviour, yet in us, in that he gives his grace to us, that by our merits we may be our own saviours, etc. I marvel, in whom he should be a saviour if not in us: What, is he the Saviour of Angels or of any other creatures? I hope not, but the mischief is, that he gives grace to us, that there by we may merit and so become our own saviours. This is a phrase unheard of among catholics, that any man is his own Saviour, neither doth it follow of that position that good works are meritorious; but well that we apply unto us the salvation, which is in CHRIST JESUS, by good works; as the Protestants avouch they do by faith only: In which sense the Apostle S. Paul sayeth to his dear Disciple Timothe. 
Tim. 4.  For this doing thou shalt save both thyself, and them that hear thee. And this doth no more diminish the glory of our Sovereign saviours infinite merits, then to say that we are saved by faith only: good works no less depending, if not more advancing Christ's merits, then only faith, as shall be proved hereafter more at large in the question of merits. Now that other good men's merits may steed them, who want some of their own, may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures, namely out of those where God sayeth, that for the sake of one of his true servants, he will show mercy unto thousands, as is expressly said in the end of the first commandment.  
In like manner I answer unto your third instance, that for Christ to have taken away by his blessed Passion the eternal pain due unto our sins, & to have left a temporal to be satisfied by us, is not to make himself a false Christ, but a most loving, kind, and withal a most prudent Redeemer. Wiping away that by himself, which passed our forces, and reserving that to us, which by the help of his grace, we well may & aught to do: not only because it were unseemly, that the parts of the body, should be disproportionable to the head: but also because it is reasonable (as the Apostle holdeth, 
Rom. 8. ) that we suffer here with Christ before we reign with him in his Kingdom. In your last instance you say, that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to GOD, thinking out of your simplicity, that therein we much magnify him, & sing hosanna unto him. Whereas we hold it for no small disparagement unto his divine dignity, to make him our Intercessor; that is to pray him to pray for us, who is of himself, right able to help us in all we can demand; being aswell God, as Man. And albeit one in thought singling out the humanity of Christ from his divine nature and person, might make it an intercessor for us; Yet that being but a metaphysical conceit, to separate the nature from the person; since the Arrian heresy (which held Christ to be inferior to his Father) it hath not been practised by Catholics, who always pray our Saviour Christ to have mercy upon us, never to pray for us. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession, but of redemption.  
And to come to your grievous complaint, that withal his Mother must be Queen of heaven, and by right of a mother command him there: Who can sufficiently marvel at their unnatural gross pates, who take it for a disgrace to the Son, to advance his own good Mother? or else who well in his wits, considering Christ's bounty to strangers and his enemies; will not be persuaded, that on his best beloved mother, he did bestow his most special favours? For having taken flesh of her, having sucked her breasts, and received his nurture and education of her in his tender years, and being aswell followed of her, as of any other. Is it possible that he should not be as good to her, as to others; unto whom he was not at all beholding? Again the very place of a mother, requiring pre-eminence, before all servants and subjects, of what dignity soever: doth not the right rule of reason lead us to think, that Christ the fountain of all wisdom, replenished the B. Virgin Marie his dear Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place? it lying in his hands, and free choice to do it. And therefore is she truly termed, of holy and learned Antiquity, our Lady and Queen, exalted above all choirs of Angels. That which you impute unto us farther, that she must in the right of a mother command her Son, is no doctrine of the Roman Church, nor said in all her service: We say. Show thyself to be a mother: but it is not added by commanding thy Son: that is your gloss, which is accursed, because it corrupteth the text, for it followeth in that place, Sumat per te preces, etc. Present our prayers to him, that vouchsafed to be borne of thee, for us. If any private person by meditation, piercing more profoundly into the mutual love and affection, of such a Son towards so worthy a Mother; do deem her prayers as forcible in kindness as if they were commandments, and in that sense call them commandments, according to the French phrase. Vos pryers me sont des commandments, that may be done without derogation to Christ's supreme dignity, and with high commendation of his tender affection, unto his reverent & best beloved mother. Wherefore to conclude this Epistle, if there be no weightier cause than this by you here produced, why you & your adherents, do not reconcile yourselves unto the Church of Rome: you may shortly (by God's grace) become new men. For we are so far off, from making our Saviour Christ a Pseudochrist, or from drawing one jot of excellency from his sovereign power, merits, or dignity: that we in the very points by you put down, do much more magnify him then you do. For in maintaining the authority by him imparted unto his deputies, our spiritual Magistrates, and of their merits and satisfaction: We first say, that these his servants prerogatives be his free gifts, of more grace bestowed on whom he pleaseth; which is no small praise of his great liberality: And withal affirm, that there is an infinite difference between his own power, merits, and satisfaction, and ours: Wherein his sovereign honour is preserved entire to himself, without any comparison. Now you make Christ's authority so base, his merits and satisfaction so mean, that if he impart any degree of them unto his servants, he looseth the honour of all from himself. Whereupon it followeth invincibly, if you unfeignedly seek CHRIST JESUS his true honour, and will esteem of his divine gifts worthily, you must hold out no longer, but unite yourself in these necessary heads of Religion unto the Catholic Church of Rome, which so highly exalteth him, both in his own excellency, and in his singular gifts to his subjects.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.  
UPON your preface to the reader I will not stand, because it toucheth no point of controversy: let it be declared in your next, what you mean, when you desire your reformed Catholic to hold the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church: for if the Roman Church doth err in the matter of faith, and justification; in the number and virtue of the Sacraments; in the books and interpretation of the word of God; if she raze the foundation and make Christ a Pseudochrist, and an Idol; to omit twenty other errors in substantial points of faith, as in this your small discourse you would persuade: there will remain very few necessary heads of Religion for them to agree in. And be you well assured, that you are so wide from winning Catholics by this your work, to a better liking of your Religion: that you have taken the high way, to lead them to a far greater dislike of it; by teaching, that in so many material points it differeth so far from theirs. For all Catholics hold for most assured, that which the most ancient, learned & holy Doctor Athanasius in his creed delivereth in the 2. verse: Which Catholic faith unless every man observe wholly and inviolably, (not omitting, or shrinking from any one article of it) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. If S. Basil that reverent & blessed Father of the Church, doth hold it the duty of every good Christian, rather to lose his life, then to condescend to the alteration of any one syllable in matter of faith: 
Theod. 4. his. cap. 17.  you may be sure that we Catholics cannot but carry a very base conceit of your doctrine: who go about under the overworn & threedbare cloak of reformation, to deface and corrupt the purer and greater part of Christian Religion: specially when they shall perceive the most points of your pretended reformation, to be nothing else but old rotten condemned heresies, new scoured up and furbushed, & so in show made more saleable unto the unskilful, as in this treatise shall be proved in every Chapter.   

THE THEME OF M. PERKINS PROLOGUE.  And I heard an other voice from heaven say, go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues. Revelat. 18.3. 
ANSWER TO THE PROLOGUE. 
Exordium Commune.  THE learned know it to be a fault, to make that the entry unto our discourse, which may as properly fit him, that pleadeth against us: but to use that for our poem, which in true sense hath nothing for us, nay rather beareth strongly for our adversary, must needs argue great want of judgement: Such is the sentence above cited out of S. john by M. PERKINS: for it being truly understood, is so far off from terrifying any one from the Catholic Roman Church, as it doth vehemently exhort all to fly unto it, by forsaking their wicked company that are banded against it. For by the purple Harlot in that place is signified (as shall be proved presently,) the Roman Empire, as than it was, the slave of Idols, and with most bloody slaughter persecuting Christ's Saints: Those of the Church of Rome being as nearest unto it, so most subject to that sacrilegious butchery. Wherefore that voice which S. john heard say. Go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, etc. can have none other meaning; then that all they who desire to be God's people, must separate themselves in faith and manners from them, who hate & persecute the Roman Church, as did then, the Heathen Emperors, & now do all Heretics: Unless they will be partakers of their sins, & consequently of their plagues. This shall yet appear more plainly in the examination of this Chapter. Where I will deal friendly with my adversary, & advantage him all that I can; that all being given him, which is any way probable; it may appear more evidently, how little he hath to any purpose out of this place of the Apocalypse, whereof all Protestants vaunt and brag so much both in their books & pulpits. Well then I will admit that in the 17. & 18. Chapters of the revel. by the whore of Babylon, is understood the Roman state and regiment: which in lawful disputations, they are not able to prove: the most judicious Doctor S. Augustine, and diverse others of the ancient Fathers, with the learned troop of later Interpreters, expounding it of the whole corpse and society of the wicked: And as for the 7. hills on the which they lay their foundation, they are not to be taken literally: The Angel of God in the very text itself interpreting the 7. heads of the beast, to be aswell 7. Kings, as 7. hills: But this notwithstanding to help you forward, I will grant it you, because some good writers have so taken it. And therefore omit as impertinent that which you say in proof of it. What can you infer hereupon? Mary that the Roman Church is that whore of Babylon: fair & soft good Sir, how prove you that? thus. The whore of Babylon is a state of the Roman regiment, ergo the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon. What form of arguing call you me this? By the like sophistication, you may prove that Romulus & Remus were the purple Harlot, which to affirm were ridiculous, or (which is impious) that the most Christian Emperors, Constantine, and Theodosius, were the whore of Babylon, because these held also the state of the Roman Empire and regiment, to make short, the feeble force of this reason lieth in this: that they who hold the state, and govern in the same Kingdom, must needs be of like affection in Religion; which if it were necessary, then did Queen Mary of blessed memory, and her sister Elizabeth carry the same minds towards the true Catholic faith, because they sat in the same chair of estate, & ruled in the same Kingdom. See I pray you what a shameful cavil this is, to raise such outcries upon. A simple Logician would blush to argue in the paruies so loosely: & yet they that take upon them to control the learnedst in the world, often fall into such open fallacies. Well, then admitting the purple Harlot to signify the Roman state, we do say that the state of Rome must be 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 been a little before under that bloody Tyrant Nero, and then was under Domitian: which we confirm by the authority of them, who expound this passage of the Roman state. The commentary on the apocalypse, under Saint Ambrose name sayeth, the great whore sometime doth signify Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of GOD: but otherwise, 
In c. 178.  doth signify the whole City of the Devil. And Saint Jerome who apply the place to Rome affirmeth, 
Libr. 2 cont. jovin.  that she had before his days blotted out that blasphemy written in her forehead, because then the state was Christian, which before had been Heathen: so that unto the party Pagan, and not unto the Church of God, he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot: which also the very text itself doth convince: 
Vers. 6.  for it hath That she was drunk with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. Now the Church of Rome hath not then by the confession of all men, drawn any blood of Christ's Saints, but in testimony of his truth, had powered out abundance of her best blood. Wherefore it is most manifest, that the harlot could not signify the Church of Rome, so pure and free from slaughter: but the Roman Empire, which was then full gorged, with that most innocent and holy blood. Again that whore is expounded, 
Vers. 18.  To be a City which had kingdom, over the Kings of the earth. But the Church of Rome, had then no kingdom over the earth, or any temporal dominion at all; but the Roman Emperors had such sovereign commandment over many Kings: wherefore it must be understood of them, and not of the Church. Now to take Kingdom not properly for temporal sovereignty, but for spiritual jurisdiction, as some shifters do; is to fly without any warrant, from the native signification of the word, unto the fantastical, and voluntary imagination. And whereas M. PERKINS saith, pag. 5. that Ecclesiastical Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and cruelty against the Saints, is all one with the heathenish Empire; he both seeketh to deceive, and is greatly deceived: he would deceive, in that he doth apply words spoken of Rome, above 1500. years ago, unto Rome as it is at this day: and yet if that were granted him, he erreth foully in every one of his particles. For first, touching princely dominion, the Roman Empire held then, all Italy, all France, all Spain, all England, a great part of Germany, of Asia, and also of Africa: having their Proconsulles, and other principal Officers in all those Countries, drawing an hundred thousand millions in money, and many other commodities out of them: Wherefore in princely dominion, and magnifical state, it surmounted Ecclesiastical Rome (which hath not temporal dominion over the one half of that one kingdom of Italy) more than an hundred degrees. And as for persecution, the Empire slew, and caused to be slain, more Saints of God in one year; then the Church of Rome hath done, of reprobates and obstinate heretics, in 1600. years.  
Having thus proved, that the whore of Babylon, signifieth the heathen state of Rome, and not the Ecclesiastical: let us now hear what you ay against it. Marry that the distinction of the Empire of Rome, and Church of Rome is foolish, and coined of late to serve our turn: which to be far otherwise, I prove out of those very Authors, who do interpret that harlot to signify Rome; who are neither foolish, nor of late days: you have 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 having resembled Rome unto Babylon, for the multitude of the wicked, which yet remained in it: pointeth out a more pure part, saying; There is in deed 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, etc. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome? Again, Tertullian who lived in the second hundredth year, under those persecuting Emperors, saith in one place, that Babylon is a figure of Rome, 
Lib. count jud. De prescript. c. 16  in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints. And in an other, that Rome was most happy for her holy Church, unto which the Apostles with their blood had poured forth their whole doctrine: see a plain distinction between the Heathen Empire and the holy Church of Rome; Which finally may be gathered out of the express word of God. Where the Church in Babylon coelect, 
1. Pet. 5.  is distinguished from the rest of that city, which was Pagan. You say (but without any author) that Babylon there doth not signify Rome, but either a city in Egypt, or Assyria: But Eusebius lib. 2. his. c. 14. & S. jerom de Eccles. script. verse. Marcus, with other Authors more worthy of credit, do expound it of Rome. And you yourselves take Babylon for Rome, where you think that any hold may be taken against it, as in the 17. of the revel. but in S. Peter's Epistle they will none of it, because it would prove too plainly, that S. Peter had been at Rome.  
Well, M. PERKINS is content in fine, to allow of that distinction, of Heathenish and Ecclesiastical Rome, which before he esteemed so foolish: And then will prove that not the Heathenish, but Ecclesiastical Rome is resembled to the purple Harlot. See what confidence this man hath in his own shutle wit, that now will prove this, and shorty after disprove it: but let us give him the hearing in the 3. verse. 
Cap. 18.  The holy Ghost sayeth plainly, that she hath made all the world drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and yet addeth: that she hath committed fornication with the Kings of the earth: But this cannot be understood of heathenish Rome, for that left all the Kingdoms of the earth unto their own Religion and Idolatry: and did not labour to bring them, to worship the Roman Gods. Ergo, it must be understood of Papal Rome. I answer. The Roman Empire being the head and principal promoter of all kind of Idolatry, and maintaining, and advancing them, that most vehemently opposed themselves against the Christian Religion; who with any show of reason can deny, but they chief committed spiritual fornication with the Kings of the earth, if not by persuading them to forsake their own false Gods, which the Pagan Romans worship aswell as they: Yet by encouraging and commanding them to persever in that filthy Idolatry, and to resist, and oppress the Christians wheresoever. Neither is that true that the Roman Emperors did not labour to bring other Nations to worship new Gods, when Nero and Domitian would be worshipped as Gods, and for fear of Adrian, one Antinous his servant, was worshipped as a God of all men: as justinus Martyr testifieth in his Apol. to Antonine. 
Euseb. li. 4. ist. cap. 8.  These words of the text then, agree very well with the Emperors, who both were Idolaters, and the chief Patrons of Idolatry: but can in no sort be applied to the Roman Church, which was then (as the Protestants cannot deny) a pure Virgin, and most free from all spiritual fornication. But that it is now become Idolatrous, M. PERKINS doth prove by his second reason, gathered also (I warrant you, right learnedly) out of the text itself, 
Cap. 17. vers. 16.  where it is said, that the ten Horns, which signify ten Kings, shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked: which (as he saith) must be understood of Popish Rome: For whereas in former times, all the Kings of the earth did submit themselves, to the whore: now they have begun to withdraw themselves, & to make her desolate: as the Kings of Bohemia, Denmark, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts. In these his words is committed a most foul fault, by gross oversight and ignorance in the very text. What, be England, Scotland, Denmark, (as for Bohemia ruled by a Catholic Emperor it must be omitted, as also many states of Germany,) be these Kingdoms your principal pillars of the new Gospel, comprehended within the number of the ten, mentioned there in S. john, which hate the harlot. Yes marry. Why then they are enemies of Christ, and Satan's soldiers; for in the 13. verse. it is said of these, that they shall deliver their power unto the beast, (which signifieth either the Devil or Antichrist,) & shall sight with the Lamb, & the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of Lords, & King of Kings. Is not this doting in an high degree, to infame so notoriously them, of whom he would speak most honour? and to make the special Patrons of their new Gospel, the devils Captains, and fiercely to wage battle against CHRIST JESUS. See, how heat of wrangling blindeth men's judgements. But you proceed and say Pag. 7. that we further hold, that the blood of the Saints and Martyrs, was not shed in Rome, but in jerusalem. Here is a confusion of Men, and matters; for we say that the blood of many Saints, rehearsed in the Apoc. was shed in Rome, 
Cap. 17.  by the tyrannical Emperors, but the martiring of those two principal witnesses, Enoch and Elias, (recorded in the eleventh of the same) shall be at jerusalem, aswell, because the text is very plain for it; 
Vers. 8.  specifying that their bodies shall lie in the streets of that great City, where their Lord was crucified; as for that the ordinary interpreters of that place do so take it. But M. PERKINS holdeth that the place where Christ was crucified, signifieth here not jerusalem, but Rome; because Christ was crucified there in his members: so it might aswell signify any other place of persecution as Rome: the reason therefore being nought worth, he fortifieth it with the name of S. Jerome, but citeth in the margin a letter of two virtuous matrons, Paula & Eustochium. 
Epist. 17 Epist. 17  Good Sir, if S. Jerome had meant that the Epistle should have had his authority, he would have set it out in his own name, which seeing he thought not expedient, set the authority of it aside, and urge his reasons, if you think it worth your labour, and you shallbe answered. In the mean season, (I hope) all sober Christians, will take the place where our Saviour Christ was nailed on the Cross, to signify rather jerusalem, than Rome. And consequently, all that you have alleged out of Scripture, to prove the whore of Babylon to figure the ecclesiastical state of Rome, not to be worth a rush. Now let us come to the ancient and learned men, whom you cite in favour of your exposition. The first is S. Bernard, who saith, that they are the ministers of Christ, but they serve Antichrist. Of whom speaketh that good religious Father? forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome. Good, who were (as he saith) the ministers of CHRIST, because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places, but served Antichrist; for that they behaved themselves corruptly in their callings. And so this, maketh more against you, then for you, approving the lawful officers of Rome, to be Christ's ministers. The second place is alleged out of him yet more impertinently, yourself confessing presently, that those words were not spoken of the Pope, but of his enemy: The reason yet there set down, pleaseth you exceedingly: which you vouch so clearly that it seemeth to bear flat against you; for you infer that that Pope, and all others since that time be usurpers, out of this reason of Saint Bernard. Because forsooth, that the Antipope called Innocentius, was chosen by the King of Almain, France, England, etc. and their whole clergy, and people. For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and usurper, because he was elected by so many Kings and people: then belike he that had no such election, but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome only is true Pope. This, your words 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 sufficeth for this present, that you find no relief at all in Saint Bernard, touching the main point, that either the Pope, or Church of Rome, is Antichrist. And all the world might marvel, if out of so sweet a Doctor, and so obedient unto the Pope, any such poison might be sucked: 
Lib. 2. de Cons. ad Fugea.  specially weighing well, what he hath written unto one of them, to whom he speaketh thus. Go to, let us yet inquire more diligently, who thou art, and what person thou bearest in the Church of God, during the time. Who art thou? A great Priest, the highest Bishop: thou art the Prince of Bishops, the heir of the Apostles, and in dignity, Aaron, in authority, Moses, in Power, Peter, thou art he to whom the Keys were delivered, to whom the sheep were committed: There are indeed also other Porters of Heaven, and Pastors of flocks; but thou art so much the more glorious, as thou hast inherited a more excellent name above them: they have their flocks allotted to them, to each man one: but to thee all were committed, as one flock, to one man: thou art not only Pastor of the sheep, but of all other Pastors, thou alone art the Pastor. And much more to this purpose, which being his clear opinion of the Pope, how absurd is it, out of certain blind places, & broken sentences of his to gather, that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheep, nor Pastor of Christ's Church, but very Antichrist himself.  
There is a gross fault, also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it: that the Popes was to be created by the Cardinals, Bishops of Rome. As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops of Rome at once, but of the matter of election else where.  
M. PERKINS having lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two, out of one Catholic Author flieth to a late heretic, called joachim, and quoteth jewel for relator of it. A worshipful testimony of one heretic, and that upon the report of an other: & he the most lying Author of these days. As for the late Poet Petrarke his words might easily be answered, but because he quoteth no place, I will not stand to answer it. But to close up this first combat, a sentence is set down out of the famous Martyr Ireneus, that Antichrist should be Lateinos, a Roman. Here be as many faults, as words. That learned ancient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name, 
Cap. 13.  out of these words of the revel. the number of the beast is 666. And observing the letters of the greek Alphabet, (by which they do number, as we do by ciphers) sayeth: that among others the word Lateinos doth contain those letters, which amount just 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 sayeth there, and lastly that it is most uncertain what his name shall be. See the place (gentle reader) & learn to beware of such deceitful merchants, as make no conscience, to corrupt the best Authors: and being often warned of it, will never learn to amend. Ireneus leaveth it most doubtful what shall be Antichrists name: And among diverse words esteemeth Lateinos, to be the unlikeliest. And yet M. PERKINS reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos: and then to make up the matter turneth Lateinos, a proper name with S. Ireneus; into Roman, an appellative, which noteth only his country. Fie upon that cause, which cannot be upholden and maintained, but by a number of such paltry shifts. Thus come we at length to the end of M. PERKINS proofs, & reproofs in his prologue, where we finding little fidelity in his allegations of the fathers, bad construction and foul oversight in the text, of holy Scripture, briefly great malice, but slender force against the Church of Rome, we are to return the words of his theme to all good Christians. Go out of her my people. Forsake the enemies of the Roman Church. And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperors, who drew out her most pure blood, so let us fly in matters of faith, & Religion, from all heretics that of late also spared not to shed abundance of the same most Innocent blood, unless to your greater condemnation, you had liefer be partakers of her sins, and receive of her plagues. And because I purpose (God willing) not only to confute what M. PERKINS bringeth against the Catholic doctrine, but some what also in every Chapter to fortify and confirm it: I will here deliver what some of the most ancient, most learned, & most holy Fathers do teach, concerning joining with the Church, and Pope of Rome: from whose society Protestant's labour tooth, and nail to withdawe us. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supremacy, I will use here their authority, only whom M. PERKINS citeth against us. S. Bernard is cited already, S. Ireneus Scholar of S. Policarpe, & he of S. john the Evangelist of the Church of Rome writeth thus. To this Church, 
Lib. 3. c. 3.  by reason of her more mighty principality, it is necessary that every Church, that is the faithful on all sides, to condescend and agree; in, and by which, always, the tradition of the Apostles hath been preserved of them, that be round about her.  
Saint Jerome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome, sayeth: I following none as chiefest, but Christ, do in participation join with thy blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter, I know the Church to be builded upon that Rock. Whosoever doth eat the Paschall Lamb out of this house, is a profane fellow, he that is not found within the Ark of Noah, shall when the floods arise perish: And a little after, I know not Vitalis, I refuse Meletius, I take no notice of Paulinus: he that gathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, he that is not with Christ, is with Antichrist.  
Mark and embrace this most learned Doctor's judgement, of joining with the See of Rome, in all doubtful questions: he would not trust to his own wit & skill which were singular; nor thought it safe to rely upon his learned & wise neighbours: he durst not set up his rest with his own Bishop Paulinus, who was a man of no mean mark but the Patriarch of Antioch: but made his assured stay upon the see of Rome, as upon an unmovable Rock, with which (sayeth he) if we do not communicate in faith and Sacraments, we are but profane men, void of all Religion: In a word, we belong not to Christ, but be of Antichrists train. See, how flat contrary this most holy ancient Father is to M. PERKINS. M. PERKINS would make us of Antichrists band, because we cleave unto the Bishop of Rome. Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertain to Antichrist, who be not fast linked in matters of Religion, with the Pope and See of Rome. And so to conclude with this point, every true Catholic must say with S. Ambrose. 
Lib. 3 de Sacra. c. 1.  I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome. And thus much of his prologue. Afterward he taketh upon him to prescribe & show us how far forth we may join with the Church of Rome, by proposing many points in controversy, between us, and them, & in each showing in what points we consent together, & in what we differ. I mean by God's grace to follow him, step by step, although he hath made many a disorderly one, aswell to discover his deceits & to disprove their errors, as also to establish the Catholic Doctrine, the which I will endeavour to perform (by the help of God) with all simplicity of language, and with as much brevity as such a weighty matter will permit. Yet (I hope) with that perspicuity, as the meaner learned may understand it, and with such substance of proof, both out of the holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers, as the more judicious (to whose profit it is principally dedicated) may not contemn it.   

CHAPTER. I. OF FREE WILL. OUR CONSENTS.  
THAT I be not thought captious, but willing to admit any thing that M. PERKINS hath said agreeable to the truth, I will let his whole text in places indifferent, pass, paring of only superfluous words, with adding some annotations where it shall be needful, and rest only upon the points in controversy. First then concerning free will, wherewith he beginneth, thus he sayeth: Free will both by them and us, is taken for a mixed power in the mind and will of man, whereby discerning what is good, and what is evil; he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same.  
ANNOT. If we would speak formally, it is not a mixed power in the mind and will, but is a free faculty of the mind and will only, whereby we choose or refuse, supposing in the understanding, a knowledge of the same before. But let this definition pass as more popular.  
M. PERKINS. 1. Conclusion. Man must be considered in a fourefould estate: as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shallbe glorified, in the first state, we ascribe unto man's will liberty of nature, in which he could will or nill, either good or evil; note that this liberty proceeded not from his own nature, but of original justice, in which he was created.  
In the third liberty of grace, in the last liberty of glory.  
ANNOT. Carry this in mind, that here he granteth man in the state of grace to have free will.  
M.P. 2. Conclusion. The matters whereabout free will is occupied, are principally the actions of men, which be of three sorts, Natural, human, Spiritual. Natural actions are such, as are common to men and beasts, as to eat, sleep, etc. In all which we join with the Papists, and hold that man hath free will even since the fall of Adam.  
M.P. 3. Conclusion. human actions are such, as are common to all men, good & bad, as to speak, to practise any kind of art, to perform any kind of civil duty, to preach, to administer Sacraments, etc. And hither we may refer the outward actions of civil virtues, as namely justice, Temperance, Gentleness, and Liberality, and in these also we join with the Church of Rome, and say (as experience teacheth) that men have a natural freedom of will, to put them, or not to put them in execution. S. Paul saith. The gentiles that have not the law, do the things of the law by nature, 
Rom. 2.14  that is by natural strength: And he saith of himself, that before his conversion touching the righteousness of the law, he was unblamable. 
Phil. 3.6. Mat. 6.5. Ezech. 29.19.  And for this external obedience, natural men receive reward in temporal things. And yet here some caveats must be remembered.  
First, that in human actions (he should say moral) man's will is weak, and his understanding dim, thereupon he often fails in them. This caveat is no caveat of the Protestants, but taken out of S. Thomas of Aquines. 
Sum. 1. 2. q. 109. art. 4. & 8.  And in all such actions with S. Augustine (you might have quoted the place) I understand the will of man, to be only wounded or half dead.  
2. That the will of man, is under the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it: Who knows not this.  
M.P. 4. Conclusion. The third kind of actions, are spiritual more nearly, & these be two fold, good, or bad. In sins we join with the Papist, and teach that in sins man hath freedom of wil Some, perhaps will say that we sin necessarily, because he that sinneth, cannot but sin, and that free will and necessity, can not stand together: In deed the necessity of compulsion and free will, can not stand together, but there is an other kind of necessity (or rather infallibility) which may stand with free will, for some things may be done necessarily, and also freely.  
ANNOT. The example of a close prisoner is not to the purpose, for it puts necessity in one thing, and liberty in an other. The solution is, that necessary lie must be, is taken for certainly, not that a man is at any time compelled to sin, but his weakness and the craft of the Devil are such, that he is very often over reached by the Devil, and induced to sin, but with free consent of his own will.  
M.P. 5. Conclusion. The second kind of Spiritual actions be good as repentance, Faith, Obedience, etc. In which we likewise in part join with the Church of Rome, and say that in the first conversion of a sinner, man's free will concurreth with God's grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort, for in the conversion of a sinner, three things are required, the word, God's spirit, and Man's will, for Man's will, is not passive in all & every respect, but hath an action in the first conversion & change of the soul: when any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly, & at the very time when he is converted by God's grace, 
Serm. 15. de verb. Apost.  he willeth his conversion; to this end saith S. Augustine, He which made thee, without thee, will not save thee, without thee. Again, that it is certain that our will is required in this, that we may do any thing well, (it is not only then required in our first conversion, if it be required to all good things which we do,) but we have it not from our own power, but God works to will in us. For look at what time God gives grace, at the same time he gives a will to desire and will the same: As for example when God works faith, at the same time, he works also upon the will, causing it to desire faith, and willingly to receive the gift of believing: God makes of the unwilling will, a willing will, because no man can receive grace utterly against his will, considering will constrained, is no will. But here we must remember that howsoever in respect of time, the working of grace by God's spirit, and the willing of it in man go together: Yet in regard of order grace is first wrought, and man's will must first of all be acted and moved by grace; and than it also acteth, willeth, and moveth itself: And this is the last point of consent, between us and the Roman Church, touching free will: neither may we proceed farther with them. Hitherto M. PERKINS.  
Now before I come to the supposed difference, I gather first that he yieldeth unto the principal point in controversy, that is freedom of will, in civil, and moral works in the state of corruption, and all good works in the state of grace, for in his first conclusion distinguishing four estates of man, he affirmeth that in the third, of man renewed, or (as we speak justified) there is liberty of grace, that is, grace enableth man's will to do if it please such spiritual works, as God requireth at his hands. Yet lest he be taken to yield in any thing, 
Pag. 16.  he doth in show of words contradict both these points in an other place: For in setting down the difference of our opinions, he saith: that man's will in his conversion is not active, but passive, which is flat opposite unto that which himself said a little before in his first conclusion; that in the conversion of a sinner, man's will concurreth not passively but is co-worker with God's grace.  
The like contradiction may be observed in the other part of liberty in moral actions: for in his third conclusion he delivereth plainly man to have a natural freedom, even since the fall of Adam to do, or not to do the acts of wisdom, justice, Temperance, etc. 
Pag. 19  and proves out of S. Paul, that the Gentiles so did: Yet in his first reason, he affirmeth as peremptorily out of the 8. of Genesis, that the whole frame of man's heart is corrupted, and all that he thinketh, deviseth, or imagineth, is wholly evil, leaving him no natural strength to perform any part of moral duty. See how uncertain the steps be of men that walk in darkness, or that would seem to communicate with the works of darkness. For if I mistake him not, he agreeth fully in this matter of free will, with the Doctrine of the Catholic Church: For he putting down the point of difference, 
Page. 1  saith that it standeth in the cause of the freedom of man's will, in spiritual matters: allowing then freedom of will with us, in the state of grace, whereof he there treateth; for he seemeth to dissent from us, only in the cause of that freedom. And as he differeth from Luther, and Caluin, with other sectaries, in granting this liberty of will: so in the very cause also he accordeth with Catholics, as appeareth by his own words. For (saith he) Papists say man's will concurreth with God's grace by itself, and by it own natural power: we say that Man's will worketh with grace; yet not of itself, but by grace: either he understandeth not what Catholics say, or else accuseth them wrongfully: For we say that Man's will then only concurreth with God's grace, when it is stirred and helped first by God's grace. So that Man's will by his own natural actions, doth concur in every good work, otherwise it were no action of Man: But we farther say, that this action proceedeth principally of grace, whereby, the will was made able to produce such actions: for of itself it was utterly unable to bring forth such spiritual fruit. And this I take to be that, which M. PERKINS doth mean by those his words, that the will must be first moved and acted by grace, before it can act or will. He mistook us, thinking that we required some outward help only to the will, to join with it, or rather, that grace did but as it were untie the chains of sin wherein our will was fettered: And then will could of itself turn to God. 
Luc. 10.  Not understanding how Catholics take that parable of the man wounded in the way, between jerusalem and jerico who was (not as the Papists only say, but as the holy Ghost saith) left half, and not stark dead. Now the exposition of Catholics is not, that this wounded man, (which signifieth all Mankind) had half his spiritual strength left him; but was rob of all Supernatural riches, spoiled of all his original justice, and wounded in his natural powers of both understanding and will, and therein left half dead, not being able of his own strength, either to know all natural truth, or to perform all moral duty. Now touching supernatural works, because he lost all power to perform them; not being able so much as to prepare himself conveniently to them; he in a good sense may be likened unto a dead man, not able to move one singer that way of grace; 
Luc. 15.  and so in holy Scripture the Father said of his prodigal Son, he was dead, and is revived. Yet as the same son lived a natural life, albeit in a deadly sin: so man's will after the fall of Adam, continued some what free in actions conformable to the nature of man, though wounded also in them, as not being able to act many of them, yet having still that natural faculty of free will, capable of grace, & also able, being first both outwardly moved, and fortified inwardly by the virtue of grace, to effect and do any work appertaining to salvation: which is as much as M. PERKINS affirmeth. And this to be the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome, 
Cap. 1.  is most manifestly to be seen in the Council of Trent, where in the Session are first these words in effect, concerning the unableness of man to arise from sin of himself. Every man must acknowledge, and confess, that by Adam's fall we were made so unclean & sinful, that neither the gentiles by the force of nature, nor the jews by the letter of Moses' law, could arise out of that sinful state. After it showeth, how our deliverance is wrought, and how freedom of will is recovered in special, and wherein it consisteth, saying. The beginning of justification, in persons using reason, is taken from the grace of God, preventing us through JESUS CHRIST, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any desert of ours we are called, that we who were by our sins turned away from God, may be prepared by his grace, both raising us up, and helping us to return to our own justification, freely yielding our consent unto the said grace, and working with it. So as God touching the heart of man by the light of the Holy Ghost, neither doth man nothing at all, receiving that inspiration, who might also refuse it: neither yet can he without the grace of God, by his free will, move himself to that, which is just in God's sight. And that you may be assured, that this Doctrine of the Council, is no other than that which was taught three hundred years before, in the very midst of darkness, as heretics deem: 
1.2. q. 109. art. 6.  See what Saint Thomas of Aquine one of her principal pillars hath written of this point in his most learned Sum. Where, upon these words of our Saviour, No man can come to me, unless my Father draw him. He concludeth it to be manifest, 
joan. 6.  that man cannot so much as prepare himself to receive the light of grace, but by the free and undeserved help of God, moving him inwardly thereunto. And this is all which M. PERKINS in his pretended dissent averreth here, and goeth about to prove in his five reasons following: the which I will omit, as being all for us. And if any man desire to see more to that purpose, let him read the most learned works of that famous Cardinal, and right Reverend Archbishop Bellarmine.  
Now the very point controversed, concerning free will, M. PERKINS hath quite omitted, which consisteth in these two points, expressed in the Council: First, whether we do freely assent unto the said grace, when it is offered us, that is, whether it lie in our power to refuse it; And secondly, when we concur and work with it, whether we could if we listed refuse to work with it. In both which points we hold the affirmative part, and most sectaries of this time the negative. Of which our Author is silent: only by the way in his fourth reason, toucheth two texts out of Saint Paul, which are commonly alleged against free will.  
The first. I have (saith he) laboured more abundantly than all they, yet not I, 
1. Cor. 15  but the grace of God, which is in me, attributing the whole work to grace. To which I briefly answer, that they do corrupt the text, to make it seem more currant for them: the greek hath only He sun emoi which is, with me, not, which is in me, so that the word in true construction make much more for us, then against us: Saint Paul affirming the grace of God, which was working with him, to have done these things: And so Saint Augustine whom they pretend to follow most in this matter, expoundeth it. Yet not I, but the grace of God with me; that is, not I alone, 
Degra. & lib. arb. ca 15.  but the grace of God with me. And by this, neither the grace of God alone: neither he alone, but the grace of God with him, thus Saint Augustine. The like sentence is in the book of wisdom. Send that (wisdom) from thy Holy heaven, that it may be with me, 
Cap. 9  and labour with me.  
The second text is. It is God that worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish. 
Phil. 2. v. 13.  We grant that it is God, but not he alone without us, for in the next words before, Saint Paul, sayeth. Work your salvation with fear and trembling. So that GOD worketh principally by stirring us up by his grace, and also helping forward our will, to accomplish the work; but so sweetly and conformably to our nature, that his working taketh not away, but helpeth forward our will to concur with him. Again, the whole may be attributed unto God, considering that the habits of grace infused, be from him as sole efficient cause of them, our actions endued also with grace, being only dispositions and no efficient cause of those habits: but this is an high point of school Divinity, very true, but not easily to be conceived of the unlearned.  
One other objection may be collected out of Master PERKINS third reason, against free will, which is touched, as he saith, by the holy Ghost, in these words. When we were dead in sins. 
Ad Ephes. 2.2.  If a man by sin become like a dead man, he can not concur with GOD, in his rising from sin.  
Answer Sure it is, that he can not before God by his grace hath quickened, and as it were revived him, to which grace of God, man giveth his free consent. How can that be, if he were then dead? Marry, you must remember what hath been said before: that albeit man in sin be dead in the way of grace, yet he liveth naturally, and hath free will in natural and civil actions: which will of his being by grace fortified, & as it were lifted up unto a higher degree of perfection, can then concur & work with grace to faith, & all good works necessary to life everlasting. (As for example,) a crabtree stock hath no ability of itself, to bring forth apples, & therefore may be termed dead in that kind of good fruit: Yet let a siance of apples be grafted into it, and it will bear apples: even so albeit our sour corrupt nature of itself be unable to fructify to life everlasting, yet having received into it the heavenly graft of God's grace, it is enabled to produce the sweet fruit of good works: 
Cap. 1.  to which alludeth S. James. Receive the engrafted word, which can save our souls: again what more dead than the earth? and yet it being tilled and sowed, doth bring forth, and bear goodly corn: now the word and grace of God is compared by our Saviour himself unto seed, 
Math. 13.  and our hearts unto the earth that received it: what marvel then if we otherwise dead, yet revived by this lively seed, do yield plenty of pleasing fruit.  
Having hitherto explicated the state of the question, and solved such objections as may be gathered out of M. PERKINS against it, before I come to his solution of our arguments, I will set down some principal places, both out of the Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, in defence of our Doctrine, because he proposeth but few for us, & misapplieth them too.  

Genes. 4.  First then, God sayeth to Cain. If thou do well, shalt thou not receive a reward? But if thou do evil, thy sin will presently be at the gates, but the appetit of it, shall be under thee, & thou shalt bear dominion over it. Here is plain mention made of the power, which that evil disposed man Cain, had not to sin, if he had listed; which was (no doubt) by the assistance of God's grace, and on the other side, that grace did not infallibly draw him to good, but left it to his free choice, whether he would follow it or no. And because they, who seek out all manner of starting holes, wrist these words of ruling and bearing sway, as spoken of his brother Abel, and not of sin: first to see their iniquity, mark the text, where is no mention of Abel, neither in that verse, nor in the next before; but express mention is made of sin in the next words before: therefore those pronouns, (that are to be referred to the words next before) must needs in true construction be referred to sin, and not to his brother. Besides, this plain construction of the text, Saint Augustine followeth, 
Lib. 15. de civit. c 7.  saying as it were to Cain. Hold thyself content, for the conversion of it, shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule over it. What (saith he) over his brother? God forbid, that so wicked a man should rule over so good: Over what then? but he shall rule over sin. See how manifestly that worthy Doctor hath prevented their cavil. And if it were need, I might join with him that most skilful Father in the Hebrew text, S. Jerome, 
In quest. Hebraice.  who in the person of God expoundeth it thus. Because thou hast free will, I admonish and warn thee, that thou suffer not sin to overcome thee, but do thou overcome sin.  
The second is taken out of this text of Deut. 
Cap. 30.19  I call this day (sayeth Moses') heaven and earth to witness, that I have set before you, life, and death, benediction, & malediction, therefore choose life, that thou mayst live and thy seed. Which words were spoken in vain, if it had not been in their power, by the grace of God, to have made choice of life: or if that grace would have made them do it infallibly, without their consent. Unto these two places of the old Testament, (one under the law of Nature, and the other under Moses' law) let us couple two more out of the new Testament.  
The first may be those kind words of our Saviour unto the jews. 
Math. 23.  jerusalem, jerusalem, etc. how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth her chickens under her wings, & thou wouldst not: Which do plainly demonstrate that there was no want, either of Gods help inwardly, or of Christ's persuasion outwardly, for their conversion: and that the whole fault lay in their own refusing, and withstanding God's grace, as these words of Christ do plainly witness, and thou wouldst not.  
The last testimony is in the Revelat. where it is said in the person of God. I stand at the door and knock, 
Cap. 3.  if any man shall hear my voice and open the gates, I will enter in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Mark well the words: God by his grace, knocks at the door of our hearts, he doth not break it open, or in any sort force it, but attendeth, that by our assenting to his call, we open him the gates, and then, lo he with his heavenly gifts will enter in: otherwise he leaves us. What can be more evident in confirmation of the freedom of man's will, in working with God's grace.  
To these express places taken out of God's word, let us join the testimony of those most ancient Fathers, against whose works the Protestants can take no exception. The first shall be that excellent learned Martyr justinus in his Apology, who unto the Emperor Antonine speaketh thus. Unless man by free will could fly from foul dishonest deeds, and follow those that be fair and good; he were without fault, as not being cause of such things as were done. But we Christians teach that mainkinde by free choice, and free will, doth both do well, and sin.  
To him we will join that holy Bishop and valiant Martyr Ireneus, who of free will writeth thus, not only in works, but in faith also, 
Lib. 4. c. 72.  our Lord reserved liberty, and freedom of will unto man: saying, be it done unto thee, according to thy faith.  
I will add to that worthy company, S. Cyprian: who upon those words of our Saviour, will you also departed, discourseth thus. 
joan. 6. Lib. 1. Ep. 3  Our Lord did not bitterly inveigh against them, which forsook him, but rather used these gentle speeches to his Apostles, will you also go your way: and why so? Marry observing and keeping (as this holy Father declareth) that decree by which man left unto his liberty, and put unto his free choice, might deserve unto himself, either damnation, or salvation. These three most ancient, and most skilful in Christian Religion, and so zealous of Christian truth, that they spent their blood in confirmation of it, may suffice to certify any indifferent reader; what was the judgement of the ancient and most pure Church, concerning this article of free will: specially when the learnedst of our Adversaries, confess all Antiquity, (excepting only S. Augustine) to have believed & taught free wil Hear the words of one, for all. Mathias Illyricus in his large, long lying history, having rehearsed touching free will, the testimonies of justine Ireneus and others, 
Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 59  saith. In like manner Clement, Patriarch of Alexandria, doth every where teach free will, that it may appear (say these Lutherans) not only the Doctors of that age to have been in such darkness, but also that it did much increase in the ages following. See the wilful blindness of heresy. Illyricus confessing the best learned in the purest times of the Church, to have taught free will: yet had rather believe them to have been blindly led, by the Apostles and their best Scholars, who were their Masters: then to espy & amend his own error. These principal pillars of Christ's Church were in darkness belike as Protestants must needs say: & that proud Persian & most wicked heretic Manes (of whom the Manichees are named) who first denied free will, began to broach the true light of the new Gospel.  
Here I would make an end of citing Authorities, were it not that Caluin sayeth, 
2. just. ca 2. q. 4.  that albeit all other ancient writers be against him, yet S. Augustine as he vaunteth, is clearly for him in this point, but the poor man is foully deceived, aswell in this, as in most other matters. I will briefly prove, and that out of those works which S. Augustine wrote after the Pelagian heresy was a foot; for in his others, Caluin acknowledgeth him to have taught free will. Of our freedom in consenting to God's grace, he thus defineth, 
De spirit. & lit. 34. De gra. Chri. 14. Ad simpli. q. 2. Tract. 72. in joan Ep 47.  to consent to God's calling, or not to consent, lieth in a man's own will. Again: Who doth not see every man to come, or not to come, by free will? but this free will may be alone, if he do not come, but it cannot be but helped, if he do come. In an other place, that we will (do well) God will have it to be his and ours; his, in calling us; ours, in following him. Yea more: To Christ working in him, a man doth cooperate, that is, worketh with him, both his own justification, and life everlasting: will you here him speak yet more formally for us. We have dealt with your brethren and ours, as much as we could: that they would hold out and continue in the sound Catholic faith; the which neither denieth free will, to evil or good life, nor doth attribute so much to it, that it is worth any thing without grace. So according to this most worthy Father's judgement, the sound Catholic faith doth not deny free will, as the old Manichees and our new Gospelers do; nor esteem it without grace able to do any thing toward salvation, as the Pelagians did. And to conclude, hear S. Augustine's answer unto them, who say, that he, when he commendeth grace, denieth free will. 
Lib. 4. con jul. c. 8.  Much less would I say, that which thou lyingly dost affirm me to say free will to be denied, if grace be commended, or grace to be denied, if free will be commended.  
Now in few words I will pass over the objections which he frameth in our names. But misapplieth them.  
First Objection. That man can do good by nature, as give alms, do justice, speak the truth, etc. And therefore will them without the help of grace. This argument we use to prove liberty of will in civil and moral matters, even in the corrupted state of man, and it doth demonstrate it: and M. PERKINS in his third conclusion doth grant it. And his answer here is far from the purpose, for albeit (saith he) touching the substance of the work it be good, yet it faileth both in the beginning, because it proceeds not from a pure heart, and a faith unfeigned: and also in the end, which is not the glory of God.  
Answer. It faileth neither in the one nor other: for that alms may issue out of a true natural compassion, which is a sufficient good fountain to make a work morally good: faith and grace to purge the heart, & are necessary only for good and meritorious works: Again being done to relieve the poor man's necessity, GOD his Creator and Master, is thereby glorified. And so albeit the man thought not of GOD in particular: yet GOD being the final end of all good, any good action of itself, is directed towards him, when the man putteth no other contrary end thereunto.  
2. Objection. God hath commanded all to believe and repent, therefore they have natural free will, by virtue whereof being helped by the spirit of God, they can believe. The force of the argument consisteth in this, that GOD being a good Lord, will not command any man to do that, which he is no way able to do.  
Ans. M. PERKINS answereth in effect (for his words be obscure) that GOD commandeth that, which we be not able to perform, but that which we should do: Then I hope he will admit that he will enable us by his grace to do it, or else how should we do it. God surely doth not bind us by commandment to any impossible thing, he is no tyrant, but telleth us, that his yoke is sweet, and his burden easy. 
Mat. 11.  And S. john witnesseth, that his commandments are not heavy. 
joh. 5.  He was far off from thinking that GOD would tie any man by law, to do that which he was altogether unable to perform. This in the end M. PERKINS himself approveth.  
3. Ob. If man have no free will to sin, or not to sin, than no man is to be punished for his sins, because he sinneth by a necessity, not to be avoided.  
He answereth, that the reason is not good; for, though man cannot but sin, yet is the fault in himself, and therefore is to be punished. Against which, I say that this answer supposeth that which is false, to wit, that a man in sin, cannot choose but sin: For by the help of God, who desireth all sinner's conversion, 
1. Pet. 3.  and thereunto affordeth grace sufficient; a sinner in a moment, may call for grace and repent him: and so choose whether he will sin or no, and consequently hath free will to sin or not to sin: And that example of a bankrupt is not to purpose, for he cannot when he will, satisfy his creditors, who content not themselves with his repentance, without repay of their money, as God doth.  
Now concerning the force of this argument, hear Saint Augustine's opinion. De duab. animab. contr. Manich. in these words. Neither are we here to search obscure books to learn, that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment, which doth not that, which he cannot do: for (saith he) do not shepherds upon the downs, sing these things? do not poets upon the stages, act them? Do not the unlearned in their assemblies, and the learned in their libraries acknowledge them? Do not masters in the schools, & Prelates in the pulpits, & finally all mankind throughout the whole world, confess and teach this? to wit, that no man is to be punished, because he did that, which he could not choose but do. Should he not then (according to S. Augustine's censure) be hissed out of all honest company of men, that denieth this so manifest a truth; confessed by all Mankind? How gross is this heresy, that so hoodeth a man, and hardeneth him, that be he learned, yet he blusheth not to deny roundly, that which is so evident in reason, that even natural sense, doth teach it unto shepherds. God of his infinite mercy, deliver us from this strange light of the new Gospel.   

CHAPTER. 2. OF ORIGINAL SIN.  

OUR CONSENTS. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLUSION.  

Pag. 28.  THEY say, natural corruption after Baptism is abolissed, and so say we: but let us see, how far forth it is abolissed. In original sin are three things. First, the punishment: which is the first and second death: second, guiltiness, which is the binding up of the creature unto punishment: third, the fault, or the offending of God: under which I comprehend our guiltiness in Adam's first offence, as also the corruption of the heart, which is a natural inclination and proneness to any thing that is evil, or against the law of God. For first we say that after Baptism in the regenerate, the punishment of Original sin is taken away: 
Rom. 8.1.  For there is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that are in CHRIST JESUS.  
For the second, that is guiltiness, we further condescend and say, that it is also taken away in them that are borne anew. For considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to bind them to punishment. Yet this caveat must be remembered, namely, that the guiltiness is removed from the person regenerate, but not from the sin in the person. But of this more hereafter.  
Thirdly, the guilt in Adam's first offence is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the heart, I avouch two things. First, that the very power and strength, whereby it reigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate. Secondly, that this corruption is abolished (as also the fault of every actual sin passed.) So far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is. In deed it remains till death, and it is sin, considered in itself, so long as it remains; but it is not imputed to the person. And in that respect, is as though it were not, it being pardoned. Hitherto M. PER.  
Annotations upon our Consent.  
First, we say not, that the punishment of Original sin is in it, or any part of it, but rather a due correction, and as it were an expulsion of it: this is but a peccadilio: but there lurketh a Serpent in that caveat; that the guiltiness of Original sin is removed from the person regenerate, but not from the sin in the person. The like he saith afterward of the fault, that it is a sin still in itself remaining in the man till death, but it is not imputed to him, as being pardoned. Here be quillets of very strange Doctrine: the sin is pardoned, and yet the guiltiness of it, is not taken away. Doth not a pardon take away from the fault pardoned, all bond of punishment due unto it, and consequently all guiltiness belonging to it? Who can deny this, unless he know not, or care not what he say: If then Original sin be pardoned, the guiltiness of it is also removed from itself. Again, what Philosophy, or reason, alloweth us to say, that the offender being pardoned for his offence, the offence in itself remaineth guilty? as though the offence separated from the person, were a substance, subject to law, and capable of punishment: can Original sin in itself die the first and second death, or be bound up to them? What senseless imaginations be these? Again, how can the fault of Original sin remain in the man renewed by God's grace, although not imputed? can there be two contraries in one part of the subject at once? can there be light and darkness in the understanding, virtue and vice in the will at the same instant? can the soul be both truly converted to God, and as truly averted from him at one time? is Christ now agreed to dwell with Belial? and the holy Ghost content to inhabit a body subject to sin? all which must be granted contrary to both, Scripture, and natural sense, if we admit the fault and deformity of sin to remain in a man renewed, and endued with God's grace: unless we would very absurdly imagine that the fault and guilt of sin were not inherent and placed in their proper subjects, but were drawn thence, and penned up in some other odd corner.  
Remember also gentle Reader, that here Master PERKINS affirmeth the power, whereby the corruption of the heart reigneth in man, is taken away in the regenerate: which is clean contrary unto the first proposition, of his first reason following, as shall be there proved.   

OUR DISSENT.  
LET us now come unto the difference, which is between us. The Catholics teach, that Original sin is so farforth taken away by Baptism, that it ceaseth to be a sin properly: the effects of it remaining, are an inperfection and weakness, both in our understanding, and will, and a want of that perfect subordination of our inferior appetite unto reason, as was, and would have been, in Original justice: which make the soul apt and ready to fall into sin, like unto tinder, which although it be not fire of itself, yet is fit to take fire: yet say they, that these relics of Original sin be not sins properly, unless a man do yield his consent unto those evil motions: Master PERKINS teacheth otherwise. That albeit Original sin be taken away in the regenerate in sundry respects, yet doth it remain in them after Baptism, not only as a want, and weakness, but as a sin, and that properly, as may be proved by these reasons, Saint Paul saith directly: 
1. Rom. 7.  It is no more I, that do this, but sin that dwelleth in me, that is Original sin; The Papists answer, That it is called there, sin improperly, because it cometh of sin, and is an occasion of sin. I approve this interpretation of Saint Paul, as taken out of that ancient and famous Papist Saint Augustine: 
Li. 1. cont. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de nuptiis & Concup. cap. 23.  who saith expressly: Concupiscence, (whereof the Apostle speaketh) although it be called sin, yet is it not so called, because it is sin, but for that it is made by sin: as writing is called the hand, because it is made by the hand. And in an other place repeating the same, addeth. That it may also be called sin, for that it is the cause of sin: as cold is called slothful, because it makes a man slothful: so that the most profound Doctor Saint Augustine is styled a formal Papist by M. PERKINS, and shall be as well coursed for it by the plain circumstances of the place: For saith he, that Saint Paul there takes sin properly, appears by the words following, That this sin dwelling in him, made him to do the evil which he hated. How proves this, that sin there must be taken properly: it rather proves, that it must be taken improperly: for if it made him do the evil, which he hated: then could it not be sin properly, for sin is not committed, but by the consent and liking of the will: But Saint Paul did not like that evil, but hated it, and thereby was so far off from sinning, that he did a most virtuous deed in resisting and overcoming that evil. As witnesseth Saint Augustine, saying: Reason sometimes resisteth manfully, 
Lib. 2 de Gen. cont. Manich. cap. 14.  and ruleth raging concupiscence; which being done, we sin not, but for that conflict are to be crowned.  
This first circumstance then alleged by M. PERKINS, doth rather make against him, then for him. Now to the second.  
O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? Here is no mention of sin: how this may be drawn to his purpose, shall be examined in his argument where he repeateth it: so that there is not one poor circumstance of the text which he can find, to prove Saint Paul to take sin there properly: Now I will prove by divers, that he speaks of sin improperly.  
First, by the former part of the same sentence: It is not I that do it: All sins is done and committed properly by the person in whom it is: but this was not done by Saint Paul. ergo.  
Second, out of those words, I know there is not in me that is in my flesh, any good: And after. I see an other law in my members, resisting the law of my mind. Thus: sin properly taken is seated in the soul: but that was seated in the flesh, ergo it was no sin properly.  
The third and last, is taken out of the first words of the next Chapter: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST JESUS, that walk not according to the flesh, etc. Whence I thus argue: there is no condemnation to them, that have that sin dwelling in them, if thy walk not according unto the fleshly desires of it: therefore it is no sin properly: For the wages of sin is death, this is eternal damnation: 
Rom. 6.  Now to M. PERKINS Argument in form as he proposeth it. That which was once sin properly, and still remaining in man, maketh him to sin, and entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and makes him miserable, that is sin properly: But Original sin doth all these. ergo.  
The Mayor, which (as the learned know) should consist of three words, contains four several points, and which is worst of all, not one of them true.  
To the first; that which remaineth in man after Baptism, commonly called Concupiscence, was never a sin properly: but only the material part of sin, the formal and principal part of it, consisting in the deprivation of Original justice, and a voluntary aversion from the law of GOD, the which is cured by the Grace of GOD, given to the baptized, and so that which was principal in Original sin, doth not remain in the regenerate: neither doth that which remaineth, make the person to sin, (which was the second point.) unless he willingly consent unto it, as hath been proved heretofore: it allureth & enticeth him to sin, but hath not power to constrain him to it, as M. PERKINS also himself before confessed. Now to the third, and entangleth him in the punishment of sin: how doth Original sin entangle the regenerate in the punishment of sin; If all the guiltiness of it be removed from his person, as you taught before in our Consent. Mendacem memorem esse oportet: Either confess that the guilt of Original sin is not taken away from the regenerate, or else you must unsay this, that it entangleth him in the punishment of sin: now to the last clause that the relics of Original sin make a man miserable, a man may be called wretched and miserable, in that he is in disgrace with God, and so subject to his heavy displeasure: and that which maketh him miserable in this sense, is sin: but S. Paul taketh not the word so here, but for an unhappy man exposed to the danger of sin, and to all the miseries of this world, from which we should have been exempted, had it not been for Original sin, after which sort he useth the same word. 
1. Cor. 15.  If in this life only we were hoping in Christ, we were more miserable than all men: not that the good Christians were farthest out of God's favour, and more sinful than other men: but that they had fewest worldly comforts, and the greatest crosses, and thus much in confutation of that formal argument. Now to the second.  
Infants baptized, die the bodily death before they come to the years of discretion: but there is not in them any other cause of death, besides Original sin, for they have no actual sin: 
Rom. 5. & Rom. 5.  and death is the wages of sin as the Apostle saith, death entered into the world by sin.  
Answer. The cause of the death of such Innocentes, is either the distemperature of their bodies, or external violence: and God who freely bestowed their lives upon them, may when it pleaseth him as freely take their lives from them, especially when he means to recompense them with the happy exchange of life everlasting. True it is, that if our first parents had not sinned, no man should have died, but have been both long preserved in Paradise, by the fruit of the wood of life, and finally translated without death into the Kingdom of heaven: and therefore is it said most truly of S. Paul. death entered into the world by sin. 
Rom. 5.  But the other place, 
Rom. 6.  the wages of sin is death, is foully abused, for the Apostle there by death understandeth eternal damnation, as appeareth by the opposition of it to life everlasting: and by sin there meaneth not Original, but Actual sin, such as the Romans committed in their infidely, the wagiss where of if they had not repent them, had been hell fire: now to infer that Innocents are punished with corporal death, for Original sin remaining in them: because that eternal death is the due hire of Actual sin, is either to show great want of judgement, or else very strangely to pervert the words of Holy scripture. Let this also not be forgotten, that he himself acknowledged in our Consent: that the punishment of Original sin was taken away in Baptism from the regenerate: how then doth he here say, that he doth die the death for it?  
M. PERKINS third reason: That which lusteth against the spirit, and by lusting tempteth, and in tempting enticeth and draweth the heart to sin, is for nature sin itself: but concupiscence in the regenerate is such: ergo.  
Answer. The first proposition is not true: for not every thing that enticeth us to sin, is sin: or else the Apple that alured Eve to sin, had been by nature sin: and every thing in this world one way or an other tempteth us to sin: according unto that of S. john. All that is in the world, 
1. Epl. 2.  is the Concupiscence of the flesh, and the Concupiscence of the eyes, and Pride of life: So that it is very gross to say, that every thing which allureth to sin, is sin itself, and as wide is it from all moral wisdom to affirm, that the first motions of our passions be sins. For even the very heathen Philosophers could distinguish, between sudden passions of the mind and vices: teaching that passions may be bridled by the understanding, and brought by due ordering of them into the ring of reason, and so made virtues rather than vices. And that same text which M. PERKINS bringeth to persuade these temptations to be sins, proves the quite contrary. God tempteth no man; but every man is tempted, 
jacob 1.  when he is drawn away by his own concupiscence, and is alured: afterward when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: Mark the words well. First, Concupiscence tempteth, and allureth by some evil motion, but that is no sin, until afterward it do conceive, that is, obtain some liking of our will, in giving ear to it, and not expelling it so speedily as we ought to do the suggestion of such an enemy: the which that most deep Doctor Saint Augustine, sifteth out very profoundly in these words. 
Lib. 6. in jul. cap. 5.  When the Apostle Saint james saith, every man is tempted, being drawn away and alured by his Concupiscence, and afterward Concupiscence, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin: Truly in these words, the thing brought forth is distinguished, from that which bringeth it forth. The dam is concupiscence, the fool is sin. But concupiscence doth not bring sin forth, unless it conceive, (so than it is not sin of itself) and it conceiveth not, unless it draw us, that is, unless it obtain the consent of our will, to commit evil. The like exposition of the same place, and the difference between the pleasure tempting, that runneth before, and the sin which followeth after, Unless we resist manfully, may be seen in S. Cirill, 
Lib. 4. in johan. ca ●1.  so that by the judgement of the most learned ancient Fathers, that text of S. james cited by M. PERKINS, to prove concupiscence to be sin, disputeth it very sound: to that reason of his, Such as the fruit is, such is the Tree: I answer, that not concupiscence, but the will of man is the Tree: which bringeth forth, either good, or bad fruit, according unto the disposition of it: concupiscence is only an intiser unto bad.  

Lib. 5 con. julianum cap. 3.  But S. Augustine saith, That concupiscence is sin, because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind, etc. I answer, that S. Augustine in more than twenty places of his works teacheth expressly, that concupiscence is no sin, if sin be taken properly: wherefore, when he once calleth it sin, he taketh sin largely as it comprehendeth, not only all sin, but also all motions and enticements to sin; in which sense concupiscence may be termed sin: but is so called very seldom of S. Augustine, but more commonly an evil, 
Lib. 6. cap. 5.  as in the same work, is to be seen evidently: where he saith; That grace in Baptism doth renew a man perfectly, so farforth as it appertaineth to the deliverance of him from all manner of sin; but not so, as it freeth him from all evil: so that concupiscence remaining after baptism, is no manner of sin, in S. Augustine's judgement: but may be called evil, because it provoketh us to evil, to this place of S. Augustine I will join that other like, 
Tract. 41. in johan.  which M. PER. quiteth in his 4. reason: where he saith, that sins dwelleth always in our members. The same answer serveth that sin there, is taken improperly: as appeareth by that he seats it in our members: for according unto S. Augustine and all the learned, the subject of sin being properly taken, is not in any part of the body, but in the will and soul, and in the same passage he signifieth plainly, that in baptism all sins and iniquity is taken away, and that there is left in the regenerate, only an infirmity or weakness.  
M. PERK. 4. reason is taken from the record of the ancient Church: Charity in some is more, 
Aug. Epis. ●9.  in some less, in some none, the highest degree of all which cannot be increased, is in none, as long as a man lives upon earth: and as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not, etc. For which also though we profit never so much, it is necessary for us to say, forgive us our debts, though all our worst deeds and thoughts be already forgiven in Baptism. Answer. That here is never a word touching concupiscence, or to prove original sin to remain after baptism, which is in question: but only that the best men for want of perfect Charity, do often sin venially, which we grant. M. PER. having thus strongly (as you see) fortified his position with that one sentence of S. Augustine (which hath also nothing for his purpose) in steed of all antiquity: confesseth ingenuously, that S. Augustine in sundry places denieth concupiscence to be sin: but expoundeth him to mean, that it is not sin in that person, but in itself: which is already confuted: for sin that it is an accident, and so properly inherent in his subject, cannot be at all, if it be not in some person, and the sin of the same person. But if the protestant reader desire to be well assured of S. Augustine's opinion in this point: let him see what their Patriarch john Caluin saith of it: where thus he writeth. 
Lib. 3. Instit. cap. 3 num. 10.  Neither is it needful to labour much in searching out what the old writers thought of this point, when one Augustine may serve the turn: who with great diligence hath faithfully collected together all their sentences. Let the readers therefore take out of him, if they desire to have any certainty of the judgement of antiquity. Hitherto somewhat honestly: What followeth? Moreover between him and us, this is this difference: that he truly dares not call the disease of concupiscence a sin, but to express it, is content to use the word of infirmity, then lo doth he say, that it is made sin, when the act of our consent doth join with it. But we hold that very thing to be sin, wherewith a man is in any sort tickled. Observe first, good Reader, that S. Augustine's opinion with him carrieth the credit of all antiquity: Which is the cause that I cite him more often against them. Secondly, that he is flatly on our side: teaching concupiscence not to be sin, unless we do consent unto it. Lastly, learn to mislike the blind boldness of such Masters: who having so highly commended S. Augustine's judgement in this very matter, and advised all men to follow it: Doth notwithstanding fly from it himself. Presuming that some would be so shalowe-witted as not to espy him, or else content to rely more upon his only credit, then upon the authority of all the ancient Fathers. For a taste of whose consent with S. Augustine in this question, I will here put the sentences of some few, that I need not hereafter return to rehearse them.  
S. chrysostom saith, Passions be not sins of themselves, 
Homil. 11. in epist. ad Rom.  but the unbridled excess of them doth make sins: And that I may for example sake touch one of them: concupiscence is not a sin; but when passing measure it breaks his bounds, then lo it is adultery; not in regard of concupiscence, but in respect of the excessive and unlawful riot of it.  
S. Bernard (whom M. PERKINS often citeth against us, and these may sometimes be alleged for us) hath these words: Sin is at the door, 
Serm. de sex tribul.  but if thou do not open it, it will not enter in: lust tickleth at the heart; but unless thou willingly yield unto it, it shall do thee no hurt: withhold thy consent, and it prevaileth not.  
S. Aug. and S. Cirill, have been cited already, S. Hier. and S. Greg. shall be hereafter: who with the confession of Caluin, may serve sufficiently to prove, that approved antiquity is wholly for us. And if any desire to know the founder of our adversaries Doctrine in this point: let him read the 64. heresy recorded by that ancient & holy Bishop Epiphanius: where he registereth one Proclus an old rotten sectary to have taught, that sins are not taken away in Baptism, but are only covered, which is as much to say, as sin remaineth still in the person regenerate, but is not imputed to him. Which is just M. PERKINS, and our Protestants position.  
Now let us come unto the arguments, which the Church of Rome (as M. PERKINS speaks) allegeth to prove Concupiscence in the regenerate, not to be sin properly.  
1. Objection. In Baptism men receive perfect and absolute remission of sin: Which being pardoned, is taken quite away, and therefore after Baptism, ceaseth to be sin: M. PERKINS answereth, that it is abolished in regard of imputation, that is, is not imputed to the person, but remains in him still. This answer is sufficiently (I hope) confuted in the Annotations upon our consent: in confirmation of our Argument, I will add some texts of holy Scripture: 
johan. 13.  First, He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, for he is wholly clean. Take with this, the exposition of Saint Gregory the great, 
Lib. 9 Ep. 39  our Apostle; He cannot (saith he) be called wholly clean in whom any part or parcel of sins remaineth. But let no man resist the voice of truth, who saith, he that is washed (in Baptism) is wholly clean: therefore, there is not one dram of the contagion of sin left in him, whom the cleanser himself, doth profess to be wholly clean. The very same doth the most learned Doctor S. Jerome affirm: 
Epist. ad Oceanum. Psal. 50.  saying. How are we justified and sanctified, if any sin be left, remaining in us? Again if holy king David say. Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow: how can the blackness of hell still remain in his soul? briefly it cannot be but a notorious wrong unto the precious blood of our Saviour, to hold that it is not as well able to purge and purify us from sin, as Adam's transgression was of force to infect us. Yea the Apostle teacheth us directly, that we recover more by Christ's grace, 
Rom. 5.  than we lost through Adam's 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 jesus Christ, hath abounded upon many. If then we through Christ, receive more abundance of grace, than we lost by Adam, there is no more sin left in the newly baptized man, than was in Adam in the state of innocency, albeit other defects, and infirmities do remain in us, for our greater humiliation, and probation: yet all filth of sin is clean scoured out of our souls, by the pure grace of God powered abundantly into it in Baptism: and so our first Argument stands insoluble. Now to the second.  
2. Object. Every sin is voluntary, and not committed without the consent of man: but this concupiscence whereof we talk, hath no consent of man, but riseth against his will: therefore is no sin. M. PERKINS answereth; That such actions as are used of one man towards an other, must be voluntary, but sin towards God, may be committed without our consent. For every want of conformity unto the law even in our body, although against our will, be sins in the Court of conscience. Reply: full little knows this man what belongeth to the Court of conscience: there secret faults in deed be examined, but nothing is taken for sin by any one learned in that faculty, which is done without a man's free consent: all of them holding with S. Augustine. 
Lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap 17.  That sin is so voluntary an evil, that it cannot be sin, which is not voluntary: And to say with M. PERKINS that any want of conformity to reason in our body is sin, is so absurd: that a man might (that were true) be damned from a dream, how well soever disposed he went to sleep: if he chance to dream of uncleanness, whereupon doth ensue any evil motion in his flesh. This paradox of sinning without a man's consent is so contrary unto both, natural, and supernatural reason that S. Augustine averreth. 
Li. de vera Relig. c. 14.  Neither any of the small number of the learned, nor of the multitude of the unlearned to hold, that a man can sin without his consent. What unlearned, learned men than are start up in our miserable age, that make no bones to deny this, and greater matters too.  
The third reason for the Catholics is this: Where the form of any thing is taken away, there the thing itself ceaseth: but in baptism, the form of original sin is taken away: ergo. M. PERKINS shifteth in assigning a wrong form: affirming us to say, that the form of original sin is the guiltiness of it: which we hold to be neither the form, nor matter of it, but as it were the proper passion following it. See S. Thomas: 
1. 2. q. & art. 3.  who delivereth for the form of original sin, the privation of original justice, which justice made the will subject to God.  
The deordination then of the will, Mistress & commander of all other points in man, made by the privation of original justice: is the form of original sin, and the deordination of all other parts of man, (which by a common name is called concupiscence, as that learned Doctor noteth,) is but the material part of that sin, so that the will of the regenerate being by grace through Christ rectified, and set again in good order towards the law of God, the form of original sin, which consisted in deordination of it, is taken quite away by baptism, and so consequently the sin itself, which cannot be without his proper form, as the argument doth convince.  
4. Object. lastly saith M. PERKINS for our disgrace they allege that we in our Doctrine teach, that original sin after baptism is only clipped or pared like the hear of a man's head, whose roots remain in the flesh, growing and increasing after they be cut as before. His answer is, that they teach in the very first instant of the conversion of a sinner, sin to receive his deadly wound in the root, never after to be recovered. Confer this last answer with his former Doctrine (good Reader,) and thou mayst learn what credit is to be given to such Masters: no more constant than the winter. Here sin is deadly wounded in the root, there it remaineth still with all the guiltiness of it, although not imputed, there it still maketh the man to sin, entangleth him in the punishment of sin, and maketh him miserable: All this he comprehended before in this first reason, and yet blusheth not here to conclude, that he holdeth it at the first: Neither clipped nor pared, but pulled up by the roots: In deed they do him a favour, who say that he holdeth sin to be clipped, and as it were razed, for albeit hair razed grow out again, yet is there none for a season: but this original sin of his is always in his regenerate, in vigour to corrupt all his works, and to make them deadly sins. But let this suffice for this matter.    

CHAPTER. 3. OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.  

OUR CONSENTS. M. PERKINS FIRST CONCLUSION.  

Pag. 37.  WE hold and believe, that a man in this life, may be certain of salvation: and the same doth the Church of Rome teach.  
M. P. 2. Conclu. We hold, that a man is to put certain affiance in God's mercy, in Christ for the salvation of his soul: and the same holdeth the aforesaid Roman Church.  
M. P. 3. Conclu. We hold, that with assurance of salvation in our hearts is joined doubting, and there is no man so assured of his salvation, but he at sometime doubteth thereof, especially in the time of temptation: and in this the Papists agree with us. Not so Sir.  
M. P. 4. Conclu. They go further and say, that a man may be certain of the salvation of men, and of the Church, by Catholic faith: and so say we.  
M. P. 5. Conclu. They hold, that a man by faith may be assured of his own salvation, through extraordinary revelation: In this sense only the first conclusion is true.  
M. P. 6. Conclu. The sixth, and second be all one: that we may be assured of our salvation, in regard of God that promiseth it: though in regard of ourselves, and our own indispotion we cannot.   

THE DISSENT.  
1. WE hold, that a man may be certain of his salvation in his own conscience even in this life, and that by an ordinary and special saith. They hold, that a man is certain, of his salvation, only by hope, both hold a certainty, we by faith, they by hope.  
2. We say our certainty is infallible: they, that it is only probable.  
3. Our confidence in God's mercy, in Christ cometh from certain and ordinary faith, theirs from hope: false. Thus much of the difference, now let us come to the reasons, too and fro.  
Here M. PERKINS contrary to his custom, giveth the first place to our reasons, which he calleth objections, and endeavoureth to supplant them: and afterward planteth his own. About the order I will not contend, seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he observeth none, but set down things as they came into his head. Otherwise he would have handled justification before Salvation. But following his method, let us come to the matter.  
The first Argument for the Catholic party is this.  
1. Objection. Where is no word of God, there is no faith, for these two are Relatives. But there is no word of God: saying, Cornelius believe thou Peter, believe thou that thou shalt be saved: therefore there is no such ordinary faith, for a man to believe his own particular salvation.  
M. PERKINS answer.  
Although there be no word of God to assure us of our particular salvation: Yet is there an other thing as good, which countervails the word of God, to wit, the Minister of God applying the general promises of salvation unto this and that man. Which when he doth, the man must believe the Minister, as he would believe Christ himself, and so assure himself by faith of his salvation.  
Reply. Good Sir, seeing every man is a liar, and may both deceive, and be deceived, and the Minister telling may err: how doth either the Minister know, that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect? or the man be certain that the Minister mistaketh not, when he assureth him of his salvation. To affirm as you do, that the Minister is to be believed aswell as if it were Christ himself, is plain blasphemy. Equalling a blind and lying creature, unto the wisdom and truth of God. If you could show out of God's word, that every Minister hath such a commission from Christ, then had you answered the argument directly, which required but one warrant of God's word: but to say that the assurance of an ordinary Ministers word countervails God's word, I can not see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister God's mate. On the other side to aver that the Minister knows who is predestinate (as it must be granted, he doth if you will not have him to lie when he saith to Peter, thou art one of the elect,) is to make him of GOD'S privy Council, without any warrant for it in God's word: Yea Saint Paul not obscurely signifying the contrary in these words. The sure foundation of God standeth having this seal: 
Tim. 2.13  our Lord knoweth who be his. And none else, except he reveal it unto them. M. PERKINS then flieth from the assurance of the Minister, and leaves him to speak at random, as the blind man casts his club; and attributeth all this assurance unto the party himself, who hearing in God's word, Seek ye my face, in his heart answereth. Lord I will seek thy face: And then hearing God say, Thou art my people, saith again. The Lord is my God. And then lo without all doubt he hath assurance of his salvation. Would ye not think that this were rather some silly old Woman's dream, than a discourse of a learned Man? How know you honest man, that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000 years past, to the people of Israel, are directed to you? Mine own heart, good Sir, tells me so. How dare you build upon the persuasion of your own heart any such assurance? When as in holy writ it is recorded. 
●etem. 17.  Wicked is the heart of man, & who shall know it? Are you ignorant how Saul before he was S. Paul, being an Israelit, to whom those words appertained, persuading himself to be very assured of his faith, was notwithstanding foully deceived, and why may not you far more unskilful than he be in like manner abused. Moreover suppose that this motion cometh of the holy Ghost, and that he truly sayeth, The Lord is God, how long knoweth he that he shall be able to say so truly? When our Saviour CHRIST JESUS assureth us that many be called, 
Math. 22.  but few of them are chosen to life everlasting. How knoweth he then assuredly, that he being once called, is of the predestinate? M. PERKINS sayeth, that he who believeth, knoweth that he believeth. Be it so; if he believe aright, and meddle no further then with those things, which be comprehended within the bounds of faith: But that the certainty of salvation is to be believed, is not to be begged, but proved, being the main question, he sayeth further that he who truly repenteth, knoweth that he repenteth: he knoweth in deed by many probable conjectures, but not by certainty of faith: as witnesseth that holy person. 
Job. 9  If God come to me, (as he doth to all repentant sinners,) I shall not see him, and if he depart away from me, I shall not understand it: Which is sufficient to make him thankful, yea if he received no grace at all, yet were he much beholding unto God, who offered him his grace, and would have freely bestowed it upon him, if it had not been through his own default. And thus our first Argument stands in his full strength and virtue, that no man can assure himself by faith of his salvation, because there is no word of God that warranteth him so to do.  
The second is. It is no article of the creed, that a man must believe his own salvation, and therefore no man is bound thereunto.  
M. PERKINS answereth. That every article of the Creed contains this particular faith of our own salvation, namely three: First (saith he) to believe in God, is to believe that God is our God, and to put our trust in him for our salvation. Answer. I admit all this, and add more (that M. PERKINS be no longer ignorant of the Catholic knowledge of the creed,) that we must also love him with all our heart and strength: thus we understand it more fully than he: Yet find not out that thirteenth article, Thou must believe thine own particular salvation. For albeit, I believe and trust in God, yet not being sure of my love towards him, I am not assured of salvation, for as S. john testifieth. He that loveth not, abideth in death. 
1. john. 3.   
So I answer to the second article, named by M. PERKINS, that is, I believe that God of his infinite mercy, through the merits of Christ's passion doth pardon all those, who being heartily sorry for their sins, do humbly confess them, and fully purpose to lead a new life: that I myself am such a one, I do verily hope, because I have as farforth as I could, to my knowledge performed those things, which God requires of me, but because I am but a frail creature, and may perhaps not have done all that so well as I ought, or am not so well assured of that, which by God's help I have done, I can not believe it, for in matter of faith (as you shall hear shortly,) there can be no fear or doubt.  
The like answer is given to the article of life everlasting. I believe that I shall have life everlasting, 
Math. 19  if I fulfil that which our Saviour taught the young man, demanding what he must do to have life everlasting: to wit, if I keep all God's commandments, but because I am not assured that I shall so do (yea the Protestants (though falsely,) assure us that no man by any help of God's grace can so do.) I remain in fear. But (saith M. PERKINS) the Devil may so believe the articles of the creed, unless we do apply those articles to ourselves. First, I say the Devil knows to be true all that we do believe, and therefore are said by Saint james to believe, but they want a necessary condition of faith, that is a Godly and devout submission of their understanding unto the obedience of faith, and so have no faith to speak properly. Again they trust not in God for salvation, nor endeavour not any manner of way to obtain salvation, as Christians do, and so there is great difference between their belief in the articles of the creed, and ours.  
M. PERKINS in his first exception grants. 
Pag. 54.  That commonly men do not believe their salvation, as infallibly as they do the articles of the faith (yet saith he) some special men do.  
Whereof I infer by his own confession, that our particular salvation is not to be believed by faith: for whatsoever we believe by faith, is as infallible as the word of God, which assureth us of it. Then if the common sort of the faithful do not believe their salvation, to be as infallible as the articles of our creed, yea as Gods own word, they are not by faith assured of it. Now that some special good men, either by revelation from God, or by long exercise of a virtuous life, have a great certainty of their salvation, we willingly confess: but that certainty doth rather belong to a well grounded hope, then to an ordinary faith.  
The third reason for the Catholics, is, that we are bidden to pray daily for the remission of our sins. 
Mat. 6.  But that were needless, if we were before assured, both of pardon and salvation.  
M. PERKINS answereth, First, that we pray daily for the remission of new sins committed that day. Be it so. What needs that, if we were before assured of pardon? Marry (saith he) because our assurance was but weak and small, our prayer is to increase our assurance. Good Sir, do you not see how you overthrow yourself? If your assurance be but weak and small, it is not the assurance of faith, which is as great, and as strong, as the truth of God.  
We give God thanks for those gifts, which we have received at his bountiful hands, and desire him to increase, or continue them, if they may be lost. But to pray to God to give us those things we are assured of by faith, is as fond, and frivolous, as to pray him to make Christ our Lord to be his Son, or that there may be life everlasting to his Saints in heaven, of which they are in full and assured possession. And so these three Arguments by M. PERKINS propounded here for us, are very substantial and sufficient, to assure every good Christian, that he may well hope for salvation doing his duty, but may not without great presumption, assure him by faith of it. To these I will add two or three others, which M. PERKINS afterwards seeks to salve, by his exceptions as he terms them. To his first exception, I have answered before. The second I will put last for order's sake, and answer to the third first, which is:  

Pag. 56.  The Catholics say, we are indeed to believe our salvation on God's part, who is desirous of all men's salvation, very rich in mercy, and able to save us, but our fear riseth in regard of ourselves, because the promises of remission of sins depend upon our true repentance: 
Luke 13.  Unless you do penance, ye shall all perish. And the promises of salvation, is made upon condition of keeping Gods commandments. 
Mat. 19 2. Tim. 2.  If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Again, No man shall be crowned, except he combat lawfully. Now we not knowing whether we shall well perform these things required by God at our hands, have just cause to fear, lest God do not on his part, perform that which he promiseth upon such conditions. To this M. PERKINS answereth, That for faith, and true repentance, every man that hath them, knoweth well that he hath them. To which I reply, that for faith being rightly taken, it may be known of the party that hath it, because it is a light of the understanding, and so being like a lamp, may be easily seen: but true repentance requires besides faith, both hope, and charity, which are seated in the dark corners of the will, and can not by faith be seen in themselves, but are known by their effects: which being also uncertain do make but conjectures and a probable opinion, so that place of S. Paul may be omitted where he saith. 
2. Cor. 13.  Prove yourselves whether you be in faith or no. Because we accord that it may be tried by us, whether we have faith or no: although I know well, that S. Paul's words carry a far different sense. But let that pass as impertinent. To the other. That we have received the spirit, which is of God, 
1. Cor. 2.12.  that we might know the things which are given of God. What things these are which the spirit revealeth to us, S. Paul teacheth in the same place, That which the eye hath not seen, nor ear hath heard, etc. God hath prepared for them, that love him: but to us, God hath revealed by his spirit: All this is true: but who they be that shall attain to that blessed Banquet by God so prepared, God only knoweth, & by his spirit revealeth it to very few. And will you learn out of S. Jerome that ancient Doctor, the cause why: 
In 3. caput. jone.  Therefore (saith he) it is put ambiguous and left uncertain, that while men are doubtful of their salvation, they may do penance more manfully, and so may move God to take compassion on them.  
another reason of this uncertainty, 
De cor. & gra. cap 13.  yieldeth Saint Augustine in these words: In this place of temptation, such is our infirmity, that assuredness, might engender pride. To this agreeth S. Gregory, saying: 
Lib. 9 moral. cap. 17.  If we know ourselves to have grace, we are proud. So that to strike down the pride of our hearts, and to humble us, and to make us travail more carefully in the works of mortification, God doth not ordinarily assure men at the first of their own salvation: but to cheer up their hearts on the other side, doth put them in great hope of it, like to a discreet and good Lord, who will not at the first entrance into his service; infeafe his servant in the fee simple of those lands, which after upon his good deserts he meaneth to bestow on him. This is an other kind of Doctrine, then that which M. PER. in his last supply delivereth, to wit: That if we regard our own indisposition, we must despair, because we be not worthy of his mercy. Not so good Sir. Because we know that he bestoweth mercy upon the unworthy, at the first justification of a sinner, but will not admit into the Kingdom of heaven any unworthy, but gives men grace while they live to work, that they are made worthy of his heavenly Kingdom according to that: They shall walk with me in whites, 
Apoc. 3.4.  because they are worthy, but of this more fully in the chapter of merits.  
The fift reason for our opinion is taken out of M. PER. second exception, to wit; howsoever a man may be assured for his present state, yet no man is certain of his perseverance to the end. And therefore, although we might be assured of our justification, yet can we not be certain of our Salvation. For he only that persevereth to the end, shall be saved. M. PERK. answer is, that prayer doth assure us to persever to the end: for God bids us pray, that we fall not into temptation, and promiseth an issue forth: 
1. Cor. 10.  So than the assurance depends upon prayer, and not upon our former faith. What then if we do not pray so as we should? may not the enemy then, not only wound, but kill us to? it cannot be denied: and therein, as in divers other works of piety, many have been too too slack, as the pitiful fall of thousands have taught us. Oh saith M. PERKINS, it cannot be, that he which was once a member of Christ, can ever after be wholly cut off. O shameless assertion, and contrary to many plain texts, and examples of holy Scriptures: Doth not our Saviour say in express words, That every branch in me not bearing fruit, 
joh. 15.  he will take it away? And again, If any abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as the branch, and shall whither, and be cast into the fire: which doth demonstrate, that some which were members of Christ, be wholly cut off, and that for ever. Are we not by faith made members of Christ by our adversaries own confession? and doth not our blessed Saviour say, 
Luke 8.  expounding the parable of the sour, That the seed which fell upon the rock, doth signify them, who with joy receive the word, and these (saith he) have no root, but for a time they believe, and in time of temptation, revolt. 
1. Tim. 1.19. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim. 6.  Doth not Saint Paul in express terms say, That some having faith and good conscience, expelling good conscience, have made shipwreck of their faith: of whom were by name, Hymenaeus, and Alexander. The like, That in the the last days, some should revolt from the faith: Again, That some for covetousness sake, had erred from the faith. And for example amongst other, take Saul the first King of Israel, who was at his election (as the holy Ghost witnesseth) so good a man, 
1. Reg. 19  that there was no better than he in Israel, and yet became reprobate, as is in the Scripture signified. The like is probable of Solomon, 
2. Reg. 15. & 16.  and in the new Testament of judas the traitor, and Simon Magus whom S. Luke saith, that he also himself believed, and after became an arch-heretic, 
Act. 8.  and so died: the like almost may be verified of all arch-heretics, who before they fell, were of the faithful.  
But what need we further proof of this matter, seeing that this is cozen german, if not the very same, with one of that infamous heretic Iouinians erroneous articles, 
Heres. 82. Li. 2. cont. jovin.  condemned, and registered by S. Hierome, and S. Augustine, who held, that just men after Baptism could not sin, and if they did sin, they were indeed washed with water, but never received the spirit of grace: his ground was, that he which had once received the spirit of grace, could not sin after, which is just M. PERKINS proposition: so that to uphold an error, he falleth into an old condemned heresy. And which is yet more absurd, in the next confirmation, he letteth slip at once a brace of other heresies, these be his words. And if by sin one were wholly severed from Christ for a time, in his recovery he is to be baptized the second time. Where you have first rebaptizing, which is the principal error of the Anabaptists, and withal the heresy of the novatians, who held that if any in persecution denied Christ after baptism, there was no remedy left in God's Church, for their recovery: but must be left to God; so saith M. PERKINS, for that of rebaptizing he seems to bring in ex absurdo: so that the common saying is, verified in him, (one absurdity being granted, a thousand follow after.) But doth he know no other means than Baptism to recover one cut off from Christ? hath he forgotten that corrupted sentence of the Prophet, wherewith they begin their common prayer? What hour soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin, etc. With them repentance, and with us the Sacrament of Penance, serve a man at any time of his life to be reconciled to Christ.  
But we must answer unto that of S. john. They went out from us, 
1. joan. 2.  but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. I answer. If they went out from us, they were before with us: which confirmeth our assertion, that men may depart from their faith, and Christ's profession: but such men were not indeed of the number of the elect, of which S. john was, for then either they would have continued with them in the Christian faith, or else by hearty repentance would have returned unto it, back again, which is S. Augustine's own exposition. 
De bono pierce. c. 8.  And these be the Arguments for the Catholics, which M. PERKINS through his confused order toucheth here, and there. To which I will add, one taken out of the words of S. Paul. But thou by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, 
Rom. 11.20. Phil. 2.12.  but fear, if God hath not spared the natural boughs lest perhaps he will not spare thee neither. And again. Work your salvation, with fear and trembling. There be above an hundred such texts in holy write, wherein the Holy Ghost exhorteth us to stand in fear of our salvation, out of which I thus frame my argument.  
No man must stand in fear of that, of which he is by faith assured. But the faithful must stand in fear of their salvation. Ergo, they be not assured of it by faith.  
The Minor or second proposition is plainly proved by these places, cited before the Mayor is manifest: there is no fear in faith, he that feareth, whether the thing be assured or no, can not give a certain assent thereunto: Dubius in fide infidelis est. Put the case in an other article, to make it more evident: He that feareth, whether there be a God or no, do we esteem that he believeth in God. So he that feareth whither JESUS CHRIST be God? is he a Christian? hath he a true faith? You must needs answer no. So he that feareth whether he shall be saved or no, can have no faith of his salvation.  
To these invincible reasons grounded upon God's word, let us join some plain testimonies, taken aswell out of the holy Scripture, as out of the ancient Fathers. First, what can be more manifest to warrant us, that the faithful have not assurance infallible of their salvation, than these words of the Holy Ghost. 
Eccles. 9  There be just (and therefore faithful) and wise men, and their works be in the hand of God, and nevertheless a man doth not know whether he be worthy of hatred or love, but all things are kept uncertain for the time to come. Where is then the Protestants certainty. And because one heretic cavilleth against the Latin translation, saying that a word or two of it may be otherwise turned, hear how S. Jerome, who was most cunning in the Hebrew text, 
Coment. in ●unc lo●um.  doth understand it. The sense is, (saith he) I have found the works of just men, to be in the hand of God, and yet themselves not to know, whether they be loved of God or no.  
another plain testimony is taken out of S. Paul, where he showeth that it is not in us to judge of our own justice, but we must leave to God the judgement of it, 
●. Cor. 4.  these be the words. I am not guilty in conscience of any thing, but I am not justified herein, but he that judgeth me is our Lord, therefore judge not before the time until our Lord do come, who also will lighten the hidden things of darkness, and will manifest the council of the heart, and then the praise shall be to every man, of God. So that before God's judgement by Saint Paul's testimony, men may not assure themselves of their own justice, much less of their salvation, how innocent soever they find themselves in their own consciences. 
Serm. 5 in Psal. 118. De constitut. monas. c. 2.  See upon this place S. Ambrose, S. Basill, Theodoret on this place, who all agree, that men may have secret faults, which God only seethe, & therefore they must live in fear, and always pray to be delivered from them. For the rest let Saint Augustine's testimony, (whom our adversaries acknowledge to be the most diligent and faithful register of all antiquity) be sufficient. This most judicious, and holy Father thus defineth this matter: 
De verb. Domini. ser. 35. De civit. Dei lib. 11. c. 12.  As long as we live here, we ourselves can not judge of ourselves, I do not say what we shall be to morrow, but what we are to day. And yet more directly. Albeit holy men are certain of the reward of their perseverance, yet of their own perseverance, they are found uncertain. For what man can know that he shall persever, and hold on in the action and increase of justice until the end, unless by some revelation he be assured of it from him, who of his just, but secret judgement doth not inform all men of this matter, but deceiveth none: So no just man is assured of his salvation by his ordinary faith: by extraordinary revelation, some man may be assured, the rest are not. Which is just the Catholic sentence. And because S. Bernard is by our adversaries, cited for them in this point, take his testimony in as precise terms as any Catholic at this time speaketh. Thus he writeth. 
Serm. 1. de Septuag.  Who can say, I am one of the elect, I am one of the predestinate to life, I am one of the number of the children? Who (I say) can thus say, the scripture crying out against him. 
Eccles. 9  A man knoweth not, whether he be worthy of love or hatred. Therefore we have no certainty, but the confidence of hope doth comfort us, that we be not vexed at all with the perplexity of this doubt. The word of GOD (according to Saint Bernard,) crieth out against all them, that certainly assure themselves of their salvation: whereon then do they build their faith that believe it.  
If it may be permitted to join modern opinions with ancient, bad men, with good, I could prove by the testimony of every principal sect of this time, that all other sectaries were deceived in this their persuasion of their salvation. For both, Lutherans, Caluinists, and Anabaptists (to omit the rest) do hold every one of themselves assured of their salvation, and yet each sect holdeth every one not of his own band assured of damnation: so that by the sentence of the Lutherans, all Caluinists, and Anabaptists, are miserably deceived when they assure themselves of their salvation: In like manner if the Anabaptists be true censurers, both Lutherans, and Caluinists and all other, not of their heresy, err foully, when they bear themselves in hand that they shall be saved. Certain it is therefore by the consent of all the world, that very many who assure themselves of salvation, are in deed assured of damnation.  
With the testimonies of the ancient Doctors for us, I pray thee gentle Reader, 
Pag. 57  confer those which M. PERKINS in his sixth reason allegeth against us. First, Saint Augustine in these words. Of an evil servant, 
De verb. Domini. serm. 28.  thou art made a good child, therefore presume not of thine own doing, but of the grace of Christ. It is not arrogancy, but faith to acknowledge, what thou hast received, it is not pride, but devotion. What word is here of certainty of salvation? but that it belongeth to a faithful man, to confess himself much bound to God, for calling of him to be his. Which every Christian must do, hoping himself so to be, and being most certain, that if he be not in state of grace, it is long of himself, and no want on God's part. The second place hath not so much as any show of words for him, thus he speaketh. Let no man ask an other man, 
Tract. 5. in Epis. joan.  but return to his own heart, and if he find Charity there, he hath security for his passage, from life to death. What need was there to seek charity in his heart, for security of his salvation, if his faith assured him thereof, therefore this text maketh flat against him.  
The next Author he citeth is Saint Hylarie in these words. 
Sup. 5 cap. Mat.  The Kingdom of heaven which our Lord professed to be in himself, his will is that it be hoped, for without any doubtfulness of uncertain will (at all, is an addition) otherwise there is no justification by faith, if faith itself be made doubtful. First, he saith, but as we say, that the Kingdom of heaven is to be hoped for, without any doubtfulness; for we profess certainty of hope, and deny only certainty of faith, as M. PERKINS confesseth before. And as for faith, we say with him also it is not doubtful, but very certain. What maketh this to the purpose, that a man must believe his own salvation when S. Hilary speaketh there of faith of the resurrection of the dead. His last Author is S. Bernard: 
Epist. 107.  Who is the just man, but he that being loved of God, loves him again? which comes not to pass but by the spirit, revealing by faith the eternal promise of God, of his salvation to come, which revelation is nothing else, but the infusion of spiritual grace, by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified, the man is prepared to the kingdom of heaven, together receiving in one spirit, that, whereby he may presume, that he is loved, and loves again. Note that he saith the revelation of the spirit, to be nothing else, but the infusion of spiritual graces, and comfort, whereby a man hath some feeling of God's goodness towards him, by which (as he saith) he may presume, but not believe certainly, that he is loved of God. But let S. Bernard in the same place interpret himself, there he speaketh thus, as I cited once before. It is given to men to taste before hand, somewhat of the bliss to come, etc. Of the which knowledge of ourselves now in part perceived, a man doth in the mean season glory in hope, but not yet in security. His opinion then is expressly, that for all the revelations of the spirit made by faith unto us, we are not assured for certainty of our salvation, but feel great joy, through the hope we have hereafter to receive it.  
This passage of testimonies being dispatched, let us now come unto the five other reasons which M. PERKINS produceth in defence of their opinion.  
The first reason is, That in faith there are two things, the one is an infallible assurance of those things which we believe: This we grant, and therehence prove (as you heard before) that there can be no faith of our particular salvation, because we be not so fully assured of that, but that we must stand in fear of losing of it, 
Apoc. 3.  according to that, Hold that which thou hast; lest perhaps an other receive thy crown. But the second point of faith, puts all out of question. For (saith M. PERKINS) it doth assure us of remission of our sins, and of life everlasting in particular. Prove that Sir, and we need no more. 
john. 1.  It is proved out of S: john: As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, namely, to them that believe in his name. This text cometh much too short: he gave them power to be the sons, that is, gave them such grace, that they were able, and might if they would, be sons of God, but did not assure them of that neither, much less that they should so continue unto their lives end. I omit his unsavoury discourse of eating, and believing Christ, and applying unto us his benefits, (which he might be ashamed to make unto us, that admit no part of it to be true.) I confess that therein faith hath his part, if it be joined with charity, and frequentation of the Sacraments. This is it which S. Paul teacheth, 
Gal. 3.  That not by the works of Moses' law, but by faith in Christ jesus we receive the promises of the spirit, and shall have hereafter the performance, if we observe those things which Christ hath commanded us. But what is this to certainty of Salvation? But (saith he) it is the property of faith, to apply Christ unto us, and proves it out of S. Augustine, Believe and thou hast eaten: Again, Send up thy faith, and thou mayst hold Christ in heaven: etc. To which, 
Tract. 25. in joh.  and such like authorities, I answer, that we find Christ, we hold Christ, we see Christ, by faith, believing him to be the son of God, and redeemer of the world, and judge of the quick and the dead: and we understand, and digest all the mysteries of this holy word. But where is it once said, in any of these sentences, that we are assured of our salvation? we believe all these points and many more: but we shall be never the near our salvation, unless we observe Gods commandments, The servant which knows his Master's will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. 
Luke 12. joh. 15.  Then you are my friends (saith our Saviour) when you shall do the things which I command you: which we being uncertain to perform, assure not ourselves of his friendship, but when to our knowledge we go as near it as we can, and demand pardon of our wants, we live in good hope of it.  
The second reason is, Whatsoever the holy Ghost testifieth unto us, that certainly by faith we must believe: but the holy Ghost doth particularly testify unto us our salvation: ergo, the first proposition is true. The second is proved thus, S. Paul saith, the spirit of God beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. The Papists to elude this reason, allege, that it doth indeed witness our adoption, 
Rom. 8.  by some comfortable feeling of God's favour toward us, which may often be mistaken, whereof the Apostle warneth us when he saith, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God or no. But (saith M. PERKINS) by their leave, 
1. joh. 4.  the testimony of the spirit, is more than a bare feeling of God's grace. For it is called the pledge and earnest of God's spirit in our hearts. And therefore it takes away all doubting, as in a bargain, the earnest given, puts all out of question. 
1. Cor. 1.  I answer first out of the place itself, that there followeth a condition on our parts to be performed, which M. PERKINS thought wisdom to conceal. For S. Paul saith that the spirit witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the sons of God, and coheirs of Christ, with this condition, If yet we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. So that the testimony is not absolute, but conditional, and then if we fail in performance of the condition, God stands free of his promise, and will take his earnest back again. And so to have received the earnest of it, will nothing avail us, much less, assure us of salvation.  
This is the direct answer to that place, although the other be very good, that the testimony of the spirit, is but an inward comfort and joy, which breedeth great hope of salvation, but bringeth not assurance thereof. This M. PERKINS would refute, by the authority of S. Bernard, in the place before cited, 
Epist. 107.  see the place, and my answer there.  
The third reason is, That which we must pray for by God's commandment, that we must believe: but every man must pray for salvation, therefore we must believe that we shall have salvation. The proposition he confirmeth thus: in every petition must be two things, one a desire of the thing we ask, an other a particular faith to obtain it, which is proved by Christ's words: Whatsoever you shall request when you pray, 
Mark 11.  believe that you shall have it, and it shall be done.  
This Argument is so proper for their purpose, that we return it upon their own heads: We must pray for salvation, therefore we are not yet assured of it: For who in his wits prayeth God to give him that, whereof he is assured already? And a godly act of faith it is, in that prayer to believe that God will give that, which he is assured of before hand: such foolish petitions cannot please God, and therefore after their doctrine it is to be denied, that any faithful man may pray for his salvation, but rather thank the Lord for it. But to answer directly, he who prayeth, must believe he shall obtain that which he prayeth for, if he observe all the due circumstances of prayer, which be many, but to this purpose, two are required necessarily: the one that he who prayeth be the true servant of God, which first excludeth all those that err in faith, touched in these words. What you of the faithful shall desire when you pray, shall be given you: The other is, when we request matters of such moment, that we persever in prayer, & continue our suit day by day, of these suits of eternal salvation, we must take these words of our Saviour to be spoken. 
Luke 18.  We must always pray, and never be weary. And then no doubt, but we shall in the end receive it. But because we are in doubt, whether we shall observe those necessary circumstances of prayer or no, therefore we can not be so well assured to obtain our suit, although we be on God's part most assured, that he is most bountiful, and readier to give them, we are to ask.  

1. joan 5.  But saith M. PERKINS, S. john noteth out this particular faith, calling it, Our assurance, that God will give unto us, whatsoever we ask according to his will. But where find we that it is Gods will, to assure every man at the first entrance into his service, of eternal salvation? is it not sufficient to make him an assured promise of it, upon his faithful service and good behaviour towards him?  
The fourth reason is, Whatsoever God commandeth, that a man must and can perform. But God commandeth us to believe our salvation: ergo, we must believe it.  
The proposition is true, yet commonly denied by all Protestants, for God commands us to keep his commandments, and they hold that to be impossible: but to the assumption: That God commands us to believe our salvation, is proved (saith M. PERKINS) by these words: Repent and believe the Gospel: Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici: Where is it written in that Gospel, believe your own particular salvation? show us once but one clear text for it, and we will believe it. I do believe in Christ, and hope to be saved, through his mercy and merits, but know well, that unless I keep his words, I am by him likened to a fool, 
Math. 7. Math. 26. Math. 25.  that built his house upon the sands. He commands me to watch and pray, lest I fall into temptation: and else where, warneth me to prepare oil to keep my lamp burning against his coming, or else I am most certain to be shut out with the foolish Virgins. An hundred such admonitions find we in holy Scriptures, to shake us out of this security of our salvation, and to make us vigilant to prevent all temptations of the enemy, and diligent to train ourselves in godly exercises of all virtue.  
The fift and last reason is this, The Papists teach assurance of hope, 
Rom. 5.  even hence it followeth, that he may be infallibly assured, for the property of a true and lively hope is never to make a make a man ashamed. Answer, hope indeed of heaven makes a man most courageously bear out all storms of persecution, and not to be ashamed of Christ's Cross, but to profess his faith most boldly before the most bloody tyrants of the world, our hearts being by charity fortified and made invincible. And this is that which the Apostle teacheth in that place: and saith before, 
Ver. 2.  that the faithful glory in the hope of the sons of God. And do not vaunt themselves of the certainty of their salvation. This certainty of hope, is great in those that have long lived virtuously, specially when they have also endured manifold losses, much disgrace, great wrongs and injuries for Christ's sake, for he that cannot fail of his word, hath promised to requite all such with an hundred fold: But what is this to the certainty of faith, which the Protestants will have every man to be endued with at his first entrance into the service of God. When as S. Paul insinuateth, that godly men partakers of the holy Ghost, 
Heb. 6  yea after they have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the world to come, that is, have received besides faith, great favours of God's spirit, and felt as it were the joys of heaven, have after all this so fallen from God, that there was small hope of their recovery.    

CHAPTER 4. OF JUSTIFICATION.  

M. PERKINS.  

Pag. 60.  FIRST, I will set down the Doctrine on both parts, that it may be seen how farforth we agree.  
Secondly, The main differences, wherein we are to stand against them, even to death.  
Our Doctrine touching the justification of a sinner, I propound in four rules.  
The first Rule. That justification is an action of God, whereby he absolveth a sinner, and accepteth him to life everlasting for the righteousness, and merits of Christ.  
2. Rule. That justification stands in two things: First, in the remission of sins by the merit of Christ's death: Secondly, in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which is an other action of God, whereby he accounteth and esteemeth that righteousness which is in Christ, as the righteousness of that sinner, which believeth in him: By Christ's righteousness we are to understand two things: first, his sufferings specially in his death and passion: secondly, his obedience in fulfilling the law: both which go together; for Christ in suffering obeyed, and obeying suffered. And the very shedding of his blood, to which our salvation is ascribed, must not only be considered, as it is passive, that is a suffering, but also as it is active, that is an obedience, in which he showed his exceeding love, both to his father, and us, and thus fulfilled the law for us.  
3. Rule. That justification is from God's mercies and grace, procured only by the merit of Christ.  
4. Rule. That man is justified by faith alone: because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the Holy Ghost, whereby a sinner layeth hold of Christ's righteousness, and applies the same to himself. There is neither hope, nor love, nor any other grace of God within man, that can do this, but faith alone, now of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.  
Because M. PERKINS sets not down well the Catholics opinion, I will help him out, both with the preparation and justification itself, and that taken out of the Council of Trent. Where the very words concerning preparation are these. 
Sess. 6. c. 6.  Men are prepared and disposed to this justice, when being stirred up, and helped by God's grace, they conceiving faith by hearing, are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true, which God doth reveal and promise, ●●●●ely, that he of his grace doth justify a sinner through the redemption, that is in CHRIST JESUS. And when knowledging themselves to be sinners, through the fear of God's judgements, they turn themselves to consider the mercy of God, are lifted up into hope, trusting that God will be merciful unto them for Christ's sake: and beginning to love him as the fountain of all justice, are there by moved with hatred and detestation of all sins. Finally they determine to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep all Christ's commandments.  
After this disposition, or preparation, followeth justification, and for that every thing is best known by the causes of it, all the causes of justification are delivered by the Council in the next Chapter, which briefly are these. The final cause of the justification of a sinner, is the glory of God, the glory of Christ, and man's own justification: the efficient is God, the meritorious, CHRIST JESUS Passions, the instrumental, is the Sacrament of Baptism, the only formal cause, is inherent justice, that is, Faith, Hope, and Charity, with the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, powered into a man's soul, at that instant of justification. Of the justification by faith, and the second justification shall be spoken in their places.  
So that we agree in this point, that justification cometh of the free grace of God, through his infinite mercies, and the merits of our saviours Passion, and that all sins, when a man is justified, be pardoned him.  
The point of difference is this: that the Protestants hold that Christ's Passion and obedience imputed unto us, becometh our righteousness: (for the words of justice and justification, they seldom use,) and not any righteousness, which is in ourselves. The Catholics affirm, that those virtues powered into our souls, (speaking of the formal cause of justification) is our justice, and that through that, a man is justified in God's sight, and accepted to life everlasting. Although as you have seen before, we hold that God of his mere mercy through the merits of CHRIST JESUS our Saviour, hath freely bestowed that justice on us. Note that M. PERKINS comes to short in his second rule, when he attributeth the merits of Christ's sufferings to obedience; whereas obedience if it had been without charity, would have merited nothing at God's hands.  
And whereas M. PERKINS doth say, that therein we raze the foundation, that is as he interpreteth it in his preface, we make Christ a Pseudochrist, we aver, that herein we do much more magnify Christ, than they do, for they take Christ's merits to be so mean, that they do but even serve the turn to deface sin, and make men worthy of the joys of heaven. Nay it doth not serve the turn, but only that God doth not impute sin unto us. We contrariwise, do so highly esteem of our saviours inestimable merits, that we hold them well able to purchase at God's hands, a far inferior justice, and such merits as mortal men are capable of, and to them do give such force and value, that they make a man just before God, and worthy of the Kingdom of heaven, as shall be proved. Again, they do great injury to God's goodness, wisdom, and justice, in their justification, for they teach, that inward justice, or sanctification, is not necessary to justification; Yea their Ringleader Luther saith. That the justified can by no sins whatsoever, (except he refuse to believe) lose their salvation. Wherein, first they make their righteous man, Like (as our Saviour speaketh) to sepulchres whited on the out side, with an imputed justice, but within, full of iniquity, and disorder. Then the wisdom of GOD must either not discover this mass of iniquity, or his goodness abide it, or his justice either wipe it away, or punish it: But (say they) he seethe it well enough, but covereth it with the mantle of Christ's righteousness. Why? can any thing be hid from his sight? it is madness to think it. And why doth he not for Christ's sake deface it, and wipe it clean away, and adorn with his grace that soul, whom he for his sons sake loveth, and make it worthy of his love and kingdom. What? is it because Christ hath not deserved it? So to say, were to derogate from the infinite value of his merits. Or is it, for that God cannot make such justice in a pure man, as may be worthy of his love and his kingdom? And this were to deny God's power in a matter that can be done, as we confess that such virtue was in our first father Adam, in state of innocency. And M. PERKINS seems to grant, 
Pag. 77.  That man in this life at his last gasp, may have such righteousness. If then we had no other reason for us, but that our justification doth more exalt the power, and goodness of God, more magnify the value of Christ's merits, and bringeth greater dignity unto men: our doctrine were much better to be liked, than our adversaries, who cannot allege one express sentence, either out of holy Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, teaching the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us, to be our justification as shall be seen in the reasons following, and do much abase both Christ's merits, and God's power, wisdom, and goodness. Now to their reasons.  
M. PERKINS first reason is this, That which must be our righteousness before God, must satisfy the justice of the law, which saith, do these things and thou shalt live, 
Gal. 5.  but there is nothing that can satisfy that justice of the law, but the righteousness and obedience of Christ. ergo.  
This reason is not worth a rush, for when he requireth that our justice must satisfy the justice of the law, I demand what law he meaneth? If Moses' law: 
Gal 5. Gal. 5.  of which those words, Do this and thou shalt live, are spoken. Then I answer with the Apostle. That you are evacuated, or abolished from Christ, that are justified in the law. that is, he is a jew and no Christian, that would have Christian justice answerable to Moses' law.  
If M. PER. would only that men justified, must be able to fulfil Christ's law, I then grant, that they so be, by the help of God's grace, which will never fail them, before they fail of their duties. But saith M. PER. That justice of man is unperfect, and cannot satisfy the justice which God requires in his law, and proves it out of Esay, who saith, All our righteousness is as a menstruous, 
Isay. 64  or defiled cloth. I answer that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked, and therefore are maddely applied unto the righteous. That he speaketh of the the wicked, of that nation, and of that time: appeareth plainly by the text itself. For he saith before, But lo thou hast been angry, for we have offended, and have been ever in sin, and after; There is no man that calleth upon thy name, and standeth up to take hold by thee. And although the words be general, and seems to the unskilful to comprehend himself also, yet that is but the manner of preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, who use to speak in the persons of them, for whom they sue: for if he had reckoned himself in that number, he had lied, when he said: There is none that call upon thy name, when as he immediately calleth upon him in most vehement sort for mercy, all which the best learned among them marking, 
Lu●● Ca●● thi●●  confess that this sentence can not be alleged against the virtue of good works. Hence, gather how dexterously M. PERKINS handleth Holy Scripture. That which the Prophet spoke of some evil men, of one place, and at one time: that he applieth unto all good men, for all times, and all places.  
But he will amend it in the next, where he proves out of Saint Paul, 
1. 〈◊〉  that a clear conscience (which is a great part of inherent justice,) can nothing help to our justification. I am privy to nothing by myself, and yet I am not justified thereby. Here is a very pretty piece of cozenage. What, doth the Apostle say that he was not justified by his clear conscience, nothing less: but that albeit, he saw nothing in himself to hinder his justification, yet GOD who hath sharper eyesight, might espy some iniquity in him, and therefore durst not the Apostle affirm himself to be justified, as if he should say, if there be no other fault in me in GOD'S sight, than I can find by mine own insight, I am justified, because I am guilty of nothing, and so the place proveth rather the uncertain knowledge of our justification, as I have before showed.  
But M. PERKINS addeth, that we must remember, that we shall come to judgement, where rigour of justice shall be showed. We know it well, but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptism be purged from original sin, as he confesseth himself, 
P●●  the Apostle to teach in our consents, about original sin, what then needeth any justified man greatly fear, the rigorous sentence of a just judge. And Saint Paul saith himself in the person of the just: That he had ran a good race, etc. and therefore, there was a crown of justice laid up for him, by that just judge, and not only to him, but all them that love Christ's coming. And concerning both, inherent justice, and the ability of it, to fulfil the law. And what law, 
S●● d●●  hear this one sentence of S. Augustine.  
He that believeth in him, he hath not that justice, which is of the law, albeit the law be good, but he shall fulfil the law, not by justice which he hath of himself, but which is given of God, for charity is the fulfilling of the law, and from him is this charity powered into our hearts, not certainly by ourselves, but by the Holy Ghost which is given us. Now to the second argument.  
He which knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God, 
●. Cor. 5.  which is in him: Hence M. PERKINS reasoneth thus. As Christ was made sin for us, so we are made the righteousness of God in him: but Christ was made sin by imputation of our sins, he being most holy: Therefore a sinner is made righteous, in that Christ's righteousness is imputed unto him. I deny both propositions, the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our justification, with the sin which Christ was made for us: for in the text of the Apostle, there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sin, as we are made just. That is then M. PER. vain gloss, without any likelihood in the text. The other proposition is also false, for Christ was not made sin by imputation, for sin in that place is taken figuratively, and signifieth according to the exposition of ancient Fathers, An host or Sacrifice for sin: Which, Christ was truly made: his body being sacrificed on the Cross for the discharge of sin, and not by imputation.  
How these words of the Apostle, justice of God, are to be understood, see Saint Augustine. 
Tract. 26. in joan. Item Epist. 120. ad honorat. cap. 30. Item in Psal. 30. Conc. 1. De spirit. & lib. c. 9  One place I will cite for all. The justice of God (saith he) through the faith of CHRIST JESUS, that is by faith wherewith we believe in Christ: for as that faith is called Christ's, not by which Christ believes, so that justice is called Gods, not whereby God is just, both of them, faith and justice, be ours, but therefore they are termed Gods, and Christ's, because through their liberality they are given to us. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of Saint chrysostom, which M. PERKINS citeth, saying: It is called God's justice, because it is not of works, but of his free gift. So that it is, not that which is in God himself, but such as he bestoweth upon us. And that justice of itself is pure, and wanteth no virtue to work that, for which it is given, to wit, to make a man righteous. S. Anselme a right virtuous and learned Catholic archbishop of ours shall be answered, when the place is quoted.  

Rom. 5.  M. PERKINS third reason. As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous, mark here a comparison between the first and second Adam, hence I reason thus; As by the disobedience of Adam men were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ, are they made righteous: but men are made sinners by imputation of Adam's sin unto them, and not only by propagation of natural corruption, ergo: by imputation of Christ's justice we are made righteous.  
Answer. The comparison I allow, because it is the Apostles, and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adam's fault. And say that every one descended of Adam by natural propagation, hath his own personal iniquity sticking in them, which is commonly called Original sin, and an high point of Pelagianisme is it, to deny it. For albeit we did not taste of the forbidden fruit in proper person, yet receive we the nature of man, polluted with that infection really, and not by imputation. And so the comparison serves not at all M. PERKINS turn, but beareth very strongly against him, it being thus framed: As by Adam's disobedience many were made sinners, even so by Christ's obedience many shall be justified: This is his Mayor. Now to the Minor. But by Adam's disobedience they were made sinners, by drawing from him, every one his own proper inherent iniquity, in like manner we are justified by Christ, not by imputation of his justice, but by our inherent justice, which is powered into our souls, when we are in Baptism borne a new in him. See what penury of poor arguments they have, that to make some show of store, are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them.  
His fourth reason. The Papists make Christ's obedience their satisfaction, but satisfaction is equal to justice, therefore they must make it aswell their justice as satisfaction. For the Mayor he citeth Bellarmin. I have read the Chapter, 
Lib. ● Iusti●●  & find no such words, further I say, there is a great difference between satisfaction for mortal sins, and justification: for satisfaction can not be done by us; for the guilt of mortal sin is infinite, being against an infinite Majesty, and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it: wherefore the infinite valour of Christ's satisfaction is necessarily required, who having taken away the guilt of eternal punishment, due to sins, leaveth us his grace to satisfy for the temporal pain of it, as shall be in his due place, declared more at large.  
Again, a man must needs have his sins pardoned, and grace given him, before he can make any kind of due satisfaction, for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfy, wherefore he must needs fly to the benefit of Christ's satisfaction: There is nothing like in justification, for first to make a man just in God's sight, requires no infinite perfection, but such as a mere man is very well capable of, as all must needs confess of Adam in the state of innocency, and of all the blessed Souls in heaven who be just in God's sight. Neither is it necessary to be infinite, for to be worthy of the joys of heaven, which be not infinite as they are enjoyed of Men or Angels, either who have all things there in number, weight, and measure. Briefly, it is a most easy thing for one man to pay the debts of an other, but one man can not bestow his wisdom or justice on an other, and not credible, that God (whose judgement is according to truth) will repute a man for just, who is full of iniquity: no more than a simple man will take a blackmoor for white, although he see him clothed in a white suit of apparel.  
M. PERKINS last reason, is taken from the consent of the ancient Church, And yet citeth (saving one two lives) nothing out of any ancient writer, nor out of any other, but out of only S. Bernard, who lived 1000 year after Christ, so that he signifieth that there is little relief to be had in Antiquity. Which Caluin declareth more plainly, for he commonly setting light by all other in this question, rejecteth also S. Augustine saying. Yea not the sentence of Augustine himself is to be received in this matter, 
Li. 3. instit. ca 11. num 15.  who attributeth our sanctification to grace, wherewith we are regenerate in newness of life by the spirit. And Kennitius in the first part of his examination of the Council of Trent, saith: We contend not how the Fathers take justification, and a little after. I am not ignorant that they spoke otherwise then we do of it. Therefore M. PERK. had reason to content himself with some few broken sentences of later writers. But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant? Nothing less his words be these. 
Epist. 190.  The justice of another is assigned unto man, who wanted his own: man was indebted, and man made payment, etc. But better let his own reason there cited, serve for exposition of his former words, which is this. For why may not justice be from an other, aswell as guiltiness is from an other: Now guiltiness from Adam is not by imputation, but every one contracts his own, by taking flesh from him, even so justice is from Christ powered into every man, that is borne again of water and the holy Ghost. In the second place he saith: That man's justice is the mercifulness of God: that is, by God's free grace and mercy it is bestowed upon us. With S. Bernard in the third place, we acknowledge that we have no justice of our own, that is from ourselves, but from the goodness of God, through the merits of our blessed saviours passion, read his first sermon, upon these words of the Prophet isaiah. 
Ser. 1. super Isaiam.  Vidi Dominum, etc. There you shall see him speak plainly of inherent justice, and how it is a distinct thing from the justice of Christ. another broken piece of a sentence, there is cited out of S. Augustine. Christ made his justice our justice. 
In psal. 22. Tract. 27. in joan.  That is, by his justice, he hath merited justice for us, as he expoundeth himself. What is this, the justice of God, and the justice of man? The justice of God is here called that, not whereby God is just, but that which God giveth to man, that man may be just through God.  
Now let us come to the reasons of Catholics, which M. PERKINS calling the objections, proposeth for them, to prove, that the justice which God bestoweth upon us, is inherent, and not imputed.   

OF INHERENT JUSTICE.  
FIrst object. As one man can not be made wise, valiant, or continent by the wisdom, valour, or continency of an other, so one man can not be made just, by the justice of an other, M. PERKINS answereth, That one man's justice cannot be made an others, no more than life or health, but Christ's justice may, who by covenant of grace is made every man's own, with all his gifts.  
Reply. This answer solveth not the difficulty any whit at all, for Christ's wisdom, power, and other gifts are not imputed unto us, as it is evident. Why then is his justice more than the rest, we confess that in a good sense all Christ's gifts are ours, that is, they were all employed to purchase our redemption, & we do daily offer them to God that he will for his sons sake more and more, wash us from our sins, and bestow his graces more plentiful upon us: thus are all Christ's riches ours, so long as we keep ourselves members of his mystical body, but this is nothing to the point which the argument touched, how one man may formally be made just by the justice of an other, rather than wise, by the wisdom of an other.  
2. Object. If we be righteous, or just by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, then is every just man as righteous as Christ himself, having the same justice his, which is Christ's, but that is too too absurd, ergo: M. PERK. answer. Christ's righteousness is not applied unto us in the same measure, as it is in Christ, in him it is infinite, but of it so much is applied to this, or that man, as will serve for his justification. And to help this answer forward, I will add his marginal note, even as any star partakes the whole light of the Sun, with the rest so farforth as the light makes it to shine.  
Reply. That which is applied of Christ's justice, to this, or that man; is either infinite, & then the man is as just as Christ: for there can be no greater than infinite in the same kind. Or it is not infinite, but in a certain measure as he seemeth to grant, and then it is no part of Christ's infinite justice, for all the parts of an infinite thing, are infinite: according unto true Philosophy. It remaineth then that a certain limited portion of justice is derived out of Christ's infinite justice, and powered into this, or that man, as in his own example, The light of every star is received from the Sun beams. Yet is not the light in the star, the same which is in the Sun, for one accident cannot be in two subjects so far distant, neither is it of like virtue to lighten the skies, as it is evident: but is a far dimmer light, somewhat like unto that of the Sun from whence it came. Even so in our justification from the Son of justice CHRIST JESUS, certain beams of particular justice are conveyed into this, or that man's soul, whereby it is both lighned by faith, and inflamed by charity: but there is exceeding difference between their two justices, more than there is between the light of the sun, & the light of a star; which S. August. in express terms delivereth, saying. How much difference there is between the light that doth lighten, 
Li. 12. conf. cap. 15.  & that which is lightened, that is the sun & the star light, so much difference is there between the justice that doth justify, & that justice which is made by that justification: to wit, between the justice of Christ, and that which is in every good Christian.  
The third reason for the Catholic party. If men be made truly and really just by Christ's justice, imputed unto them, in like manner Christ should be made really unjust, by the iniquity and sins of men imputed unto him. For there is no reason to the contrary, but one may aswell be made unjust by imputation, as just; especially considering that evil is made more easily, and more ways then good. M. PERKINS answer is, that we may say Christ was a sinner truly, not because he had sin in him, but because our sins were laid on his shoulders. That reason is nought, for he is not truly a sinner, that pays the debt of sin, which an innocent and most just person may perform: but he that either hath sin truly in him, or is so by imputation strooken, that the sins are made his own really, and he in all cases to be dealt with all, as if he sinned himself: as they hold that one justified by imputation of Christ's justice, is really in God's sight just, and is both loved in this life, and shall be rewarded in the next, as if he were truly just indeed: But to avouch our Saviour Christ to be so a sinner, is to say that he was averted from God, the slave of the Devil, and son of perdition, which is plain blasphemy. That sentence out of the Prophet, 
Isay. 53.  He was counted with sinners, is expounded by the Evangelists, that he was so taken indeed, but by a wicked judge, and a reprobate people. And therefore if you allow of their sentence, range yourself with them, as one of their number. S. chrysostom by him produced, confirmeth the same, saying that God permitted him to be condemned as a sinner, not that he was one truly. Christ I know is called sin by S. Paul, but by a figure, signifying that he was a sacrifice for sin, as hath been before declared. The same blessed Apostle when he speaketh properly, 
Heb. 4  affirmeth in plain terms, that Christ was tempted like unto us, in all things excepting sin.  
4 Object. If a man be righteous only by imputation, he may together be full of iniquity, whereupon it must needs follow, that God doth take for just and good, him that is both unjust and wicked: but that is absurd, when God's judgement is according to truth. Here M. PERKINS yieldeth, That when God doth impute Christ's justice unto any man, he doth together sanctify the party, giving original sin a deadly wound. 
Of orig. sin. pag. 31.  And yet else where he said, That original sin, which remained after justification in the party, did bear such sway, that it infected all the works of the said party, and made him miserable. etc. But it is good hearing of amendment, if he will abide in it: Let us go on.  
5 Object. or fift reason, is invented by M. PERKINS, but may be rightly framed thus. Christ restored us that justice which we lost by Adam's fall, but by him we lost inhehent justice, ergo By him we are restored to inherent justice. The Mayor is gathered out of S. Paul, 
Rom. 5.  who affirmeth, that we receive more by Christ, 
Lib. 3. c. 20. li. 6. de gen. 24. 26. 26.  than we lost by Adam: And is S. Ireneus, and S. Augustine's most express doctrine, who say, How are we said to be renewed, if we receive not again which the first man lost. etc. Immortality of body we receive not, but we receive justice from the which he fell through sin.  
The sixth and last reason for Catholics is, The justice, of the faithful is eternal, dureth after this life, and is crowned in heaven, but Christ's imputed justice ceaseth in the end of this life. ergo.  
M. PERKINS answereth. First, that imputed righteousness continueth with us for ever, and that in heaven, we shall have no other. Secondly, that perhaps in the end of this life, inward righteousness shall be perfect, and then without perhaps it shall be most perfect in heaven. So that one part of this answer, overthroweth the other. Wherefore I need not stand upon it, but will proceed to fortify our party, with some authorities, taken both forth of the Holy scriptures, and ancient Fathers: The first place I take out of these words of S. Paul. And these things certes, were you, 
1. Cor. 6.  (Dronkers, Covetous, Fornicators, etc.) But you are Washed, you are Sanctified, you are justified in the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and in the spirit of our Lord: Here justification by the best interpreters judgement is defined, 
S. Chrysos Ambro. & Theophil in hunc locum. Tit. 3.  to consist in those actions of washing us from our sins, and of infusion of God's Holy gifts by the holy Ghost in the name, and the sake of CHRIST JESUS.  
The like description of our justification is in S. Paul. Of his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath powered into us abundantly, through JESUS CHRIST our Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we may be heirs in hope (and not in certainty of faith) of life everlasting. Where the Apostle inferring that being justified by his grace, declareth that in the words before he had described the same justification, to consist in our new birth of Baptism, and the renewing of our souls, by the infusion of his heavenly gifts, which God of his mercy did bestow upon us for his Son Christ's sake. Many other places I omit for brevity sake, and will be content to cite few Fathers, because the best learned of our adversaries do confess that they be all against them, as I have showed before.  
First, S. Augustine saith, That this justice of ours, 
De peccat merit. & re miss. cap. 15 Epist. 85. Lib. 12. de Trinit. cap 7. Lib. 6. de Trinit.  (which they call righteousness) is the grace of Christ, regenerating us by the Holy Ghost; And is a beauty of our inward man. It is the renewing of the reasonable part of our soul. And twenty other such like, whereby he manifestly declareth, our justice to be inherent, and not the imputed justice of Christ. Let him suffice for the Latin Fathers. And S. Cyrill for the Greeks, who of our justification writeth thus. The spirit is a heat, who as soon as he hath powered charity into us, and hath with the fire of it, inflamed our minds, we have even then obtained justice,   

THE SECOND DIFFERENCE ABOUT THE MANner of justification.  
WE all agree in general, that faith concurreth to our justification, but differ in three points. 1. How faith is to be taken. 2. How it worketh in our justification. 3. Whether it alone doth justify.  
Concerning the first point, Catholics hold a justifying faith, to be that Christian faith, by which we believe the articles of our Creed, and all other things revealed by God. The Protestants aver it to be a particular faith, whereby they apply to themselves the promises of righteousness, and of life everlasting by Christ. This to be the true justifying faith, M. PERKINS saith he hath proved already: he should have done well, to have noted the place, for I know not where to seek it: but he will here add a reason or twain.  
1 Reason. The faith whereby we live, is the faith whereby we are justified: but the faith whereby we live, is a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ to ourselves, as Paul saith, 
Gal. 2.20.  I live, that is spiritually, by the faith of the son of God: which faith he showeth to be a particular faith in Christ, in the words following: Who hath loved me, and given himself for me particularly.  
Answer. The Mayor I admit, and deny the Minor: and say that the proof is not to purpose. For in the Minor he speaketh of faith, whereby we apply Christ's merits unto ourselves, making them ours, in the proof S. Paul saith only, that Christ died for him in particular. He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christ's justice, and making of it his own, which are very distinct things. All Catholics believe with S. Paul, that Christ died, as for all men in general: so for every man in particular, yea and that his love was so exceeding great, towards mankind, that he would willingly have bestowed his life, for the redemption of one only man. But hereupon it doth not follow, that every man may lay hands upon Christ's righteousness, and apply it to himself (or else Turks, jews, Heretics, and evil Catholics, might make very bold with him) but must first do those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits: as to repent them heartily of their sins, to believe and hope in him, to be baptised, and to have a full purpose to observe all his commandments. Which M. PER. also confesseth that all men have not only promised, 
Pag. 152.  but also vowed in Baptism. Now because we are not assured that we shall perform all this, therefore we may not so presumptuously apply unto ourselves, Christ's righteousness, & life everlasting, although we believe that he died for every one of us in particular. That which followeth, M. PER. hath no colour of probability: that S. Paul in this manner of belief, that is, in applying to himself Christ's merits: was an example unto all that are saved. 
1. Tim. 1 16 Phil. 3.15.  See the places good Reader, and learn to beware the bold unskilfulness of sectaries. For there is not a word sounding that way, but only how he having received mercy, was made an example of patience.  
M. PERKINS 2. Reason. That which we must ask of God in prayer, that we must believe shall be given us: but in prayer me must ask the merits of Christ's righteousness to ourselves. ergo.  
Answer. Of the Mayor much hath been said before, here I admit it, all due circumstances of prayer being observed, & deny that we must pray, that our Saviour Christ jesus merits may be made ours in particular, for that were greatly to abase them: but good Christians pray, that through the infinite value of those his merits, our sins may be forgiven, & a justice proportionable unto our capacity, may be powered into our souls, whereby we may lead a virtuous life, and make a blessed end. But it is goodly to behold, how M. PERKINS proveth that me must pray, that Christ's righteousness may be made our particular justice, because saith he, We are taught in the Pater noster, to pray in this manner: forgive us our debts, and to this we must say Amen, which is as much to say as our petition is granted. I think the poor man's wits were gone a pilgrimage, when he wrote thus. Good Sir, cannot our sins or debts be forgiven, without we apply Christ's righteousness to us in particular? we say yes. Do not then so simply beg that which is in question, nor take that for given, which will never be granted. But a word with you by the way. Your righteous man must over-skippe that petition of the Pater noster (forgive us our debts) for he is well assured, that his debts be already pardoned. For at the very first instant that he had faith, he had Christ's righteousness applied to him, and thereby assurance both of the pardon of sins, and of life everlasting. Wherefore he can not without infidelity, distrust of his former justification, or pray for remission of his debts: but following the famous example of that formal Pharise, in lieu of demanding pardon, may well say. 
Luc. 18.  O God I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also these Papists: Fearing the remission of my sins, or the certainty of my salvation, but am well assured thereof, and of Christ's own righteousness too, and so forth. But to go on with M. PERKINS discourse. Here we must note, that the Church of Rome cutteth off one principal duty of faith, for in faith (saith M. PERKINS) are two things: first, knowledge revealed in the word, touching the means of salvation: Secondly, an applying of things, known unto ourselves, which some call affiance: the first they acknowledge. So then by M. PERKINS own confession, Catholics have true knowledge of the means of salvation; (than he and his fellows err miserable.) The second which is the substance and principal they deny.  
Answer. Catholics teach men also to have a firm hope, and a great confidence of obtaining salvation, through the mercy of God, and merits of Christ's Passion. So they perform their duty towards God, and their neighbour, or else die with true repentance. But for a man at his first conversion, to assure himself by faith of Christ's righteousness, and life everlasting; without condition of doing those things, he ought to do, that we Catholics affirm to be, not any gift of faith, but the heinous crime of presumption, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost, not pardonable, 
See S. though 22. q. 21. ●rt. 1.  neither in this life, nor in the world to come.  
M. PERKINS third reason, is drawn from the consent of the ancient Church, of which for fashion sake to make some show, he often speaketh, but can seldom find any one sentence in them, that fits his purpose, as you may see in this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited by him. Augustine saith. 
De verbis Domini. ●erm. 7.  I demand now, dost thou believe in Christ, O sinner? thou sayest I believe: what believest thou that all thy sins may freely be pardoned by him, thou hast that which thou believest. See, here is neither applying of Christ's righteousness unto us by faith, nor so much as believing our sins to be pardoned through him, but that they may be pardoned by him. So there is not one word for M. PERKINS. But S. Bernard saith plainly: That we must believe that our sins are pardoned us. But he addeth not by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Again, he addeth conditions on our party, which M. PERK. craftily concealeth. For S. Bernard granteth that we may believe our sins to be forgiven, if the truth of our conversion meet with the mercy of God preventing us, for in the same place he hath these words: So therefore shall his mercy dwell in our earth, that is, the grace of God in our souls, if mercy and truth meet together, if justice and peace, embrace and kiss each other. Which is as S. Bernard there expoundeth it, if we stirred up by the grace of God, do truly bewail our sins and confess them, and afterward follow holiness of life and peace. All which M. PERKINS did wisely cut off, because it dashed clean the vain gloss of the former words.  
His last authority is out of S. Cyprian, who exhorteth men, passing out of this life, not to doubt of God promises, but to believe that we shall come to Christ with joyful security.  
Answer. S. Cyprian encouradgeth good Christians dying, to have a full confidence in the promises of Christ, and so do all Catholics, and bid them be secure too on that side, that Christ will never fail of his word and promise, but say that the cause of fear lies on our own infirmities: And yet bids them not to doubt, as though they were as likely to be condemned as saved, but animates them, and puts them in the good way of hope, by twenty kinds of reason.  
M. PERKINS having thus confirmed his own party, why doth he not after his manner confute those reasons, which the Catholics allege in favour of their assertion? Was it because they are not wont to produce any in this matter? Nothing less: It was then belike, because he knew not how to answer them. I will out of their store take that one principal one, of the testimony of holy Scripture, And by that alone sufficiently prove, that the faith required to justification, is that Catholic faith, whereby we believe all that to be true, which by God is revealed, and not any other particular believing Christ's righteousness to be ours. How can this be better known then if we see, weigh, and consider well, what kind of faith that was which all they had, who are said in Scriptures to be justified by their faith.  
S. Paul saith of Noah, That he was instituted heir of the justice, which is, by faith. 
Heb. 11.7.  What faith had he? That by Christ's righteousness he was assured of salvation? No such matter, but believed that God according to his word and justice, would drown the world, and made an Ark to save himself, and his family, as God commanded him.  
Abraham the Father of believers, and the Pattern and example of justice by faith, as the Apostle disputeth to the Romans: 
Rom. ca 4.  What faith he was justified by. Let S. Paul declare, who of him and his faith, hath these words. He contrary to hope believed in hope, that he might be made the Father of many Nations, according to that which was said unto him. So shall thy seed be as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the Sea: and he was not weakened in faith, neither did he consider his own body, now quite dead, whereas he was almost an hundred years old, nor the dead Matrice of Sara, in the promise of God he staggered not by distrust, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, most fully knowing, that whatsoever he promised, he was able also to do, therefore was it reputed to him to justice. Lo, because he glorified God in believing, that old and barren persons might have children, if God said the word, and that whatsoever God promised, he was able to perform, he was justified. The Centurion's faith was very pleasing unto our Saviour, who said in commendation of it, That he had not found so great faith in Israel? What faith was that? Marry, that he could with a word cure his servant absent. 
Math. 8.  Say the word only (quoth he) & my servant shall be healed.  
S. Peter's faith so much magnified by the ancient Fathers, and highly rewarded by our Saviour, was it any other, Then that our Saviour was Christ, 
Math. 16  the Son of the living God? And briefly let S. john that great secretary of the Holy Ghost, tell us what faith is the final end of the whole Gospel. 
Ioh, 20.  These things, (saith he) are written that you may believe that JESUS is CHRIST the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. With the Evangelist the Apostle S. Paul accordeth very well, saying: 
Rom. 10.  This is the word of faith which we preach, for if thou confess with thy mouth our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from death, thou shalt be saved. And in an other place. 
●. Cor. 15.  I make known unto you the Gospel, which I have preached, and by which you shall be saved, unless perhaps you have believed in vain. What was that Gospel? I have delivered unto you that which I have received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, etc. So by the verdict of S. Paul, the belief of the articles of the creed, is that justifying faith, by which you must be saved. And neither in S. Paul, nor any other place of Holy Scriptures is it once taught, that a particular faith whereby we apply, Christ's righteousness to ourselves, & assure ourselves of our salvation, is either a justifying, or any Christian man's faith, but the very natural act, of that ugly Monster presumption: Which being laid as the very corner stone of the Protestants irreligion, what moral and modest conversation, what humility and devotion can they build upon it.  
The second difference in the manner of justification, is about the formal act of faith, which M. PERKINS handleth as it were by the way, cuttedly I will be as short as he, the matter not being great. The Catholics teach as you have heard out of the Council of Trent, in the beginning of this question, that many acts of faith, fear, hope, and charity do go before our justification, preparing our soul to receive into it from God, through Christ that great grace.  
M. PERKINS Doctor like resolveth otherwise, That faith is an instrument, created by God in the heart of man, at his conversion, whereby he apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's righteousness, for his justification.  
This joylie description is set down without any other probation, than his own authority that delivered it: and so, let it pass as already sufficiently confuted. And if there needed any other disproof of it, I might gather one more out of this own explication of it, where he saith that the covenant of grace is communicated unto us, by the word of God, and by the Sacraments. For if faith created in our hearts, be the only sufficient supernatural instrument, to apprehend that covenant of grace, than there needs no Sacraments for that purpose, and consequently I would fain know by the way, how little infants, that can not for want of judgement, and discretion have any such act of faith, as to lay hold on Christ his justice, are justified? Must we without any warrant in God's word, contrary to all experience, believe that they have this act of faith, before the come to any understanding.  
But to return unto the sound doctrine of our Catholic faith, M. PER. finds two faults with it, one that we teach faith to go before justification, whereas by the word of God (saith he) at the very instant, when any man believeth first, he is then both, justified and sanctified. What word of God so teacheth? Marry this. He that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ, and is already passed from death to life. 
Io. 6.54.  I answer that our Saviour in that text speaketh not of believing, but of eating his body in the blessed Sacrament, which who so receiveth worthily, obtaineth thereby life everlasting, as Christ saith expressly in that place. And so this proof is vain.  
Now will I prove out of the holy Scriptures, that faith goeth before justification, first by that of S. Paul. Whosoever calleth on the name of our Lord, 
Rom. 10.  shall be saved, but how shall they call upon him, in whom they do not believe, how shall they believe without a preacher, etc. Where there is this order set down to arrive unto justification. First, to hear the preacher, then to believe afterwards to call upon God for mercy, and finally mercy is granted & given in justification: so that prayer goeth between faith and justification. This S. Augustine observed, when he said. Faith is given first, 
De prede● sanct. ca 7 De spirit. & lit. cap. 30  by which we obtain the rest. And again: By the law is knowledge of sin, by faith we obtain grace, and by grace our soul is cured. If we list to see the practice of this recorded in holy write, read the second of the acts, and there you shall find, how that the people having heard S. Peter's Sermon, were strooken to the hearts and believed, yet were they not strait way justified, but asked of the Apostles what they must do, who willed them to do penance, and to be baptised, in the name of JESUS, in remission of their sins, & then lo, they were justified, so that penance and baptism went between their faith, and their justification.  
In like manner Queen Candaces Eunuch, having heard S. Philippe, announcing unto him Christ, believed that JESUS CHRIST was the Son of God (no talk in those days of applying unto himself Christ's righteousness,) yet was he not justified, before descending out of his chariot he was baptised. 
Act. 8.  And three days passed between S. Paul's conversion and his justification, as doth evidently appear by the history of his conversion. 
Act. 9   
The second fault he findeth with our faith, is that we take it to be nothing else, but an illumination of the mind, stirring up the will, which being so moved and helped by grace, causeth in the heart many good spiritual motions. But this (says M. PERKINS) is as much to say, that dead men only helped, can prepare themselves to their resurrection. Not so good Sir, but that men spiritually dead, being quickened by God's spirit, may have many good motions, for as our spirit giveth life unto our bodies; so the spirit of God by his grace animateth, and giveth life unto our souls. But of this it hath been once before spoken at large, in the question of free will.   


Pag. 84.  THE THIRD DIFFERENCE CONCERNING FAITH, IS this. The Papists say, that man is justified by faith, yet not by faith alone, but also by other virtues, as the fear of God, hope, love, etc. The reasons which are brought to maintain their opinion, are of no moment: well let us hear some of them, that the indifferent Reader may judge whether they be of any moment or no. M. PERKINS first Reason.  

Luke 7.47.  MANY sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much: whence they gather that the woman there spoken of, had pardon of her sins, and was justified by love. Answer. In this text, love is not made an impulsive cause, to move God to pardon her sins, but only a sign, to show that God had already pardoned them.  
Reply. Observe first, that Catholics do not teach, that she was pardoned for love alone, for they use not (as Protestants do) when they find one cause of justification, to exclude all, or any of the rest: But considering that in sundry places of holy write, justification is ascribed unto many several virtues, affirm that not faith alone, but divers other divine qualities concur unto justification, and as mention here made of love, 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 belief in Christ's power to remit sins, and great hope in his mercy that he would forgive them, great sorrow and detestation of her sin also she had, that in such an assembly did so humbly prostrate herself at Christ's feet, to wash them with her tears, and to wipe them with the hairs of her head. And as she had true repentance of her former life, so no doubt but she had also a firm purpose, to lead a new life. So that in her conversion, all those virtues met together, which we hold to concur to justification, and among the rest, the pre-eminence worthily is given to love, as to the principal disposition. She loved our Saviour as the fountain of all mercies, and goodness, and therefore accounted her precious ointments best bestowed on him; yea, and the humblest service, and most affectionate she could offer him, to be all too little, and nothing answerable to the inward burning charity which she bore him. Which noble affection of hers, towards her divine Redeemer, no question, was most acceptable unto him, as by his own word is most manifest: for he said, That many sins were forgiven her, because she loved much. But M. PERKINS saith, that her love was no cause that moved Christ to pardon her, but only a sign of pardon given before: which is so contrary to the text, that a man not past all shame, would blush once to affirm it. First Christ saith expressly, that it was the cause of the pardon: Because she had loved much. Secondly, that her love went before, is as plainly declared, both by mention of the time past: Because she hath loved, and by the evidence of her fact of washing, wiping, and anointing his feet: for the which saith our Saviour, than already performed: Many sins are forgiven her. So that here can be no impediment of believing the Catholic Doctrine, so clearly delivered by the holy Ghost, unless one will be so blindly led by our new Masters, that he will believe no words of Christ, be they never so plain, otherwise than it please the Ministers to expound them. And this much of the first of those reasons, which M. PERKINS said were of no moment.  
2. Reason. Neither Circumcision, nor prepuce, availeth any thing, 
Gal. 5.6.  but faith that worketh by charity. Hence Catholics gather, that when the Apostle attributeth justification to saith, he means not faith alone, but as it is joined with charity, and other like virtues, as are requisite to prepare the soul of man, to receive that complete grace of justification. M. PERKINS answereth that they are joined together. But it is faith alone that apprehendeth Christ's righteousness, and maketh it ours. It useth charity as an instrument to perform the duties of the first and second table, but it hath no part with faith in the matter of our justification.  
Reply. That it hath the chiefest part, and that faith is rather the instrument and hand maid of charity. My proof shall be out of the very text alleged, where life and motion is given to faith by charity, as the greek word Energoumene being passive, doth plainly show, that faith is moved, led, and guided by charity. Which S. james doth demonstrat most manifest, saying that. Even as the body is dead without the soul, so is faith without charity: Making charity to be the life, and as it were the soul of faith: Now no man is ignorant, but it is the soul that useth the body, as an instrument, even so than it is charity, that useth faith as her instrument and inferior, and not contrariwise: which S. Paul confirmeth at large in a whole chapter, proving charity to be a more excellent gift than faith, or any other, concluding with these words. Now there remaineth faith, hope, and charity, 
1. Cor. 13.  these three, but the greater of these is charity? Whereupon S. Augustine resolveth thus. Nothing but charity maketh faith itself available, 
Li. de Trinit. cap. 18.  for faith (saith he) may be without charity, but it can not be available without it: So that first you see that charity is the mover, and commander, and faith, as her instrument, and hand maid.  
Now that in the work of justification, it hath the chief place, may be thus proved, I demand whether that work of justification by faith be done, for the love of God, and to his honour or no? If not, as it is void of charity, so it is a wicked and sinful act, no justification, but infection, our own interest being the principal end of it: now if it comprehend & conclude God's glory, and service in it, that is, if they apply Christ's righteousness to them, to glorify God thereby, then hath charity the principal part therein: for the directing of all, to the honour and glory of God, is the proper office and action of charity. All this reason that charity both concurreth to justification, and that as principal, S. Augustine confirmeth in these words: 
Serm. 22. de verbis Apostol.  The house of God, (that is, a righteous and Godly soul,) hath for his foundation faith, hope is the walls of it; but charity is the roof and perfection of it.  
The third of these trifling reasons, is perversely propounded by M. PER. thus. Faith is never alone, therefore it doth not justify alone: That this argument is fond framed, appeareth plainly in that, that Catholics do not deny, but affirm that faith may be without charity, as it is in all sinful Catholics, we then form the reason thus. If faith alone be the whole cause of justification, then if both, hope and charity were removed from faith (at least by thought, and in conceit,) faith would nevertheless justify. But faith considered without hope, & charity will not justify: ergo, it is not the whole cause of justification. The first proposition can not be denied of them, who know the nature and propriety of causes, for the entire and total cause of any thing, being (as the Philosophers say) in act, the effect must needs follow, and very sense teacheth the simple, that if any thing be set to work, and if it do not act that which it is set too, then there wanted some thing requisite. And consequently that was not the whole cause of that work.  
Now to the second proposition. But their imagined faith can not apply to themselves, Christ's righteousness without the presence of hope and charity. For else he might be justified without any hope of heaven, and without any love towards God, and estimation of his honour, which are things most absurd in themselves: but yet very well fitting the Protestants justification, which is nothing else but the plain vice of presumption, as hath been before declared: Yet to avoid this inconvenience which is so great, M. PE. granteth that both, hope and charity must needs be present at the justification, but do nothing in it, but faith doth all, as the head is present to the eye, when it seethe, yet it is the eye alone that seethe. Here is a worthy piece of Philosophy, that the eye alone doth see, whereas in truth it is but the instrument of seeing, the soul being the principal cause of sight, as it is of all other actions, of life, sense, and reason: and it is not to purpose here, where we require the presence of the whole cause, & not only of the instrumental cause. And to return your similitude upon yourself, as the eye cannot see without the head, because it receiveth influence from it, before it can see, so cannot faith justify without charity, because it necessarily receiveth spirit of life from it, before it can do any thing acceptable in God's sight.  
The fourth reason, if faith alone do justify, than faith alone will save, but it will not save, ergo. M. PERKINS first denieth the proposition, and saith. That it may justify, and yet not save: because more is required to salvation, then to justification. Which is false, for put the case that an Innocent babe die shortly after his baptism wherein he was justified, shall he not be saved for want of any thing? I hope you will say yes: even so any man that is justified, if he depart in that state, no man makes doubt of his salvation, therefore this first shift was very frivolous. Which M. PERKINS perceiving flies to a second, that for faith alone we shall also be saved, & that good works shall not be regarded at the day of our judgement. Then must those words of the holy Ghost so often repeated in the Scriptures be razed out of the text. God at that time will render unto every man, according to his works. But of this more amply in the question of merits.  
5. Reason. There be many other virtues, unto which justification and salvation are ascribed in God's word: therefore faith alone sufficeth not. The Antecedent is proved, first of fear it is said. He that is without fear, 
Ecclesias. 1. Rom. 8. Luc. 13. 1. joan. 3.  cannot be justified. We are saved by hope. Unless you do penance, you shall all in like sort perish. We are translated from death to life, (that is justified) because we love the brethren. Again of baptism. Unless you be borne again of water, and the holy Ghost, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven: Lastly we must have a resolute purpose to amend our evil lives. 
Rom. 6.  For we are buried together with Christ by baptism into death, that as Christ is risen from the dead, etc. So we may also walk in news of life: To all these and many such like places of Holy Scripture, it pleased M. PERKINS to make answer in that one. 
Rom. 8.  You are saved by hope: to wit; that Paul's meaning is only, that we have not as yet salvation in possession, but must wait patiently for it, until the time of our full deliverance, this is all. Now whether that patiented expectation, which is not hope, but issueth out of hope, of eternal salvation, or hope itself be any cause of salvation, he sayeth neither yea nor nay, & leaves you to think as it seemeth best unto yourself. S. Paul then affirming it to be a cause of salvation, it is best to believe him: & so neither to exclude hope or charity, or any of the foresaid virtues, from the work of justification, having so good warrant as the word of God, for the confirmation of it.  
To these authorities and reasons, taken out of the holy Scriptures, let us join here some testimonies of the ancient Church, reserving the rest unto that place, wherein M. PER. citeth some for him. The most ancient and most valiant Martyr S. Ignatius, of our justification writeth thus. 
Epist. ad Philip.  The beginning of life is faith, but the end of it is charity, but both united and joined together, do make the man of God perfect.  
Clement Patriarch of Alexandria saith. Faith goeth before, 
Libr. 2. storm.  but fear doth build, and charity bringeth to perfection.  
Saint john chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople hath these words: Lest the faithful should trust that by faith alone they might be saved, 
Hom. 70. in Mat.  he disputeth of the punishment of evil men, and so doth he both exhort the Infidels to faith, and the faithful to live well.  

Lib. 3. hypognost.  S. Augustine crieth out as it were to our Protestants, and saith: Hear O foolish Heretic, and enemy to the true faith. Good works, which (that they may be done, are by grace prepared, and not of the merits of free will) we condemn not: because by them, or such like, men of God have been justified, are justified, and shall be justified. 
De side & oper. c. 14.  And, Now let us see that which is to be shaken out of the hearts of the faithful: Lest by evil security they lose their salvation, if they shall think faith alone, to be sufficient to obtain it.  
Now the doctrine which M. PERKINS teacheth, is clean contrary. For (saith he) A sinner is justified by faith alone, that is, nothing that man can do by nature or grace, concurreth thereto as any kind of cause, but faith alone. Farther he saith, That faith itself is no principal, but rather an instrumental cause, whereby we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousness for our justification. So that in fine, we have that faith so much by them magnified, and called the only and whole cause of our justification, is in the end become no true cause at all, but a bare condition, without which we cannot be justified. If it be an instrumental cause, 
Conditio sine qua non.  let him then declare what is the principal cause, whose instrument faith is? and choose whether he had liefer to have charity, or the soul of man without any help of grace.  
But to come to his reasons. The first is taken out of these words. As Moses lift up the serpent in the desert, 
joh. 3.  so must the son of man be lift up, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have life everlasting. True, if he live accordingly, and as his faith teacheth him: but what is this to justification by only faith? Marry M. PERKINS draws it in after this fashion. As nothing was required of them who were strong by serpents, but that they should look upon the brazen serpent: So nothing is required of a sinner, to deliver him from sin, but that he cast his eye of faith upon Christ's righteousness, and apply that to himself in particular. But this application of the similitude is only man's foolish invention without any ground in the text. Similttudes be not in all points alike, neither must be stretched beyond the very point wherein the similitude lieth, which in this matter is, that like as the Israelites in the Wilderness stoung with serpents, were cured by looking upon the brazen serpent: so men infected with sin, have no other remedy, then to embrace the faith of Christ jesus: All this we confess, but to say that nothing else is necessary, that is quite besides the text, and as easily rejected by us, as it is by him obtruded without any authority, or probability.  
His 2. reason is collected of exclusive speeches (as he speaketh) used in Scriptures. 
Gal 2.16.  As we are justified freely, not of the law, not by the law not of works, not of ourselves, not of the works of the law, but by faith: all boasting excluded: 
Luke 8.50:  only believe. These distinctions whereby works & the law are excluded in the work of justification, include thus much, that faith alone doth justify.  
It doth not so: for these exclusive speeches do not exclude fear, hope and charity, more than they exclude faith itself. Which may be called a work of the law, aswell as any other virtue, being as much required by the law as any other. But S. Paul's meaning in those places is, to exclude all such works, as either jew or Gentile did, or could brag of, as done of themselves, and so thought that by them, they deserved to be made Christians. For he truly saith, that all were concluded in sin, and needed the grace of God, which they were to receive of his free mercy, through the merits of Christ, and not of any desert of their own: And that to obtain this grace through Christ, it was not needful, nay rather hurtful to observe the ceremonies of Moses' law, as Circumcision, the observation of any of their feasts, or fasts, nor any such like work of the law, which the jews reputed so necessary. Again, that all moral works of the Gentiles could not deserve this grace, which works not proceeding from charity, were nothing worth in God's sight. And so all works, both of jew and Gentile, are excluded from being any meritorious cause of justification, and consequently, all their boasting of their own forces, their first justification being freely bestowed upon them. Yet all this notwithstanding, a certain virtuous disposition is required in the jew and Gentile, whereby his soul is prepared to receive that great grace of justification: that say we, is faith, fear, hope, love, and repentance, that (say the Protestants) is faith only. Wherefore say we as the excluding of works, and boasting exclude not faith, no more do they exclude the rest, faith being as well our work, and a work of the law as any of the rest, and all the rest being of grace, as well as faith, and as far from boasting of, as faith itself. Now that out of S Luke, believe only, is nothing to the purpose. For he was bid believe the raising of his daughter to life, and not that Christ's righteousness was his: and faith alone may be a sufficient disposition to obtain a miracle, but not to obtain justification, of which the question only is.  
Consider now good Reader, whether of our interpretations agree better, with the circumstances of the text, and the judgement of the ancient Fathers. The texts see thou in the Testament. Take for a taste, of the Father's judgement, S. Augustine's exposition of those places of S. Paul, of one of the chiefest of which, thus he speaketh. Men not understanding that which the Apostle saith, We esteem a man to be justified without the law, 
De gra. & lib. a●b. c 7.  thought him to say, that faith sufficed a man although he lived evil, and had no good works: which God forbidden, that the vessel of election should think. And again.  

De predest. sanct. c 7.  Therefore the Apostle saith, that a man is justified by faith, and not of works, because saith is first given, and by it the rest (which are properly called works, and in which we live justly) are by petition obtained.  
By which it is manifest, that S. Paul excluding the works of the law, and the works done by our own only forces, doth not mean to exclude good works, which proceed from the help of God's grace   

THAT FAITH ONLY DOTH NOT JUSTIFY.  
MASTER PERKINS third Argument. Very reason may teach us thus much: that no gift in man is apt as a spiritual hand to receive and apply Christ and his righteousness unto a sinner, saving faith, love, hope, fear, repentance, have their several uses, but none of them serve for this end of apprehending, but faith only.  
Amswere. Man's reason is but a blind mistress in matters of faith, and he that hath no better an instructor in such high mysteries, must needs know little. But what if that also fail you in this point? then every man cannot but see how naked you are of all kind of probability. I say then, that reason rather teacheth the contrary. For in common sense, no man apprehendeth and entereth into the possession of any thing, by believing that he hath it. For if a man should believe that he is rich, of honour, wise, or virtuous: Doth he thereby become presently such a one? nothing less. His faith and persuasion is no fit instrument to apply and draw these things to himself, as all the world sees. How then doth reason teach me, that by believing Christ's righteousness to be mine own, I lay hand on it, and make it mine. Again Christ's righteousness (according to their own opinion) is not received into us at all, but is ours only by God's imputation, what need we then faith, as a spiritual hand to receive it? If they say (as M. PERKINS doth) that faith is as it were a condition required in us, which when God seethe in us, he presently imputeth Christ's righteousness to us, and maketh it ours. Then will I be bold to say, that any other virtue is as proper as faith, to have Christ applied unto us: there being no other aptness requisite in the condition itself, but only the will and ordinance of God: then every thing that it shall please him to appoint, is alike apt: and so M. PERKINS had small reason to say, that faith was the only apt instrument to apply to us Christ's righteousness.  
Moreover, true divine reason teacheth me, that both hope and charity, do much more apply unto Christians all Christ's merits, and make them do then faith: For what faith assureth me of in general, that hope applieth unto me in particular: by faith I believe CHRIST to be the Saviour of all mankind: by hope I trust to be made partaker of that salvation in him. But charity doth yet give me a greater confidence of salvation: for by the rule of true charity, as I dedicate and employ my life, labours, and all that I have to the service of God, so all that God hath is made mine, so far forth as it can be made mine: according unto that sacred law of friendship: Amicorum omnia sunt communia. And therefore in true reason, neither by faith, nor any other virtue, we take such hold on Christ's merits, nor have such interest in his inestimable treasures, as by charity: which S. Augustine understood well, when he made it the model, and measure of justification: saying, That Charity beginning, 
De nat. & gra. c. vlt.  was justice beginning: Charity increased, was justice increased: great Charity, was great justice: and perfect Charity, was perfect justice.  
M. PERKINS fourth Reason, is taken from the judgement of the ancient Church: They are blessed, to whom without any labour or work done, 
Ambros. in Rom. 4.  iniquities are remitted. So no works or repentance is required of them, but only that they believe. To these and such like words, I answer.  
First, that it is very uncertain, whether these Commentaries be Saint Ambrose's.  
Secondly, that, that Author excludeth not repentance, but only the works of Moses' law, which the jews held to be necessary: as circumcision, and such like, see the place, and confer with it, that which he hath written in the same work, upon the fourth to the Hebrews: where he hath these words. Faith is a great thing, and without it, it is not possible to be saved, but faith alone doth not suffice: but it is necessary, that faith work by charity, and converse worthy of God.  
M. PERKINS next authority is gathered out of S. Augustine. 
De verb. Ap. ser. 40.  There is one propitiation for all sinners to believe in Christ; True, but where is it, that we need nothing else, but to believe.  
Hesichius saith, Grace which is of mercy, is apprehended by faith alone, 
levit. li. 1. cap. 2.  and not of works: that is, we do not merit by our works done before grace, anything at GOD'S hand, but of his mercy receive both, faith and justification.  
4. Bernard hath: Whosoever thirsteth after righteousness: let him believe in thee: 
Sup. cant. serm. 22.  that being justified by faith alone, he way have peace with God.  
Answer. By faith alone, he excludeth all other means, that either jew, or Gentile required, but not charity: Which his very words include for how can we abhor sin, and thirst after justice, without charity: and in the same work: 
Serm. 24.  He declareth plainly that he comprehendeth always charity, when he speaks of a justifying faith: saying. A right faith doth not make a man righteous, if it work not by Charity. And again: Neither works without faith, nor faith without works is sufficient to make the soul righteous.  

Gal. 3.  5. chrysostom they said, he who rested on faith alone, was accursed: but Paul showeth, that he is blessed who rested on faith alone. Answer. He speaks of the jews who held Christians accursed, because resting on the faith in Christ would not observe withal Moses' law: the Apostle contrary wise denounceth them accursed, 
Gal. 5.  who would join the ceremonies of Moses' law, with Christian religion, and so faith alone, there excludeth only the old law, not the works of charity, so he mangleth pitifully a sentence of S. Basils', saying: 
De humil.  Let man acknowledge himself to want true justice, and that he is justified only by faith in Christ: If a man know himself justified by faith in Christ, how can he acknowledge that he wants true justice? His words truly repeated are these. Let man acknowledge that he is unworthy of true justice: and that his justification comes not of his desert, but of the mere mercy of GOD through Christ. So that by faith alone S. Basill treating of humility, excludes all merit of our own, but no necessary good disposition, as you may see in his Sermon, de fide, where he proves by many texts of Holy Scripture, that charity is as necessary as faith.  

Rom. 3.  M. PERKINS last testimony is out of Origen: Who proves (as M. PER. said) that only believing without works justifieth, by the example of the Thief on the Cross, of whose good works there is no mention.  
Answer. Origen excludeth no good disposition in us to justification but saith, that a man may be saved, without doing outwardly any good works; If he want time and place: as the Thief did, who presently upon his conversion was put to death, which is good Catholic Doctrine: but that you may perceive how necessary the good dispositions before mentioned, be to justification, you shall find if you consider well all circumstances, not one of them to have been wanting in that good thieves conversion. First, that he stood in fear of God's just judgement, appears by these his words, to his fellow, Dost thou not fear God, etc. He had hope to be saved by Christ, out of which he said: O Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy Kingdom: By both, which speeches is showed also his faith both in God, that he is the governor and just judge of the world, and in Christ, that he was the Redeemer of mankind. His repentance and confession of his fault, is laid down in this: And we truly suffer worthily: His charity towards God and his neighbour, in reprehending his fellows blasphemy, in defending Christ's innocency: and in the midst of his greatest disgraces, and raging enemies, to confess him to be King of the world to come: out of all which we may gather also, that he had a full purpose to amend his life, and to have taken such order for his recovery, as it should please Christ his Saviour to appoint. So that the lacked not any one of those dispositions, which the Catholic Church requires to justification. Now that, that great Doctor Origen meant not to exclude any of these good qualities out of the companies of faith; is apparent: by that which he hath written on the next Chapter: where he saith. 
Rom. 4.  That faith cannot be imputed to justice, to such as believe in Christ, unless they do withal put of the old man, and a little before more plainly saying: I think that faith is the first beginning of salvation, hope is proceeding in the building, but the top and perfection of the whole work, is charity.   

THE THIRD DIFFERENCE ABOUT JUSTIFICATION, how far forth good works are required thereto.  
MASTER PERKINS saith, 
Pag. 91.  That after the doctrine of the Church of Rome there be two kinds of justification: the first, when of a sinner one is made just: the which is of the mere mercy of God, through Christ, without any merit of man, only some certain good devotions of the soul, (as the acts of Faith, Fear, Hope, Charity, Repentance) go before, to prepare as it were the way, and to make it more sit to receive that high grace of justification.  
The second justification is, when a just man by the exercise of virtues, is made more just: as a Child new borne, doth by nurture grow, day by day bigger: of this increase of grace, Catholics hold good works to be the meritorious cause.  
M. PERKINS first granteth, that good works do please God, and have a temporal reward.  
2. That they are necessary to salvation, not as the cause thereof, but either as marks in away to direct us towards salvation: or as fruits and signs of righteousness, to declare one to be just before men: all which he shuffleth in, rather to delude our arguments, then for that they esteem much of good works, which they hold to be no better then deadly sins.  
The main difference then between us, consisteth in this, whether good works be the true cause indeed, of the increase of our righteousness, which we call the second justification, or whether they be only fruits, signs, or marks of it.  
M. PERKINS pretends to prove, that they are no cause of the increase of our justice: and yet frames not one argument directly to that purpose: but repeats those objections, and proposeth them now at large, which he made before, against the first justification: the which although impertinent to this place, yet I will solve them first, and then set down our own.  
We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. 
2 Rom. 3.  Answer. The Apostle there speaketh of the justification of a sinner: for he saith before, that he hath proved, both jew, and Greek, to be under sin; and that all have sinned, and need the glory of God: Wherefore this place appertains not unto the second justification: and excludes only either works of the law, as not necessary unto the first justification of a sinner: against the jews who thought and taught them to be necessary: or else against the Gentiles any work of ours, from being any meritorious cause of that first justification: for we acknowledge very willingly (as you have heard often before) that every sinner is justified freely of the mere grace of God, through the merit of Christ only, and without any merit of the sinner himself: and yet is not a sinner (being of years of discretion,) merely passive in that his justification, as M. PERKINS very absurdly saith: for in their own opinion he must believe (which is an action:) and in ours not only believe but also, Hope, Love, & Repent: And this kind of justification excludeth all boasting in our souls, as well as theirs. For as they must grant, that they may not brag of their faith, although it be an act of theirs so necessarily required at their justification, that without it, they could not be justified: even so let them think of the rest of those good preparations, which we hold to be necessary, that we cannot truly boast of them, as though they came of ourselves, but we confess all these good inspirations, as all other good, to descend from the bounteous liberality of the father of lights: and for the yielding of our consent to them; we can no more vaunt, then of consenting unto faith, all which is no more than if a man be mired in a lake, and unable of himself to get out, would be content that an other of his goodness should help him out of it. Yet observe by the way: that Saint Paul forbiddeth not all glorying or boasting: 
Rom. 5.  For he glorieth in the hope of glory of the Son of GOD, 
2. Cor. 10.  and in his tribulations: Again. He defineth that we may glory in measure, and that he might glory in his power. And that he was constrained to glory in his visions and revelations: 
2. Cor. 12.  So that a good Christian may glory in our Lord, and in his heavenly gifts, so it be in measure, and due season. Acknowledging them from whence they come. But to boast and say that either GOD needed us, or that our good parts were cause, that GOD called us first to his service, is both false, and utterly unlawful.  

Ephes. 2.  So that by grace yea are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast himself. Is nothing against our Doctrine of justification, but too too ignorantly or maliciously cited against it: and note also with Saint Augustine, that faith is there mentioned, 
Lib. 83. q. 76.  to exclude all merits of our works, which went before and might seem to the simple to have been some cause why God bestowed his first grace upon us: but no virtuous dispositions requisite for the better preparation to the same grace: and therefore very fond doth M. PERKINS infer, that in that sentence Saint Paul speaketh of works of grace: because in the text following he mentioned good works. Whereas the Apostle putteth an evident distinction between those two kind of works, signifying the first: To be of ourselves. The second, To proceed from us as God's workmanship, created in CHRIST JESUS, and the first, he calleth Works simply: the second, Good works, prepared of God for us to walk in after our first justification. What gross ignorance than was it, to take these two so distinct manner of works, for the same, and to ground himself so boldly upon it.  
Now to his second reason. If you be circumcised, 
Gal. 9  you are bound to the whole law. Hence thus he argueth: If a man will be justified by works, he is bound to fulfil the whole law, according to the rigour of it. That is Paul's ground: But no man can fulfil the law, according unto the rigour of it: ergo. No man can be justified by works. He can apply the text prefixed unto any part of the argument. Erit mihi magnus Apollo: Saint Paul only saith in these words: That if you be circumcised, yea are bound to keep the whole law of Moses. M. PERKINS, That if a man will be justified by works, he must fulfil the rigour of the law: Which are as just as Germans lips, as they say: But M. PERKINS says that it is Saint Paul's ground: but he is much deceived, for the Apostles ground is this. That circumcision is as it were a profession of judaisme, and therefore he that would be circumcided, did make himself subject unto the whole law of the jews. Of the possibilities of fulfilling the law, because M. PERKINS toucheth so often that string, shall be treated in a distinct question, as soon as I have dispatched this.  
M. PERKINS third Argument. Election to salvation is of grace without works: wherefore the justification of a sinner is of grace alone without works: because election is the cause of justification.  
Answer. That election is of grace without works, done of our own simple forces, or without the works of Moses' law: but not without provision of good works issuing out of faith, and the help of God's grace, as shall be handled more largely in the question of merits.   

OF THE SECOND JUSTIFICATION.  
THE fourth argument. A man just be fully justified, before he can do a good work: and therefore good works can not go before justification. True, not before the first justification of a sinner. But good Sir, you having made in the beginning of this last Article a distinction between the first and second justification: And having before discussed the first, and the second now remaining, and expecting you, why did you not say one word of it, the matter being ample and well worthy the handling? albeit you will not willingly confess any second justification as you say: Yet had it been your part at least to have disproved such arguments, as we bring to prove a second justification: Ye acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification: But these degrees must be made downward of evil, worse and worst: for if all our sanctification and best works be like unto defiled clouts, and no better than deadly sins as you hold, and else where, 
Pag. 76.  let any wise man judge what degrees of goodness can be lodged in it. Again, how absurd is that position, that there is but one justification, whereby they take fast hold on Christ's righteousness, which can never after, be either loosed or increased. Why then do you with your brother jovinian, maintain, that all men are equally righteous? If it so be: 
Lib. 2. con jovin. Epist 81. Epist 57 Hom. 15. in Ezech.  let him that desireth to see you well coursed, read. S. Hier. S. Amb. S. August. S. Greg. At least we must needs uphold that a man is as just and righteous at his first conversion, as at his death, how Godly a life soever he lead: against which I will put down these reasons following.  
First that of the revelations. Let him that is just be yet justified: or as your text hath it. 
Cap. 22.  He that is righteous, let him be more righteous: and that of, fear not to be justified even until death: 
Eccles. 18.  do convince, that there are more justifications than one, and that a man may increase in justification, and righteousness until death. Which is confirmed, where it is said: That the path of a just man proceedeth, 
Prob. 4.  as the light doth until it be perfect day; Which is degrees more & more: And S. Paul teacheth the same, where he saith to men that give alms plentifully. 
2. Cor. 9  That God will multiply their seed, and augment the increases of the fruits of their justice. Further, S. james doth most effectually prove this increase of righteousness, and the second justification, in these words. Abraham our father was he not justified by works, offering Isaac his Son upon the Altar. 
Cap. 2.  That he speaketh of the second justification is evident: for Abraham was justified before Isaac was borne, as it is most manifest by the Scripture itself: and by that heroical act, of not sparing his only & entirely beloved Son, 
Genes. 15. Rom. 4.  his justice was much augmented. And the Apostle himself seemeth to have foreseen all our adversaries cavillation, and to have so long before prevented them: First, that common shift of theirs (that this work was a sign, or the fruit only of his faith, and no companion of it, in the matter of justification) is formally confuted: for the holy Ghost speaking distinctly of both, his faith, and work, and joining them both in this act of justification, attributeth the better part of it, unto his work: thus; Seest thou that faith did work with his works, and by the works the faith was consummate and made perfect. Which he doth after fitly declare by a similitude, comparing faith to the body, and good works to the soul: which give life and lustre to faith, otherwise faith is of little value & estimation with God. Which S. Paul also teacheth at large, among other speeches including this: That if he should have all faith, and wanted charity, 
1. Cor. 13  he were nothing: And comparing faith & charity together, defineth expressly, that charity is the greater virtue: Which charity is the fountain of all good works. And so by this preferring these works of charity, before faith, he doth stop the other starting hole of the Protestants, that Abraham forsooth was justified before God, by only faith: but was declared just before men by his works: For if God esteem more of charity, then of our faith, a man is more justified before God by charity, then by faith: Again, in the very place where this noble fact is recorded, to show how acceptable it was to God himself, it is said in the person of God: 
Gen. 22.  Now I know that thou lovest me: and to convince all obstinate cavilling, is it not said that his faith did in this very fact cooperate with his works, and that the work made his faith perfect: which conjunction of both of them together, doth demonstrate that he speaketh of his justification before God: adding also, That he was therefore called the friend of God. Which could not have been, if thereby he had been only declared just before men, & thus doth S. Augustine reconcile the two places of the Apostles, S. Paul, & S. james, which seem contrary. S. Paul saying that a man is justified by faith, without works, and S. james, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. That S. Paul speaketh of works, which go before faith, such as we of our own forces, without the help of grace are able to do: and such he saith not to deserve our first justification. But S. james disputeth of works, which follow faith, and issue out of our souls, now garnished with grace, and such he holdeth us to be justified by, that is, made more and more just: See the place. He saith directly, 
L. 83. quest q. 76. Serm. 16. de verb. Apos.  that we are justified, and that this justice doth increase, whiles it doth proceed and profit.  
Nothing then is more certain and clear, then that there our justification may daily be augmented: and it seemeth to me, that this also be granted in their opinion: For they holding faith to be the only instrument of justification, cannot deny, but that there are many degrees of faith, it is so plainly taught in the word: O ye of little faith. 
Math. 8. Luc. 19  And then a little after, I have not found so great faith in Israel: And O Lord increase our faith: and many such like, where many different degrees of faith are mentioned. How then can the justification which depends upon that faith, not be correspondent unto that diversity of faith, but all one? 
Pag. 54.  Again, M. PERK. delivereth plainly, That men at the first, are not so well assured of their salvation, as they are afterward; If then in the certainty of their salvation, which is the prime effect of their justification they put degrees, they must perforce allow them in the justification itself. And thus much of this question: 
Pag. 200.  the objections which M. PERKINS makes for us in this Article: do belong either to the question of merits, or of the possibility of fulfilling the law, or to the perfection of our justice: and therefore I remit them to those places: and will handle the two latter points, before I come to that of merits.   

WHETHER IT BE POSSIBLE FOR A MAN IN GRACE., to fulfil God's law.  

Pag. 95. Gal. 5.  MASTER PERKINS argueth, that it is unpossible: First, for that Paul took it for his ground, that the law could not be fulfilled. Admit it were so. I than would answer, that he meant, that a man helped only with the knowledge of the law, cannot fulfil the law: but by the aid of God's grace, he might be able to do it. Which I gather out of S. Paul, 
Rom. 8.  where he saith, That, that which was impossible to the law, is made by the grace of Christ possible.  
2 Object. The lives and works of most righteous men, are imperfect and stained with sin; ergo quid? Of this, there shall be a several Article.  
3 Object. Our knowledge is imperfect, and therefore out faith, repentance, and sanctification is answerable. I would to God all our works were answerable to our knowledge, then would they be much more perfect than they are, but this Argument is also impertinent, and doth rather prove it possible to fulfil the law, because it is possible to know all the law: Then if our works be answerable to our knowledge: we may also fulfil it.  
4 Object. A man regenerate, is partly flesh, and partly spirit, and therefore his best works, are partly from the flesh. Not so, if we mortify the deeds of the flesh by the spirit, 
Rom. 8.13.  as the Apostle exhorteth. But these trifling arguments belong rather unto the next question. I will help M. PERKINS to some better, that the matter may be more thoroughly examined. Why go ye about to put a yoke upon the Disciples necks, 
Act. 1.15.  which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to be are? these words were spoken of the law of Moses: therefore we were not able to fulfil it.  
I answer first, that, that law could not be fulfilled by the only help of the same law, without the further aid of God's grace.  
Secondly, that it was so burdensome and cumbrous, by reason of the multitude of their Sacrifices, Sacraments, and Ceremonies, that it could hardly be kept with the help of ordinary grace: and in that sense, it is said to be such a yoke, as we were not able to bear. Because things very hard to be done, are now and then, called impossible. Now that joshua, 
Ios. 11.3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. 4. Reg. 23. Luke 1.  David, josias, Zachary, Elizabeth, and many others, did fulfil all the law, is recorded in holy Scripture: Wherefore it is most manifest, that it might be kept.  
To will is in me, but I find not how to perform. 
Rom. 7.  If S. Paul could not perform that which he would, how can others?  
Answer. He speaks there of avoiding all evil motions, and temptations, which he would willingly have done, but he could not: Marry he could well by the assistance of God's grace, subdue those provocations to sin, and make them occasions of virtue: and consequently, keep all the commandments, not suffering those passions to lead him to the breach of any one of them. The like answer we make unto that objection, that one of the ten commandments forbids us to covet our neighbours goods, his wife, or servants, which as they say is impossible: but we hold, that it may be well done, understanding the commandment rightly, which prohibiteth not to have evil motions of covetousness and lechery: but to yield our consent unto them. Now it is so possible for a man by God's grace to refrain his consent from such wicked temptations, 
Libr. 10. conf c. 7. jac. 3.2. 1. joan. 1.  that S. August thinketh it may be done of a mortified virtuous man, even when he is a sleep. And testifieth of himself, that waking he performed it. We do all offend in many things. And if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But if we could observe all the law, we should offend in nothing, nor have any sin. ergo.  
Answer. I grant that we offend in many things: not because it is not possible to keep them, but for that we are frail, and easily led by the craft of the Devil into many offences which we might avoid, if we were so wary and watchful as we ought to be: again, although we cannot keep ourselves from venial offences, yet may we fulfil the law, which is not transgressed and broken, unless we commit some mortal sins. For venial sins, either for the smallness of the matter, or want of consideration, are not so opposite to the law, as that they violate the reason, and purport of it, although they be somewhat disagreeing with it. But of this matter more fully in some other place.  
Lastly, it may be objected that the way to heaven is strait, & the gate narrow: which is so true, that it seemeth impossible to be kept by flesh and blood: but that which is impossible to men of themselves, is made possible, and easy too, by the grace of God: which made S. Paul to say, I can do all things in him, that strengtheneth and comformeth me: 
Philip. 4. Psal. 118,  And the Prophet David, after thou O Lord haddest dilated my heart (and with thy grace set it at liberty) I did run the ways of thy commandments: that is, I did readily, and willingly perform them. Of the loving of GOD with all our heart, etc. shall be treated in the question of the perfection of justice.  
Having now confuted all that is commonly proposed to prove the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments, let us now see what we can say in proof of the possibility of it: First, S. Paul is very plainly for it, 
Rom. 8.  saying. That which was impossible to the law, in that is weakened by the flesh, God sending his Son in the similitude of flesh, of sin, damned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh; but according unto the spirit. See how formally he teacheth, that Christ dying to redeem us from sin, purchased us grace to fulfil the law, which before was impossible unto our weak flesh. Again, how far S. john was from that opinion, of thinking Gods commandments to be impossible, may appear by that Epistle. 
cap. 5. lath. 11.  And his commandments be not heavy. Which is taken out of our saviours own words. My yoke is sweet, and my burden is light. The reason of this is, that although to our corrupt frailty, they be very heavy: Yet when the virtue of charity is powered into our hearts by the holy Ghost, then lo, do we with delight fulfil them. For as the Apostle witnesseth. 
Rom. 13.  Charity is the fullness of the law. And, He that doth love his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: Which Christ himself teacheth, when he affirmeth, 
●lath. 22.  That the whole law, & Prophets depend upon these two commandments, of loving God, and our neighbour: Now both according unto our opinion and the Protestants, a man regenerate and in the state of grace hath in him the virtue of Charity: we hold it to be the principal part of inherent justice: they say that their justifying faith can never be separated from it: So that a righteous man, being also endued with charity, is able thereby to fulfil the whole law. Let us adjoin unto these Authorities of holy write, the testimony of one ancient Father or two, 
Serm. in il●ud, Atten●ie tibi De nat. & gra. cap. 69.  S. Basil affirmeth. That it is impious and ungodly, to say that the commandments of the spirit be unpossible.  
S. Augustine defineth, That we must believe firmly, that God being just & good, could not command things that be impossible for us to fulfil: The reason may be, that it is the part of a tyrant, and no true lawmaker, to command his subjects to do that under pain of death, which he knows them no way able to perform: for those were not to be called laws, (which are to direct men, to that which is just) but snares to catch the most diligent in, and to bind them up to most assured perdition. Wherefore it was afterward decreed in an approved Council of Aransican, 
2. Can. vlt.  as an article of faith in these words. This also we believe according to the Catholic faith, that all men baptized by grace there received, with the help and cooperation of Christ, both can, & aught to keep and fulfil those things, which belong to salvation. The principal whereof are after our saviours own determination to keep the commandments. 
Math. 19  If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  
This by the way concerning the possibility of fulfilling the law.   

THAT GOOD WORKS BE NOT STAINED WITH SIN.  
NOW that just men's works be not sins: which I prove first, by some works of that pattern of patience, job. Of whom it is written, that notwithstanding all the devils power and craft in tempting of him, He continued still a single hearted, and an upright man, departing from evil, 
Cap. 2.  and preserving his innocency. If he continued and innocent, he sinned not: Again, if in all these instigations to impatience, he remained patiented: these his works were perfect. For S. james saith, Esteem it my brethren, 
Cap. 1.  all joy, when you shall fall into divers temptations: knowing that the probation of your saith, worketh patience: And let patience have a perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.  
2 King David thus by the inspiration of the holy Ghost speaketh of himself Thou hast (O Lord) proved my heart, thou hast visited me in the night, 
Psal. 16.  thou hast tried me in fire, and there was no iniquity found in me. It must needs then be granted, that some of his works at least were free from all sin and iniquity. And that the most of them were such, if you hear the holy Ghost testifying it, I hope you will believe it: read then, where it is of record, That David did that, 
3. Reg. 15.  which was right in the sight of our Lord (and not only in the sight of men) and turned from nothing that he commanded him, all the days of his life, except only the matter of Urias the Hittite.  
3 The Apostle affirmeth, 
1 Cor. 3.  That some men do build upon the only foundation Christ jesus, gold, silver, and precious stones: that is, being choice members of Christ's Catholic Church, do many perfect good works, such as being tried in the furnace of God's judgement, will suffer no loss or detriment, as he there saith expressly: Wherefore they must needs be pure, and free from all dross of sin, otherwise having been so proved in fire, it would have been found out.  
4 Many works of righteous men please God. 
Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 2.  Make your bodies a quick sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God: the same offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God: And S. Paul, calleth alms bestowed on him in prison, 
Phil. 4.  an acceptable sacrifice of sweet savour, and pleasing God. But nothing infected with sin (all which he hateth deadly) can please God and be acceptable in his sight: God of his mercy through Christ doth pardon sin, or as the Protestants speak, not impute it to the person: but to say that a sinful work is of sweet savour before him, and a grateful sacrifice to him, were blasphemy: wherefore we must needs confess, that such works which so well pleased him, were not defiled with any kind of sin.  
Finally, many works in holy writ be called good, as, 
Math. 5. 1. Tim. 6. Ephes 2.  That they may see your good works: to be rich in good works: We are created in CHRIST JESUS to good works: but they could not truly be called good works, if they were infected with sin. For according to the judgement of all learned Divines, it can be no good work, that faileth either in substance, or circumstance, that hath any one fault in it: For, Bonum ex integra causa malum, exquolibet defectu. Wherefore we must either say, that the H. Ghost calleth evil good, which were blasphemy, or else acknowledge, that there be many good works free from all infection of sin.  
In am of the manifold testimony of Antiquity, which doth nothing more than recommend good works, and paint out the excellency of them: I will set down one passage of S. August. wherein this very controversy is distinctly declared, and determined: thus he beginneth: The justice (through which the just man liveth by faith) because it is given to man by the spirit of grace is true justice: 
Li. 3. cont. duas epist. Felag. c. 7.  the which although it be worthily called in some men perfect, according to the capacity of this life, yet it is but small in comparison of that greater, which man made equal to Angels shall receive. Which (heavenly justice) he that had not as yet said himself to be perfect, in regard of that justice that was in him; and also imperfect; if it be compared to that which he wanted. But certainly this lesser justice, or righteousness, breedeth, and bringeth forth merits, and that greater, is the reward thereof. Wherefore he that pursueth not this, shall not obtain that: Hitherto S. Augustine. Note first, that he defineth the justice which we have in this life, to be true justice, which is pure from all injustice and iniquity: Then, that it is also perfect, not failing in any duty, which we be bound to perform. Lastly, that it bringeth forth good works, such as merit life everlasting. True it is also, that this justice although perfect in itself, so far as man's capacity in this life doth permit: yet being compared unto the state of justice which is in heaven, it may be called imperfect, not that this is not sufficient to defend us from all formal transgression of God's law: but because it keepeth not us sometimes from venial sin: and hath not such a high degree of perfection as that hath. 
De spir. & lit. vlt. cap.  S. Augustine hath the like discourse, where he saith directly, that it appertains to the lesser justice of this life, not to sin. So that we have out of this oracle of Antiquity: that many works of a just man are without sin.  
To these reasons taken partly out of the Scriptures, and partly out of the record of Antiquity, let us join one or two drawn from the absurdity of our adversaries doctrine, which teacheth every good work of the righteous man to be infected with mortal sin: Which being granted, it would follow necessarily, that no good work in the world, were to be done under pain of damnation: thus: No mortal sin is to be done under pain of damnation: 
Rom. 6.  for the wages of sin is death: but all good works are stained with mortal sin. ergo no good work is to be done under pain of damnation. It followeth secondly, that every man is bound to sin deadly. For all men are bound to perform the duties of the first and second table: but every performance of any duty is necessary linked with some mortal sin: therefore every man is bound to commit many mortal sins: and consequently to be damned. These are holy and comfortable conclusions, yet inseparable companions, if not sworn brethren of the Protestants doctrine. Now let us hear what Arguments they bring against this Catholic verity.   

THAT GOOD WORKS BE FREE FROM SIN.  
FIRST they allege these words, Enter not O Lord, 
Psal 141.  into judgement with thy servant, because no living creature shall be justified in thy sight. If none can be justified before God, it seems that none of their works are just in his sight. Answer. There are two common expositions of this place, among the ancient Fathers: both true, but far from the Protestants purpose. The former is S. Augustine's, S. Hieromes, 
De perfect justice. Epistol. ad Otesiph.  S. Gregory's in his Commentaries upon that place: who say, that no creature ordinarily liveth without many venial sins, for the which in justice they may be punished sharply, either in this life, or else afterward in Purgatory. Wherefore the best men do very providently pray unto God, not to deal with them according unto their deserts: for if he should so do, they cannot be justified and cleared from many venial faults. And therefore they must all crave pardon for these faults, or else endure God's judgements for them, before they can attain unto the reward of their good deeds. The second exposition is more ordinary, with all the best writers upon the Psalms: as S. Hilary, S. Hierome, S. Arnobius, S. Euthimius, and others: 
Li. ad Crosium c. 10. Lib. 9 moral cap. 1.  Which is also S. Augustine's, S. Gregory. All these say, that man's justice, in comparison of the justice of God, will seem to be no justice at all: and so take these words, No creature, neither man nor Angel, shall be justified in thy sight: that is, if his justice appear before thine, and be compared to it. For as the stars be bright in themselves, & shine also goodly in a clear night: yet in the presence of the glittering sun beams, they appear not at all: even so man's justice, although considered by itself, it be great and perfect in his kind, yet set in the sight and presence of God's justice, it vanisheth away, and is not to be seen. This exposition is taken out of job, where he saith: 
job. 9  I know truly it is even so, that no man compared to God, shall be justified. Take the words of the Psalm in whether sense you list (that either we have many venial faults, for which we cannot be justified in God's sight, or else that in the sight of Gods most bright justice, ours will not appear at all) & it cannot be thereof justly concluded, that every work of the righteous man is stained with sin. And consequently, the place is not to purpose.  

Esay 64.  One other ordinary hackney of theirs, is that out of the Prophet. All our righteousness is as a menstruous or defiled cloth. The which I have already rid to death in the beginning of the question of justification, where it was alleged: The answer is briefly, that the Prophet praying for the sins of the people, speaketh in the person of the sinful. Such as the common sort of them were, who had more sins then good works, and so their righteousness was like unto a spotted and stained cloth. Now this disproveth not, but that their good works although but few, yet were free for all spots of iniquity: it only proveth, that with their few good, they had a great number or evil, which defiled their righteousness, and made it like a stained cloth.  
3. There is not a man, who doth not sin: And, blessed is the man, whose sins be not imputed to him. And such like, I answer that the best men sin venially, and are happy when those their sins be pardoned: but all this is clean besides this question, where it is only inquired, whether the good works that the just do, be free from sin, and not whether they at other times do sin, at the least venially. This is all, which M. PERKIN'S here and there objecteth against this matter: but because some others do allege also, some dark places out of the fathers, I think it not amiss, to solve them here together.  
S. Cyprian saith: That the besieged mind of man, can hardly resist all assaults of the enemy: for when covetousness is overthrown, up starts lechery and so forth. Answer. All this is true, that the life of man is a perpetual warfare: yet man assisted with the grace of God, may perform it most valiantly, and never take any mortal wound of the enemies: although through his own frailty he may be sometimes foiled.  

Dial. 1. cap. Pelag.  S. Hierome affirmeth: That then we are just when we confess ourselves to be sinners.  
Answer. That all just men confess themselves to sin venially: but neither of these places come near the point in question, that not one good deed of the just man, is without some spot or stain of sin.  

Epis. 29.  S. Augustine hath these words: Most perfect charity, which cannot be increased, is to be found in no man in this life: and as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it ought to be is faulty, of which fault it proceedeth, that there is no man who doth good, and doth not sin. All this we grant to be true: that no man hath so perfect charity in this life, but that sometimes he doth less than he ought to do: and consequently doth not so well, but that now and then he sinneth at the least venially, and that therefore the said holy Doctor had just cause to say. 
Li. 9 confess. c. 13.  Woe be to the laudable life of a man, if it be examined without mercy. All which notwithstanding just men may out of that charity, which they have in this life do many good works, which are pure from all sin as hath been proved. They allege yet another place out of S. Augustine. That belongeth unto the perfection of a iustman, 
Lib. 3. conduas Epist. Pelag. c. 7.  to know in truth his imperfection, and in humility to confess is. True: that is as he teacheth else where. First, that the perfection of this life is imperfection, being compared with the perfection of the life to come. Again, that the most perfect in this life, hath many imperfections, both of wit and will, and thereby many light faults.  
Now come we unto S. Gregory our blessed Apostle, out of whose sweet words ill understood, they seem to have sucked this their poison. 
Lib. 9 moral. cap. 1.  He saith. The holy man job, because he did see all the merit of our virtue to be vice, if it be straightly examined of the inward judge doth rightly add, if I will contend with him, I cannot answer him one for a thousand.  
I answer that by our virtue in that place is to be understood, that virtue which we have of our own strength, without the aid of God's grace; which we acknowledge to be commonly infected with some vice, that S. Gregory so took it, appears by the words, both going before and following: before he writeth thus. A man not compared to God, received justice: but compared unto him, he loseth it. For whosoever compareth himself unto the author of all good, loseth that good which he had received: for he that doth attribute the good unto himself, doth sight against God, with his own gifts: And after thus. To contend with God, is not to give to God the glory of his virtue, but to take it to himself. And so all the merit of this our virtue, which cometh not of God, but is attributed unto ourself, as proceeding only from ourselves, is the very vice of pride, and cannot be prejudicial unto true good works, all which we acknowledge to proceed principally from the grace of God, dwelling in us. He saith further with S. Augustine that in this life we cannot attain unto perfect purity, such as shall be in heaven, read the beginning of his first and second book of Morales, and there you shall find him commending job to the skies, as a good and holy man, by his temptations not foiled, but much advanced in virtue.  
Now before I depart from this large question of justification, I will handle yet one other question, which commonly ariseth about it: it is.   

WHETHER FAITH MAY BE WITHOUT CHARITY.  
I PROVE that it may so be: first out of these words of our Saviour. Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, 
Math. 7.  have we not prophesied in thy name, have we not cast out Devils, have we not done many miracles, to whom I will confess, that I never knew you departed from me, all ye that work iniquity. That these men believed in Christ, and persuaded themselves assuredly to be of the elect appeareth, by their confident calling of him, Lord, Lord, and the rest that followeth: Yet Christ declareth manifestly that they wanted charity, in saying that they were workers of iniquity.  

Math. 22.  2. When the King went to see his guests. He found there a man not attired in his wedding garment: and therefore commanded him to be cast into utter darkness. This man had faith, or else he had not been admitted unto that table which signifieth the Sacraments: yet wanted charity, which to be the wedding garment, besides the evidence of the text is also proved, where in express terms. 
Apoc. 19  The garments of Christ's Spouse is declared to be the righteousness and good works of the Saints. And that with great reason: for as S. Paul teacheth. 
1. Cor. 13.  Faith shall not remain after this life: With what instrument then (trow you) will the Protestants lay hold on Christ's righteousness.  
That charity is that wedding garment, S. Hierome upon the same place doth witness, saying: That it is the fulfilling of our lords commandments. And S. Gregory doth in express words define it. 
Hom. 38. in evang.  What (saith he) must we understand by the wedding garment, but charity: So do S. Hilary, and Origen: and S. chrysostom upon that place. 
Can. 22. in Math. Tract. 20. in Math. Math. 25.   
3. The like argument is made of the foolish Virgins. Who were part of the Kingdom of God, and therefore had faith, which is the gate & entrance into the service of God. Yea in the house of God, they aspired unto more than ordinary perfection. Having professed Virginity, yet either carried away with vain glory, as S. Gregory takes it. Or not giving themselves to the works of mercy, spiritual, and corporal, as S. chrysostom expounds it: briefly not continuing in their former charity (for faith once had, cannot after the Protestants doctrine be lost) were shut out of the Kingdom of heaven, albeit they presumed strongly on the assurance of their salvation, as is apparent: By their confident demanding to be let in, for they said. Lord, Lord, open unto us.  

joh. 12.  4. Many of the princes believed in Christ, but did not confess him, for they loved more the glory of men than the glory of God. What can be more evident, then that these men had faith: when the H. ghost saith expressly that they believed in christ which is the only act of faith. And yet were destitute of charity, which preferreth the glory and service of God, before all things in this world.  

Cap. 2.  5. This place of S. James. (What shall it profit my brethren if any man say that he hath faith, but hath not works: what, shall his faith be able to save.) Supposeth very plainly, that a man may have faith without good works, that is, without charity, but that it shall avail him nothing: Caluin saith that the Apostle speaks of a shadow of faith, which is a bare knowledge of the articles of our creed, but not of a justifying faith. Without doubt he was little acquainted with that kind of faith, by which Protestants be justified: but he directly speaks of such a faith, as Abraham was justified by: saying. That that faith did work with his works, and was made perfect by the works. Was this but a shadow of faith: but they reply that this faith is likened unto the faith of the Devil, and therefore cannot be a justifying faith: that followeth not, an excellent good thing, may be like unto a bad in some things, as Devils in nature are not only like, that the very same as Angels be: even so a full Christian faith may be well likened unto a devils faith, when it is naked and void of good works in two points: First, in both there is a perfect knowledge of all things revealed: Secondly, this knowledge shall not stead them any whit, but only serve unto their greater condemnation, because that knowing the will of their master, they did it not. And in this respect S. james compareth them together: Now there are many points wherein these faiths do differ, but this one is principal. That Christians out of a goodly and devout affection, do willingly submit their understanding unto the rules of faith, believing things above human reason, yea such as seem sometimes contrary to it. But the Devil against his will, believes all that God hath revealed: Because by his natural capacity he knows that God can teach, nor testify any untruth. Again that faith may be without charity is proved out of these words of the same second Chapter. Ever as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Hence thus I argue: albeit the body be dead without the soul: yet is it a true natural body in itself, even so faith is perfect in the kind of faith, although without charity it avail not to life everlasting. Lastly in true reason it is manifest that faith may be without charity, for they have several seats in the soul, one being in the will, and the other in the understanding: they have distinct objectes, faith respecting the truth of God, and charity the goodness of God. Neither doth faith necessarily suppose charity, as charity doth faith, for we cannot love him of whom we never heard. Neither yet doth charity naturally flow out of faith, but by due consideration of the goodness of God, and of his benefits and love towards us, into which good & devout considerations, few men do enter, in comparison of them who are led into the broad way of iniquity through their inordinate passions. This according to the truth, & yet more different in the Protestants opinion: for faith lays hold on Christ's righteous, & receives that in. But charity can receive nothing in, 
Pag. 85.  as M. P. witnesseth. But gives itself forth in all duties of the first & second table. Now sir, if they could not apply unto themselves Christ's righteousness, without fulfilling all duties of the first & second table: they should never apply it to them, for they hold it impossible to fulfil all those duties, so that this necessary linking of charity with faith: maketh their salvation not only very evil assured, but altogether impossible, for charity is the fullness of the law, which they hold impossible, & then if the assurance of their salvation, 
Rom. 12.  must needs be joined with such an impossibility, they may assure themselves, that by that faith, they can never come to salvation.  
Let us annex unto these plain authorities of holy Scripture, one evident testimony of Antiquity: That most incorrupt judge S. Augustine saith flatly, 
Lib. 15. de trin. c. 17. Con crescen lib. 1. cap. 29.  That faith may well he without Charity, but it cannot profit us without Charity. And, That one God is worshipped sometimes out of the Church, but that unskilfully, yet is it he. Also that one faith is had without charity, and that also out of the Church, neither therefore is not faith: For there is one God, one Faith, one Baptism, & one immaculate Catholic Church: in which God is not served only, but in which only, he is truly served: neither in which alone, faith is kept; but in which only, faith is kept with charity. So that faith, and that only true faith, of which the Apostle speaketh, 
Ephes. 4.  One God, one faith, may be, and is in many without charity.  
The Protestants bold asseverations, that they cannot be parted, are great: but their proofs very slender, and scarce worth the disproving.   

THAT FAITH MAY BE WITHOUT GOOD WORKS.  

1. Tim. 5.  THE first, He that hath not care of his own, hath denied his faith: therefore faith includeth that good work, of providing for our own:  
Answ. That faith there seems to signify, not that faith whereby we believe all things revealed, or the Protestants the certainty of their salvation: but for fidelity, and faithful performance, of that which we have promised in Baptism, which is to keep all God's commandments: one of the which, is to provide for our children, and for them that we have charge of: so that he who hath no such care over his own charge, hath denied his faith: that is, violed his promise in Baptism. There is also another ordinary answer supposing faith to be taken there for the Christian belief, to wit, that one may deny his faith two ways: either in flat denying any article of faith, or by doing some thing that is contrary to the doctrine of our faith. Now he that hath no care of his own, doth not deny any article of his faith, but committeth a fact contrary to the doctrine of his faith: so that not faith, but the doctrine of faith, or our promise in Baptism, includeth good works.  

joh. 6.  2 There are among you that believe not; for he knew who believed, and who was to betray him: Opposing treason to faith, as if he had said: faith contained in itself fidelity. This Argument is far fetched, and little worth. For albeit faith hath not fidelity and love always necessarily joined with it, yet falling from faith, may well draw after it, hatred and treason: yea ordinarily wickedness goeth before falling from faith, and is the cause of it: which was judas case, whom our Saviour there taxed, for he blinded with covetousness, did not believe Christ's Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament, and by incredulity opened the devil a high way to his heart, to negotiate treason in it.  
3. They object that. Who saith he knows God, and doth not keep his commandments is a liar. 
1. joh. 2.   
Answer. He is then a liar in grain who professing the only true knowledge of God, yet blusheth not to say, that it is impossible to keep his commandments: but to the objection, knowing God in that place, is taken for loving of God, as. I know ye not: that is, I love you not. 
Math. 7. & 25. Psal. 1. joh. 14.  Our Lord knows the way of the just: that is approves it, loves it, so he that knows God, keeps his commandments, as Christ himself testifieth. If any love me, he will keep my word. And he that loveth me not, will not keep my words.  
Lastly, they say with S. Paul. That the just man liveth by faith. But if faith give life, than it cannot be without charity.  
Answer. That faith in a just man is not without hope and charity, by all which conjoined he liveth, and not by faith alone. But faith is in a sinful and unjust man, without charity: who holding fast his former belief, doth in transgressing Gods commandments, break the bands of charity. And so it remains most certain, that faith may be and too too often is without the sacred society of charity.    


CHAPTER. 5. OF merits.  
MASTER PERKINS saith. By merit understand any thing or work, whereby God's favour and life everlasting is procured, and that for the dignity and excellency of the work, or thing done, or a good work binding him that receiveth it, to repay the like.  
Observe that three things are necessary to make a work meritorious. First, that the worker be the adopted Son of God, and in the state of grace. Secondly, that the work proceed from grace, and be referred to the honour of God. The third, is the promise of God through Christ, to reward the work. And because our adversaries either ignorantly or of malice do slander this our Doctrine, in saying untruly, that we trust not in Christ's merits, nor need not God's mercy for our salvation, but will purchase it by our own works: I will here set down what the Council of Trent doth teach, concerning merits. 
Sess 6. cap. vlt.  Life everlasting is to be proposed to them that work well, and hope well to the end: both as grace, of mercy promised to the Sons of God through CHRIST JESUS, and as a reward by the promise of the same God to be faithfully rendered unto their works and merits. So that we hold eternal life to be both a grace, aswell in respect of Gods free promise through Christ, as also for that the first grace (out of which they issue) was freely bestowed upon us. And that also it is a reward in justice, due partly by the promise of God, and in part for the dignity of good works. Unto the worker, if he persever and hold on unto the end of his life, or by true repentance rise to the same estate again. In infant's baptized there is a kind of merit, or rather dignity of the adopted Sons of God, by his grace powered into their souls in baptism, whereby they are made heirs of the Kingdom of heaven, but all that arrive to the years of discretion, must by the good use of the same grace either merit life, or for want of such fruit of it, fall into the miserable state of death.   

OUR CONSENTS.  
WITH this Catholic Doctrine M. PER. would be thought to agree in two points. First, That merits are necessary to salvation. 2. That Christ is the root & fountain of all merit. But soon after like unto a shrewd cow, overthrows with his heel the good milk he had given before. Renouncing all merits in every man, saving only in the person of Christ: whose prerogative (saith he) it is, to be the person alone, in whom God is well pleased: Then he addeth, that they good Protestants, by Christ's merits really imputed to them, do merit life everlasting. Even as by his righteousness imputed unto them, they are justified and made righteous.  
To which I answer that we most willingly confess our blessed saviours merits to be infinite, & of such divine efficacy that he hath not only merited at his Father's hands. Both pardon for all faults, and grace to do all good works: but also that his true servants works should be meritorious of life everlasting, as for the real imputation of his merit to us, we esteem as a feigned imagination, composed of contrarieties: For if it be really in us, why do they call it imputed, and if it be ours only by God's imputation, then is it not in us really. Further to say that he only is the person in whom God is well pleased, is to give the lie unto many plain texts of holy Scriptures. Abraham was called the friend of God: therefore God was well pleased in him. 
jac. 2.  Moses' was his beloved. David was a man according unto his own heart. 
Eccles. 45. Act. 13. joh. 16. Rom. 1.  God loved Christ's Disciples, because they loved him. Briefly all the Christians at Rome, were truly called of S. Paul, the beloved of God. And therefore although God be best pleased in our Saviour, and for his sake is pleased in all others, yet is he not only pleased in him, but in all his faithful servants. Now to that which he saith that they have no other merit than Christ's imputed to them, as they have no other righteousness, but by imputation, I take it to be true: and therefore they do very ingenuously and justly, renounce all kind of merits in their stained and defiled works. But let them tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth. It is; that as they have no righteousness nor merit of heaven, but only by a supposed imputation, so they must look for no heaven, but by imputation: for God as a most upright judge will in the end repay every man, according to his worth: wherefore not finding any real worthiness in Protestants, but only in conceit: his reward shall be given them answerably, in conceit only: which is evidently gathered out of S. Augustine, where he saith. 
Lib. 1. de morib. Eccles cap. 25  That the reward cannot go before the merit, nor be given to a man before he be worthy of it: for (saith he) what were more injust than that, and what is more just then God. Where he concludeth that we must not be so hardy as once to demand, much less so impudent as to assure ourselves of that crown, before we have deserved it. Seeing then that the Protestants by this their proctor renounce all such merit and desert, they must needs also renounce their part of heaven, & not presume so much as once to demand according unto S. Augustine's sentence: until they have first renounced their erroneous opinions.  
But M. PERKINS will nevertheless prove, and that by sundry reasons, that their doctrine is the truth itself, and ours falsehood.  
First, by a sorry short syllogism containing more than one whole page. It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious work: Which must be (saith he) four. First, That the work be done of ourselves, without the help of another. Secondly, That it be not otherwise due debt. Thirdly, That it be done to the benefit of an other. Fourthly, That the work and reward be equal in proportion. These proprieties he sets down pithagorically without any proof. But inferreth thereon, as though he had proved them invincibly, that Christ's manhood separated from the Godhead cannot merit: because whatsoever he doth, he doth it by grace received, & should be otherwise due. He might in like manner as truly say, that Christ's manhood united to the Godhead could not merit neither: for he received his Godhead from his father, & whatsoever he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt. And so the good man, if he were let alone, would disappoint us wholly of all merits, aswell the imputed of Christ's, as of all ours done by virtue of his grace. Wherefore we must a little sift his four forged proprieties of merit: and touching the first. I say that one may by the good use of a thing received by free gift, merit and deserve much even at his hands that gave it. For example the Father bestows a farm upon his Son freely: Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same, deserve his further favour: Yea, he may by the commodities, reaped out of that farm, buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale, as well as if he had never received the farm from his father's gift. Which is so common a case, and so sensible, that every man of mean wit, may easily reach unto it: even so by good manuring the gifts which God freely bestoweth upon us, we may both merit the increase of them, and according to his own order and promise, purchase thereby the kingdom of heaven, which is plainly proved by that parable, 
Mat. 25.  Of the talents given by a King to his servants; the which they employing well, and multiplying, were therefore esteemed worthy of far greater, and withal to be made partakers of their lords joys.  
M. PERKINS then was not a little overseen, to put for the first propriety of merit, that it must be done by a man, and of a man himself.  
The second, That a man must do it of his own free will and pleasure, and not of due debt: carrieth in show an opposition. but in deed there is no contradiction in it: for a man may, and every honest man doth, of his own free will and pleasure, pay his due debt: but let us pardon the disorder of words: his meaning being nothing else, but that the payment of that which is otherwise due debt, cannot be any meritorious work, to which S. Augustine doth answer in these words. 
Serm. 3. de verb Apost  O great goodness of God, to whom when we did owe service by condition of our estate, as bondmen do to their Lord, yet hath he promised again and again, the reward of friends. In which there is couched a comparison, which being laid in the light, will much help to the understanding of this matter. He that hath a slave, or bondman, may lawfully exact of him all kind of service, without any wages: Bread and a whip (saith a Philosopher) serve for a slave: Now suppose the Master to be sovereign governor of a state: then if it please him to make his man free, and withal a member of his common weal, the same man by performing many good offices to the state, may justly deserve of his prince as great reward and promotion, as any other of his subjects: and yet may his Lord and old Master say truly to him, all this that thou hast done, or couldst do, is but due debt unto me, considering that thou wast my bond man. so fareth it with us in respect of God: all that we can do, is due debt unto him, because he hath made us, and endowed us, with all that we either be, or have: yet it hath pleased him, as a most kind Lord, to set us at liberty through Christ, and to make us Citizens of the Saints, and as capable of his heavenly riches, as the Angels, if we will do our endeavour to deserve them: and whereas he might have exacted all that ever we could do, without any kind of recompense: yet he of his inestimable goodness towards us, doth neither bind us to do all we can do; and yet for doing that little which he commandeth, hath by promise bound himself to repay us a large recompense: by which we may well understand those words of our Saviour: 
Luke 17.  When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say that you are unprofitable servants: we have done that we ought to do. True. By our native condition we were bound to perform, not only all these things, that be now commanded, but whatsoever else it should have pleased God to command: and this we must always confess, to preserve true humility in us: yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ, and so highly advanced us, that we not only be Citizens of the Saints, but his sons and heirs, and thereby in case to deserve of him, a heavenly crown, and this is S. Ambrose exposition upon the place. S. chrysostom pondering these words let us say, taketh it for a wholesome counsel for us to say, that we be unprofitable servants, lest pride destroy our good works: and then God will say, that we be good and faithful servants, as it is recorded. 
Mat. 25. vers. 21.   
Again, we may truly say, when we have done all things commanded, that we are unprofitable servants, as venerable Bede our most learned countryman interpreteth: Because of all that we do, 
In Luc. 17.  no commodity riseth unto God our Lord in himself: who is such an infinite ocean of all goodnesses, that he wanteth nothing: Whereupon David saith, That thou art my God, because thou standest in need of no good that I can do. 
Psal. 15.   
And thus we fall upon the third property of M. PERKINS meritorious work. Which is, That it be done to the profit of another: and say that albeit God in himself receive no profit, by our works: yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weal the Church, wherein good men's services do much pleasure him. Andin this sense is it said of S. Paul, That by cleansing ourselves from wicked works, 
2. Tim. 2. Math. 5. joh. 15. v. 8.  we shall become vessels sanctified, and profitable unto our Lord. Again, God is glorified by our good works, That seeing your good works, they may glorify your father which is in heaven. Finally, God doth rejoice at the recovery of his lost children. 
Luke 15.  If then good men travailing painfully in God's Vineyard, do yield him outwardly both honour, joy, and commodity: that may suffice to make their work meritorious.  
M. PERKINS fourth property is, That the work and reward, be equal in proportion: If he understand Arithmetical proportion, that is, that they be equal in quantity, to wit, the one to be as great, or of as long continuance as the other: then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit: there is another sort of proportion, called by the Philosopher S. Athic. Geometrical: and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one unto the other: as when a good office is given unto a Citizen of desert, it may be, that the honour and commodity. of the office is far greater, than was the merit of the man: yet he being as well able to discharge it as another, and having better deserved it, is holden in true justice worthy of it: In like manner in a game where masteries are tried, the prize is given unto him that doth best, not because the value of the reward, is just as much worth, as that act of the man who winneth it: but for that such activity is esteemed worthy of such a recompense. Now the crown of heavenly glory, 
1. Cor. 9  is likened by Saint Paul, unto a Garland in a game: where he saith, That we all run, but one carrieth away the prize. And He that striveth for the mastery, 
2. Tim. 2.  is not crowned, unless he strive lawfully. It is also resembled unto places of honour. 
Math. 25. joh. 14. Mat. 13. 1. joh. 3.  I will place thee over much. And I go to provide you places.  
Grace is also in many places of Scripture, compared to seed: For the seed of God tarrieth in him. But a little seed cast into good ground, and well manured, bringeth forth abundance of corn. Briefly, than such equality as there is between the well deserving subject, and the office, between him that striveth lawfully, and the crown, between the seed, and the corn, is between the reward of heaven, and the merit of a true servant of God.  
And thus much of M. PERKINS first Argument, more indeed to explicate the nature and condition of merit, then that his reason nakedly proposed, did require it.  

Exod 20.  His second testimony is, God will show mercy upon thousands, in them that love him, and keep his commandments. Hence he reasoneth thus: Where reward is given upon mercy, there is no merit: but reward is given upon mercy, as the text proveth, ergo.  
Answer. That in that text is nothing, touching the reward of heaven, which is now in question: God doth for his loving servants sake, show mercy unto their children or friends, either in temporal things, or in calling them to repentance, and such like: but doth never for one man's sake; bestow the kingdom upon another, unless the party himself be first made worthy of it.  
That confirmation of his, that Adam by his continual and perfect obedience, could not have procured a further increase of God's favour, is both besides the purpose, and most false: for as well he, as every good man sithence, by good use of God's gifts, might day by day, increase them: And that no man think that in Paradise it should have been otherwise, S. Augustine saith expressly, That in the felicity of Paradise, righteousness preserved, should have ascended into better. 
In Inchir. cap. 25.  And Adam finally, and all his posterity (if he had not fallen) should have been from Paradise translated alive into the Kingdom of heaven: this by the way. Now to the third Argument.  

Rom. 6.  Scripture condemneth merit of works: The wages of sin is death. True. But we speak of good works, and not of bad, which the Apostle calleth sin: where were the man's wits? but it followeth there, That eternal life, is the grace or gift of God. This is to purpose: but answered 1200. years past, by that famous Father S. Augustine, in divers places of his most learned works. I will note one or two of them.  
First, thus here ariseth no small doubt, 
De gra. & li. arb. c. 8.  which by God's help I will now discuss. For if eternal life be rendered unto good works, as the holy Scripture doth most clearly teach (note) how then can it be called grace: when grace is given freely, and not repaid for works: and so pursuing the points of difficulty at large, in the end resolveth: that eternal life is most truly rendered unto good works, as the due reward of them: but because those good works could not have been done, unless God had before freely through Christ, bestowed his grace upon us, therefore the same eternal life, is also truly called grace: because the first root of it, was Gods free gift.  
The very same answer doth he give, where he hath these words. 
Epist. 106.  Eternal life is called grace, not because it is not rendered unto merits: but for that those merits to which it is rendered, were given, in which place he crosseth M. PERKINS proportion most directly, affirming, that S. Paul might have said truly, eternal life is the pay or wages of good works: but to hold us in humility partly, and partly to put a difference between our salvation, and damnation, choose rather to say, that the gift of God, was life eternal: because of our damnation, we are the whole and only cause, but not of our salvation, but principally the grace of God, the only fountain of merit, and all good works.  
Now to those texts cited before about justification, 
Ad Eph. 2.  We are saved freely, not of ourselves, or by the works of righteousness, which we have done. 
Ad Tit. 3.  I have often answered that the Apostle speaks of works done by our own forces, without the help of God's grace: and therefore they cannot serve against, works done, in, and by grace.  
Now to that text which he hudleth up together with the rest, although it deserved a better place, being one of their principal pillars in this controversy: It, is The sufferings of this life, are not worthy of the glory to come. 
Rom. 8.  The strength of this objection, lieth in a false translation of these words, Axia pros tein doxan, equal to that glory, or in the misconstruction of them: For we grant (as it hath been already declared) that our afflictions and sufferings be not of equal in length, or greatness, with the glory of heaven: for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life, and they cannot be so great, as will be the pleasure in heaven, notwithstanding, we teach, that this shorter, and lesser labour employed by a righteous man, in the service of GOD, doth merit the other greater, and of longer continuance: and that by the said Apostles plain words, for (saith he. 
2. Cor. 4. ) That tribulation which in this present life, is but for a moment and light, doth work above measure exceedingly an everlasting weight of glory in us. The reason is, that just men's works issue out of the fountain of grace, which giveth a heavenly value unto his works. Again, it maketh him a quick member of Christ, and so receiving influence from his head, his works are raised to an higher estimate: it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost, 
2. Pet. 1.  and so maketh him partaker of the heavenly nature as S. Peter speaketh. Which adds a worth of heaven to his works. Neither is that glory in heaven, which any pure creature attaineth unto of infinite dignity, as M. PERKINS fableth; but hath his certain bounds & measure, according unto each man's merits, otherwise it would make a man equal to God in glory: for there can be no greater than infinite, as all learned men do confess.  
M. PERKINS 4. reason: Whosoever will merit must fulfil the whole law: for if we offend in one commandment, we are guilty of the whole law, but no man can fulfil the whole law. ergo.  
Answer. I deny the first proposition: for one good work done with his due circumstances doth bring forth merit, as by all the properties of merit may be proved at large: and by his own definition of merit set down in the beginning. Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sin, he loseth his former merit: but recovering grace, he riseth to his former merit, as the learned gather out of that saying of our Saviour, in the person of the good Father. 
Luc. 15.  Do on him (that is on his prodigal son returning whom) his former garment. His second proposition is also false as hath been proved at large in a several question. To that of S. james, although it belong not to this matter, I answer that he who offendeth in one, is made guilty of all: that is, he shall be as surely condemned, as if he had broken all; 
Epis 29. ad ●lieron.  See S. Augustine.  
His 5. reason. We are taught to pray on this manner. Give us this day our daily bread: where we acknowledge every morsel of bread, to be the mere gift of God: much more must we confess heaven to be.  
Answer. M. PERKINS taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer: but he handleth the matter so handsomely, that a man may think him to be so profoundly learned, that he doth not yet understand the Pater noster: for who taketh our daily food to be so merely the gift of God, that we must not either make it ours with our penny, or travail, we must not look to be fed from heaven by miracle, by the mere gift of God: but according unto S. Paul's rule, either labour for our living in some approved sort, or not eat. Yet because our travails are in vain, unless God bless them, we pray to God daily to give us our nurture, either by sending or preserving the fruits of the earth, or by prospering our labours with good success: or if they be men who live of alms, by stirring up the charitable to relieve them. So we pray, and much more earnestly that God will give us eternal life: Yet by such means as it hath pleased God to ordain, one of which and the principal is by the exercise of good works, which God hath appointed us to walk in, to deserve it. And it cannot but savour of a Satanical spirit, to call it a Satanical insolency (as M. PERKINS doth) to think that eternal life can be merited: when S. Augustine and the best spirit of men, since Christ's time so thought and taught in most express terms.  
But let us hear his last argument, which is (as he speaketh) the consent of the ancient Church: and then beginneth with S. Bernard, who lived 1000 years after Christ: He (in I know not what place, the quotation is so doudtfull) saith. Those things which we call merits, are the way to the Kingdom, but not the cause of reigning. I answer, that merits be not the whole cause, but the promise of God through Christ, and the grace of God freely bestowed on us, out of which our merits proceed. Which is Bernard's own doctrine. 
Serm. 68 in Cantica. Manuali. c. 22.   
Secondly, he citeth S. Augustine. All my hope is in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit. True in a good sense: that is, by the virtue of his death, and passion, my sins are pardoned, and grace is bestowed on me to do good works, and so to merit.  
3. Basil. Eternal life, is reserved for them that have striven lawfully, 
In Ps. 114.  not for the merit of their doing, but upon the grace of the most bountiful God. These words are untruly translated: for first, he maketh with the Apostle, eternal life to be the prize of that combat, and then addeth that it is not given according unto the debt, and just rate of the works, but in a suller measure, according unto the bounty of so liberal a Lord: Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence. That God punisheth men under their deserts, but rewardeth them above their merits.  
4. M. PERKINS turns back to Augustine upon the: 
Psal. 120.  Where he saith (as M. PERKINS reporteth.) He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits.  
Answer. S. Augustine was to wise to let any such foolish sentence pass his pen: What congruity is in this. He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits. It had been better said: He crowneth thee not, etc. But he mistook belike this sentence of S. Augustine's. When God crowneth thee, he crowneth his gifts, not thy merits. Which is true, being taken in that sense, which he himself declareth. To such a man so thinking (that is, 
De great. & l b. arb. c. 6.  that he hath merits of himself, without the grace of God,) it may be most truly said: God doth crown his own gifts, not thy merits. If thy merits be of thyself, and not from him: but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working with us, then may we as truly say, that eternal life is the crown and reward of merits.  

Psal. 142.  His other place on the Psalm, is not to this purpose: but appertains to the first justification of a sinner, as the first word, quicken and revive me showeth plainly: now we confess that a sinner is called to repentance and revived, not for any desert of his own, but of God's mere mercy.  
Having thus at length answered, unto all that M. PERKINS hath alleged against merits: Let us see what can be said for them, following as near as I can M. PERKINS order.  
Objections of Papists, so he termeth our reasons.  
First, in sundry places of Scripture, promise of reward is made unto good works. 
Genes. 4. Prover 11. Eccles. 18. Math. 5.  If thou do well, shalt thou not receive. To him that doth well there is a faithful reward. Fear not to be justified unto death, because the reward of God remaineth for ever; and. When you are reviled and persecuted for my sake, rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven. And a hundredth such like: therefore such works do merit heaven, for a reward supposeth that there was a desert of it.  
M. PERKINS answereth first, that the reward is of mere mercy without any thing done by men. But this is most apparently false: for the Scripture expresseth the very works whereof it is a reward: Again, a reward in English supposeth some former pleasure, which is rewarded, otherwise it were to be called a gift, and not a reward: and much more the Latin, and Greek word, Misos, Merus, which rather signify a man's hire and wagis, than a gift or reward: Wherefore M. PERKINS skips to a second shift: that forsooth eternal life is an inheritance, but not a reward.  
Reply. We know well that it is an inheritance, because it is only due unto the adopted Sons of God: but that hindereth not it to be a reward, for that it is our heavenly father's pleasure, that all his Sons coming to the years of discretion, shall by their good carriage either deserve it, or else for their bad behaviour be disinherited.  
M. PERKINS having so good reason to distrust his two former answers, flies to a third: and granteth that eternal life is a reward, yet not of our works, but of Christ's merits imputed unto us: This is that Castle wherein he holds himself safe from all Canon shot, but he is foully abused, for this answer is the most extravagant of all the rest, as being furthest off from the true sense of the Scripture: examine any one of the places, and a babe may discover the incongruity of it. Namely Christ saith that great is their reward, who are reviled and persecuted for his sake. Assigning the reward unto their constant bearing and enduring of tribulation for God's sake; and not to his own merits imputed, and if you desire a formal sentence, fitting this purpose, take this. 
1. Cor. 3  Every man shall receive his reward, according unto his own proper labour: And not according to Christ's merits imputed unto him. So a doer of the work shall be blessed in his deed. And not in the imputation of an others deed. 
jacob. 1.   
In stead of our second reason, blindly proposed by M. PERKINS, I will confirm the first with such texts of Holy write, as specify plainly our good works to be the cause of eternal life. 
Math. 25  Come unto me ye blessed of my father, possess a Kingdom prepared for you: And why so? For when I was hungry, ye gave me meat. And so forth: the like is in the same Chapter of the servants, who employed well their talentes: for their Lord said unto them. Because you have been faithful in few things, I will place you over many. And many such like; where good works done by the parties themselves are expressly said to be the very cause, why God rewardeth them with the Kingdom of heaven: Therefore he must needs be holden for a very wrangler, that doth seek to pervert such evident speeches, and would make the simple believe, that the cause there formally specified, is not to be taken for the cause, but doth only signify an order of things. But if any desire besides the evidence of the text, to see how the ancient Fathers take it. Let him read Saint Augustine: Where he thus briefly handleth this text. Come ye blessed of my Father, 
In psal. 49  receive: What shall we receive? A Kingdom. For what cause? Because I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc. Of the real imputation of Christ's merits, there was no tidings in those days: And that judicious Doctor, found that good works was the cause of receiving the Kingdom of heaven. Here by the way Master PERKINS redoubleth that common slander of theirs: that we take away a part of Christ's mediation. For saith he, if Christ's merits were sufficient, what need ours? It hath been often told them, but they will never learn to understand it: I will yet once again repeat it. We hold our saviours merits to be of infinite value, and to have deserved of God all the graces and blessings, which hath or shall be bestowed upon all men, from the beginning of the world unto the end of it: yet his divine will and order, is that all men of discretion, having freely received grace from him, do merit that crown of glory, which is prepared for them, not to supply the want of his merits, which are inestimable, but being members of his mystical body, he would have us also like unto himself in this point of meriting: and further desirous to train us up in all good works, he best knew, that there could be no better spur to prick our dull nature forward, then to ordain and propose such heavenly rewards unto all them, that would diligently endeavour to deserve them. The man seems to be much ignorant in the matter of Christ's mediation: I will therefore help him a little. It consisteth in reconciling man to God: which he performed by paying the ransom of our sins, in purchasing us Gods favour, and in ordaining means how all mankind might attain to eternal life: in the two first points, we do for the most part agree: to wit, that our sins are freely pardoned through Christ's passion: and that we are as freely justified, and received, first into God's grace and favour: although we require other preparation than they do, yet we as fully deny any merit of ours to be cause of either, as they do. Marry about the means of attaining to heaven, we differ altogether: for they say that God requires no justice in us, nor merit at all on our parts, but only the disposition of faith, to lay hold on Christ's righteousness and merits: but we say that Christ's righteousness and merit, are incommunicable unto any mere creature: but that through his merits, God doth power into every true Christian, a particular justice, whereby he is sanctified, and made able to do good works, and to merit eternal life. Which ability we receiving of God's free gift, through Christ's merits, doth much more magnify both God's grace, and Christ's merits: for the greater that the gift is, the greater is, the glory of the giver. And to argue that to be a derogation unto his mediation and merits,  he hath appointed to be very instrument of applying the virtue of them to us, is indeed under colour of magnifying Christ's merits, to undermine, and blow out all the virtue of them. But says M. PERKINS, what should we talk of our merits, who for one good work we do, commit many bad, which deface our merits, if we had any.  
True it is, as it was once before said, that every mortal sin, blotteth out all former justice and merit: but by repentance, both are recovered again: but must we not speak of any good, because we may hap to do evil? that is a fair persuasion, and well worthy a wise man.  
Let us to our third Argument? God hath by covenant and promise, bound himself to reward our works with life everlasting: Therefore good works do in justice deserve it: for faithful promise maketh due debt. 
Math. 20.  The covenant is plainly set down: where God in the person of an householder agreeth with his workmen, for a penny a day: that is, to give them life everlasting for travailing in his service during their life time, as all ancient interpreters expound it. Whereupon Saint Paul inferreth, 
Heb. 6.  that God should be unjust, if he should forget their works, who suffered persecution for him: 
2. Thes. 1.  And saith, If it be just with God, to render tribulation to them that persecute you, and to such as are persecuted, rest with us: Upon the same ground S. Hierome saith, 
Li. 2. cont. jovin. c. 2.  Great truly were the injustice of God, if he did only punish evil works, and would not as well receive good works. To all these, and much more such like, M. PERKINS answereth, that covenant for works was in the old Testament, but in the new, the covenant is made with the workman, not with the work.  
Reply. All that I cited in this Argument, is out of the new Testament, where express covenant is made for working, and works, as you have heard. And as it was said in the old law, 
Math 19  Do these things and thou shalt live: so is it said in the new, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: and life eternal, is the hire, and wages, for labouring in God's vineyard, and not of the imputed justice, or merits of Christ: but look about you, and behold the goodly mark which M. PERKINS sets up: Mark saith he, that it is said, God will render unto every man according to his works: not to the work, or for the work. O sharp and over-fine wit? doth he render according to the works, and doth he not render for the works? if the rate of the works be the measure of the reward, that for fewer or lesser works, there is a lesser reward, and for many and worthier, a greater: surely, in my simple understanding, he that giveth according unto the works, giveth for the works that other addle invention (that works are there mentioned, not because they are rewarded, but because they are tokens, that the doer is in CHRIST, for whose obedience God promiseth the crown of life) is not worth the confuting, it is so flat contrary to the text: which ascribeth distinctly that reward unto the workman for his works, and not for Christ's obedience imputed unto him.  
M. PERKINS fourth objection for us, is proposed unskilfully, yet could he not answer it, but by relying upon that which is most untrue, that forsooth no one action of the best man is without fault: which hath been already confuted, and might be by instances of Abrahames oblation of his son, S. john Baptists preaching, and reprehending of Herode 〈◊〉 Stephens martyrdom, with infinite such like, in which M. PERKINS, nor any else will be able to show in particular, what fault there was: Again, our Saviour saith: That if the eye be simple, the whole body is lightsome, not having any part of darkness in it: 
Mat. 6. Luke 11.  and very reason teacheth us, that a man's action, for substance and all due circumstances, may be perfect. It was then a very seely shift to say, that never any man did any one action, with all his due circumstances.  
But in steed of that fourth Argument, I will put this: If a greater reward be due unto them that do better works, than a reward is due unto them that do good works, which is evident in reason: But a greater reward is provided for them that do better as S. Augustine grounded upon God's word, proveth in sundry places: namely, upon that, For star differeth from star in glory, 
Serm. 46. de verbis Dom. 1. Cor. 15. Serm. 95. Li. de virg. cap. 44.  so shall be the resurrection of the dead: specifying that virginity shall shine after one sort, chastity in wedlock after another, and holy widowhood yet after another: all (saith he) shall be there, but they shine diversly: And of the same work affirmeth, That martyrdom, shall be higher rewarded, than any other work. The like doth he upon those words, One ground shall yield thirty fold, another threescore fold, an other an hundred fold: Comparing chastity in wedlock to the thirty, in widows to the sixty, and in virgins to the hundred. But most directly in his sixty seven treatise upon Saint john's Gospel upon this verse: In my father's house are many mansions: where he saith, that albeit some be holier, juster, and more valiant than others, yet there shall be fit rooms for them all, where every one is to receive his place according unto his merit. That penny spoken of (by which saith he is signified eternal life) shall be given to every man equally: 
Math. 20.  because every one shall live for ever, and not one longer than another: but many mansions do signify the different dignities of merits in the same everlasting life.  
And S. Gregory in most express terms, doth teach the same doctrine, saying: 
Li. 4. mor. cap. 42.  Because in this life there is a difference of works amongst us, there shall be in the other life without all doubt a distinction of dignities: that as one here exceedeth another in merit, so there one surpasseth another in reward. Finally, S. Augustine, 
De heres. her. 82. Li. 2 cont. jovin.  and S. Hierome, condemn it as an heresy, to hold that there is diversity of merits in this life, and rewards in the next: Whereon followeth most manifestly, that there be merits and rewards.  
The first reason is taken out of those texts, which teach that men are worthy of eternal life: 
Apoc. 3. Sap. 3. 2. Thes. 1. Luk. 20 35  They shall walk with me in whites, because they be worthy. God proved them, and found them worthy of himself. That you may be esteemed worthy of the Kingdom of God: Now if men be worthy of eternal life, it must needs be granted, that they have deserved it.  
M. PERK. answereth: that they were indeed worthy, but not for their own merits, but for Christ's imputed unto them. This is his only refuge, yet hath he not, nor cannot show any one text in Scripture that speaketh so. But to refel him, turn only to the places, and there you shall find, that this worthiness rose of good works, as Christ saith: I know thy works, 
Apoc. 3.  and find them not full: yet there be some amongst you, who have not defiled their garments (but have their works full) they shall walk with me in whites, 
2. Thes. 1.  because they be worthy: And By sustaining persecutions, they were made worthy of that kingdom. And in the words following, the Apostle signifieth, that it is as just for God to requite good works with the joys of heaven, as he doth punish wicked, with the pains of hell.  
The sixth reason M. PERKINS delivereth thus: 
2. Tim. 4  Eternal life is termed a crown, and a crown of righteousness to be given by a just judge: therefore in this life it must be justly deserved, otherwise it were not well called a crown of justice, nor could be said to be rendered by a just judge. M. PERKINS answereth, that it is called a crown by resemblance, because it is given in the end of the life, as the crown is given in the end of the race.  
Reply. If that were all the cause, and that there were no respect to be had to former deserts, it might then as well be called a halter by resemblance, because that also is given in the end of life: and in their opinion, more properly: because all their works are defiled like a menstruous cloth: and a halter is the end of such wicked works. But as a halter is due to a thief, so is a crown of glory the just reward of the righteous man.  
Secondly he answereth, that it is called a crown of justice, because God hath bound himself by his promise to give it: here then at length we have by his own confession, that by God's promise, eternal life is due debt unto the righteous: but as having overjoyed himself, he adds, not for any desert of theirs, but only for the promise sake. But as you have heard before, out of S. Matthew, 
Mat. 20.  that promise was made for working the time of our life in his vineyard, and so there was some desert on their part: and, the servants were rewarded, 
Mat. 25.  because they employed their talents well: and in this very place, S. Paul reckoneth up his good services, for which the just judge would render him a crown of justice: and therefore the justice is not only in respect of God's promise. And if you will not believe me, proving that I say out of the very text, rather then M. PERKINS on his bare word, let S. Augustine be arbitrator between us: who most deeply considereth of every word in this sentence: Let us hear (saith he) the Apostle speaking, 
Li. 50. hom Hom. 4.  when he approached near unto his passion, I have (quoth he) fought a good fight, I have accomplished my course, I have kept the faith: concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which our Lord will render unto me in that day, a just judge: And not only to meet, but to them also that love his coming: He saith that our Lord a just judge will render unto him a crown: he therefore doth owe it, and as a just judge will pay it. For the work being regarded, the reward cannot be denied. I have fought a good fight, is a work: I have accomplished my course, is a work: I have kept the faith, is a work. There is laid up for me a crown of justice, this is the reward. So that you see most clearly by this most learned father's judgement, that the reward is due for the work sake, and not only for the promise of God See him upon that verse of the Psalm. I will sing unto thee O Lord, 
Psal. 100  mercy and judgement. Where he concludes, that God in judgement will out of his justice crown those good works, which he of mercy had given grace to do. And that the reader may understand, that not only Saint Augustine doth so confidently teach this doctrine of merits, (which M. PERKINS blushed not to term the invention of Satan.) I will fold up this question with some testimonies of the most ancient and best Authors.  

Epist. ad Roman.  S. Ignatius the Apostles auditor saith. Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that I may by that means merit and win God.  

Apolog. 2. ●ntemed.  justine a glorious Martyr of the next age hath these words, speaking in the name of all Christians. We think that men who by works have showed themselves worthy of the will, and counsel of God, shall by their merits live and reign with him, free from all corruption, and perturbation.  

Lib. 4. con. ●erel c 72.  S. Ireneus saith. We eesteme that crown to be precious, which is gotten by combat and suffering for God's sake.  

Ora in ini●ium prou. Li de Spir. ●ancto c. 24  S. Basil. All we that walk the way of the Gospel, as Merchants do, buy & get the possession of heavenly things, by the works of the commandments. A man is saved by works of justice.  

Serm. de eleemos. ●nsine.  S. Cyprian. If the day of our return shall find us unloaden, swift, and running in the race of works, our Lord will not fail to reward our merits. He will give for works, to those that win in peace, a white crown, and for Martyrdom in persecution, he will redouble unto them a purple crown.  

C●n. 5. in M●th.  S. Hilary. The Kingdom of heaven, is the hire and reward of them that live well and perfectly.  

Lib. 1. de office c. 15.  S. Ambrose. Is it not evident, that there remaineth after this life, either reward for merits, or punishment.  
S. Hierome. Now after baptism it appertaineth to our travails, according unto the diversity of virtue to prepare for us different rewards.  

Serm. 68 ●n Cant.  S. Bernard. Provide that thou have merits, for the want of them is a pernicious poverty.  
Briefly that this was the universal Doctrine of all good Christians, above a thousand year past, is declared in the Council of Aransicane. Reward is debt unto good works, 
Can 18.  if they be done, but grace which was not debt, goeth before that they may be done. These testimonies of the most ancient, and best learned Christians may suffice, to batter the brazen forehead of them that affirm the Doctrine of merits, to be a Satanical invention, and to settle all them that have care of their salvation, in the most pure doctrine of the Catholic Church.    

CHAPTER. 6. OF SATISFACTION.  
MASTER PERKINS. Acknowledgeth first civil Satisfaction: 
Pag. 117  that is, a recompense for injuries or damages any way done to our neighbour: such as the good Publican Zacheus practised, who restored fourfold the things gotten by extorsion and deceit. This is, 
Luc. 19  wittily acknowledged by him, but little exercised among protestāns, for where the Sacrament of Confession is wanting, there men use very seldom to recompense so much as onefold, for their extorsion, bribes, usury, and other crafty overreaching of their neighbours. But of this kind of Satisfaction, which we commonly call restitution, we are not here to treat: nor of that public penance. Which for notorious crimes is done openly: but of such private penance, which is either enjoined by the confessor, or voluntarily undertaken by the penitent, or else sent by God's visitation to purge us from that temporal pain, which for sins past and pardoned, we are to endure, either in this life, or in purgatory, if we die before we have fully satisfied here.  
M. PERKINS in his third conclusion, decreeth very solemnly, That no man can be saved, unless he made a perfect satisfaction, unto the justice of God, for all his sins. Yet in the explication of the difference between us defineth as peremptorily, that no man is to satisfy, for any one of all his sins, or for any temporal pain due to them: Which be flat contradictory propositions, and therefore the one of them must needs be false. But such odd broken rubbish doth he commonly cast into the ground work of his questions, and thereupon raiseth the tottering building of his new doctrine: and lets not, like a blind man, to make an out cry, that in this matter the Papists err in the very foundation and life of religion: Which in his first argument he goes about to prove thus.  
Imperfect satisfaction, is no satisfaction at all: But the Papists make Christ's satisfaction imperfect, in that they do thereunto add a supply of human satisfaction: ergo. they make it no satisfaction at all.  
Answer. This is a substantial argument to raise the cry upon: which hath both propositions false. The first is childish: for he that satisfieth for half his debts, or for any part of them, makes some satisfaction, which satisfaction is unperfect, and yet cannot be called no satisfaction at all, as every child may see. His second is as untrue: but man's satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christ's satisfaction, but to apply it to us, as Master PERKINS saith, his faith doth to them, and to fulfil his will and ordinance.  
God doth in baptism for Christ's sake pardon both all sins, and taketh fully away, all pain due to sin, so that he who dieth in that state, goeth presently to heaven. But if we do afterward ungratefully forsake God, and contrary to our promise transgress against his commandments, then lo the order of his divine justice requires, that we be not so easily received again into his favour: But he upon our repentance pardoning the sin, and the eternal punishment due unto it, through Christ, doth exact of every man a temporal satisfaction, answerable unto the fault committed: not to supply Christ's satisfaction, which was of infinite value, and might more easily have taken away this temporal punishment, than it doth the eternal. But, that by the smart and grief of this punishment, the man may be feared from sinning, and be made more careful to avoid sin: and also by this means be made members conformable to Christ our head, that suffering with him, we may reign with him. And therefore he having satisfied for the eternal punishment, which we are not able to do, doth lay the temporal pain upon our shoulders, 
Gal. 6.  that according unto the Apostle. Every man do bear his own burden.  
Nay (saith M. PERKINS,) we must then be new Christ's, and Redeemers, and Priests of the same order with himself: Nothing so, but having grace from him, we may in virtue thereof satisfy, not for the crime itself, or everlasting punishment, which is linked with it: because that would require an infinite virtue: But for the temporal pain of it, one endued with grace may satisfy, for the measure of stripes must not exceed the rate of the fault, the punishment then resting unsatisfied being limited, a creature may pay it. And that the Reader may better perceive what we mean by the temporal pain: Let him consider that in sin are two things, the one is the turning away from God, whom we offend, the other is the turning unto the thing, for the love of which we offend: as for glory, lust, lucre, or such like the sinner transgresseth: Now when he is by the grace of God converted, his turning away from God, both the sin and the eternal pain due unto it, are freely through Christ pardoned, but for the pleasure which he took in the sin, the man himself is to satisfy: and so according unto the greatness of that his pleasure, he is to do penance.  
But Christ (saith Master PERKINS) said. On the Cross it is finished: Wherefore all satisfaction was at CHRIST'S death ended: as well temporal as eternal.  
Answer. That those words have a far different sense: To wit, that Christ had then ended his course, and fulfilled all prophecies, and endured all such torments, as he pleased God to impose upon him for the redemption of mankind: of satisfaction temporal there is no mention, neither can any thing be drawn thence against it: No more can be out of this other. Christ made sin for us: That is, 
2. Cor. 5.  the punishment of sin, as Master PERKINS gloseth it: but the learned say, an host or sacrifice for sin. But we grant that he suffered the punishment for our sin, and say consequently: that all sin is pardoned freely for his sake, and the pain of hell also, which is punishment of sin: but not other temporal pains, such as it hath pleased the justice and wisdom of God, to reserve unto every sinner, to bear in his own person. And after this sort, and no other was God in Christ, reconciling the world to himself: And that Saint Paul understood well, that Christ's sufferings did not take away ours, may be gathered by these his words. I rejoice in suffering for you, 
Collos. 1.  and do accomplish those things, that want of the Passions of Christ, in my flesh for his body, which is the Church.  
But of this point more, when we come unto the Arguments for the Catholic part.  
Now to M. PERKINS second reason. In sundry places (saith he) of Scripture, we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved freely: but this word freely importeth that we are saved without doing any thing ourselves in that matter of salvation.  
Answer. Not so good Sir, for even in your own Doctrine, it is necessary that ye believe, and bring forth the fruits of repentance, and that now and then, ye make some short prayers, and receive the communion, and do many other odd things in that matter of salvation: Wherefore the word freely doth not exclude all our working, and suffering in that matter.  
M. PERKINS third reason. We pray daily forgive us our sins: Now to plead pardon, and to satisfy for our sins, are clean contrary.  
Answer. If our sins be mortal, we crave pardon both of the sin, and the eternal punishment annexed, and do willingly withal satisfy for the temporal pain: as the man who is convicted of high treason, and having both his life, honour, lands, and goods, pardoned and restored unto him, doth very joyfully endure three months imprisonment, and any reasonable fine set on his head. If our sins be venial: then that prayer is a special mean, both to obtain pardon of the fault, and release of all the pain, as witnesseth S. Augustine, saying. 
In Enchirid c. 71.  That for the daily, short, and light offences, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful doth satisfy. And that is not true which Master PERKINS adds, that we are taught in that prayer, wholly and only, to use the plea of Pardon. For in the same petition, we are taught also to pardon others, even as we will look to be pardoned. Again, if there were only a plea of pardon, it would not serve M. PERKINS purpose. For who would say, that within the compass of the Pater noster, all things necessary to salvation be contained: besides prayer is one part of satisfaction, as shall be proved hereafter: and so by oft praying for pardon, we may well satisfy for much temporal punishment.  
M. PERKINS fourth Argument is taken out of certain odd fragments of ancient writers.  

Turtul. de Bapts.  Guiltiness being taken away, the punishment is also taken away. True: he that is guilty of nothing, cannot justly be punished: for guiltiness is a binding up to punishment (as M. PERKINS defineth) then if the band to punishment be canceled, 
Pag. 28.  the party is freed: but all this is nothing to the purpose, for guiltiness of temporal punishment doth remain after the sin and guilt of eternal be released.  

De verb. Apost. ser. 37. In Enchir. cap. 70.  Augustine saith, Christ by taking upon him the punishment and not the fault, hath done away both fault and punishment: Just: the eternal punishment which was due to that fault, not the temporal: as S. Augustine himself declareth. God of compassion doth blot out our sins committed, if convenient satisfaction be not on our parts neglected.  

Tom. 10. Hom. 5.  To that other sentence out of him: When we are gone out of this world, there will remain no compunction or satisfaction: It is easy to answer without the help of any new edition. For it will he too late then to repent, and so there is no place lest to compunction, that is, contrition of heart: neither consequently to confession, or satisfaction: as if he had said, before we go out of this world, there is place for both compunction, and satisfaction, and so that place is rather for us.  

Trem. in Esa.  Now to chrysostom, who saith, That God so blotteth out our sins, that there remains no print of them: which thing befalls not the body: for when it is healed, there remaineth a scar, but when God exempteth from punishment, he gives thee justice: All this is most true, and much against M. PERKINS doctrine of the infection of original sin: but nothing touching satisfaction: for we hold that the soul of a sinner when he cometh to be justified, is washed whiter than snow: so that there is no stain or print left in it, of the filth of sin. It is also freed from all eternal punishment, but not from some temporal. Now gentle Reader, prepare thyself to behold a proper piece of cozenage. 
Luke 22.  Ambrose saith, I read of Peter's tears, but I read not of his satisfaction: The colour of the craft, lieth in the ambiguity of this word Satisfaction, which is not always taken for the penance done to satisfy for the former fault. But is sometime used for the defence, 
Act. 24.10.  and excuse of the fact: So speaketh S. Paul, Bono animo pro me satisfaciam, with good courage I will answer in defence of myself, or give you satisfaction: 
1. Pet. 3.  in like manner Ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you: In this sense doth S. Ambrose use the word as is most plainly to be seen to them that read the place: and confer it with the very like of his, 
Lib. 10. in Luc.  I find not (saith he) what Peter said, but I find that he wept: I read his tears, but I read not his satisfaction: but that which cannot be defended, may be washed away. So that nothing is more manifest, than that satisfaction in this, and the like places, is taken for defence and excuse of his fault, which Peter used not, but sought by tears and bitter weeping, to satisfy in part for it, for this bewailing of our sins, is one special kind of satisfaction as S. Ambrose testifieth, saying: That he who doth penance, 
Libr. 2. de penit. ca 5.  must with tears wash away his sins. The other place cited out of S. Ambrose, de bono mortis, let us adore Christ, that he may say unto us, fear not thy sins, nor the waves of worldly sufferings, I have remission of sins: is rather for us then against us: for if by adoring and serving of God, we may be put out of fear of our sins, and the punishment of them: then doth it follow, that prayers, and such like service of Christ, doth acquit us of sin, and satisfy for the pain due to them.  
Hierome saith, The sin that is covered is not seen, not being seen, 
In psal. 31.  it is not imputed, not being imputed, it is not punished.  
Answer. To wit, with hell fire: which is the due punishment of such mortal sin, whereof he speaketh: or sin may be said to be covered, when not only the fault is pardoned, but all punishment also due unto it is fully paid.  
So doth S. Ambrose take that word covered, saying: 
Libr. 2. de penit. ca 5.  The Prophet calleth both them blessed, as well him, whose iniquities is forgiven in Baptism, as him, whose sins are covered with good works: For he that doth penance, must not only wash away his sins with tears, but also with better works cover his former sins, that they be not imputed unto him.  
Now we must back again unto chrysostom, belike he had forgotten this, when he cited the other, or else this was reserved to strike it dead. He saith, Some men endure punishment in this life, and in the life to come: 
Hom. 44. sup. Math.  others in this life alone: others alone in the life to come: other neither in this, nor in the life to come: there alone, as divers here alone, the incestuous Corinthian: neither here, nor there, as the Apostles and Prophets, as also job and the rest of this kind, for they endured no sufferings for punishment, but that they might be known to be conquerors of the fight.  
Answer. Such excellent holy personages sufferings as are mentioned in the Scriptures, were not for their sins: for they committed but ordinary light offences, for which their ordinary devotions satisfied abundantly: the great persecutions which they endured were first to manifest the virtue and power of God, that made such frail creatures so invincible, then to daunt the adversaries of his truth, and with all, to animate and encourage his followers. Finally, that they like conquerors triumphing over all the torments of this life, might enter into possession of a greater reward in the kingdom of heaven. All this is good doctrine, but nothing against satisfaction, that their surpassing suffering, were not for their own sins: and thus much in answer unto M. PERKINS Arguments against satisfaction. Now to the reasons which he produceth for it.  
And albeit he like an evil master of the camp, rang our Arguments out of order, 
Li. 3. instit. cap. 4. num. 29.  placing that in the forefront of our side, which Caluin presseth out against us, yet will I admit of it, rather than break his order.  

Levi. 4.5.6  1. Moses' according to God's commandment prescribed several sacrifices, for the sins of several persons, and ordained, that they should be of greater and lesser prices, according unto the diversity of the sins. Whence we argue thus: These men's faults upon their true repentance, joined with faith and hope in CHRIST to come were pardoned: Therefore their charges in buying of sacrifices to be offered for them, their pains, and prayers in assisting during the time of the sacrifice, being painful works done to appease GOD'S justice, were works of satisfaction.  
M. PERKINS answereth, many things as men do commonly when they cannot well tell what to say directly to the purpose: First, that those sacrifices, were types of Christ's suffering on the cross: what is this to the purpose? Secondly, that those sacrifices were satisfactions to the congregation, and what needed that, when they had offended God only, and not the congregation, as in many offences it happeneth. Again, if satisfaction must be given to the congregation, how much more reason is it, that it be made to God? Read those Chapters, and you shall find, that they were principally made, to obtain remission of God: as these words also do witness: 
levit. 4. vers. 20.  And upon that sacrifice, the sin shall be forgiven them: So that sacrifices were to satisfy God, who thereupon forgave the sin, and all pain due to it.  
The reason for us (which indeed is the very ground work of satisfaction) may thus be framed: many after pardon obtained of their sins, have had temporal punishment laid upon them for the same sins, and that by Gods own order: wherefore after the forgiveness of the sin, and the eternal punishment of it through Christ's satisfaction, there remaineth some temporal pain to be endured by the party himself for the same sin: which is most properly that which we call satisfaction. They deny that any man hath been punished temporally for any sin, which was once pardoned: we prove it first by the example of the Israelites, whose murmuration against GOD, 
Numb. 14.  was at Moses' intercession pardoned: yet all the elder sort of them, who had seen the miracles wrought in Egypt for their deliverance, were by the sentence of God deprived of the sight of the Land of promise, and punished with death in the wilderness, for the very same their murmuration. The like judgement was given against Moses himself and Aaron, for not glorifying God at the waters of contradiction: 
Numb 20. Deut. 32.  both of them had their sin pardoned, yet were they both afterward for the same debarred from the entrance into the holy land.  
To this M. PERKINS answereth, first, that man must be considered in a two fold estate, as he is under the law, and as he is under grace: In the former estate, all afflictions were curses of the law: in the latter, they are turned unto them that believe in Christ, from curses into trials, corrections, preventions, admonitions, instructions, and into what you will else, saving satisfaction. Now to the purpose: Whereas God (saith he) denied the believing Israelites, with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan, it cannot be proved that it was a punishment, or penalty of the law laid upon them: the Scripture hath no more but that it was an admonition unto all ages following, to take heed of like offences, as Paul writeth: All these things came unto them for examples, 
1. Cor. 10.  and were written for our admonition.  
Reply. He that will not be ashamed of this audacious assertion, needs not to care what he saith: Hath the Scripture no more of their fact, then that it was an admonition to others? Turn to the original places, where the whole matter in particular is related: First their murmuration, than Moses' intercession for them, and the obtaining of their pardon, and lastly, after all the rest, God's sentence of deprivation of them from entering into the land of promise, for that their murmuration: 
Numb. 14. Numb. 20. vers. 24. Deut. 32.51.  Again, Aaron shall not enter into the land, because he hath been disobedient to my voice: and of Moses Because he hath trespassed against me at the waters of strife. So that nothing is more clear even by the testimony of the holy Ghost, then that their days were shortened, and their hope of entrance into the land of promise cut off, in punishment of those offences, which were before forgiven them. And these things being recorded as S. Paul testifieth, for our admonition and instruction: we are to learn thereby, that God so dealeth daily with all those sinners that he calleth to repentance.  
Now to the next example, which M. PER. maketh our third reason. King David was punished for his adultery after his repentance, for the child died, 
2. Reg. 12.  and was plagued in the same kind of incest by Absalon. And when he had numbered the people, 
2. Reg. 24.  he was after his own repentance, punished in the death of his people.  
M. PERKINS answereth, that the hand of God was upon him after his repentance: but those judgements which befell him, were not curses to him properly, but corrections of his sins.  
Reply. What dotage is this to grant the very same thing, which he would be thought to deny: but yet in other terms, that the simple (whom only he can beguile) may not perceive it: If the hand of God were upon David correcting him for his sin, and that after his repentance: did not David then suffer temporal punishment for his sins before forgiven: Which is most properly to satisfy for them. Yea over and beside this punishment inflicted by God, he of his own devotion performed far greater satisfaction, by putting on sackcloth, lying one the bare ground, by watering his couch with tears, and making ashes his food, and in this most pitiful plight, he made most humble supplication unto God, to wash him more and more from his iniquity: he never dreamt that this his satisfaction, should be any derogation unto the satisfaction of his Lord and Saviour: 
Psal. 50.  but in the Psalm saith. That such an humble and contrite heart, is a sweet sacrifice unto God. We deny not but the punishing of one, is a warning & admonition unto an other, to take heed of the like: so may not they deny, but that correction is to the party himself, as an admonition to beware afterward, so a correction & punishment of the fault past. 
Psal. 50.  Which S. Augustine upon this verse of the Psalm. Thou hast loved truth, teacheth most plainly: saying. Thou hast not left their sins whom thou diddest pardon, unpunished: for thou before diddest so show mercy, that thou mightest also preserve truth: thou dost pardon him, that confesseth his fault, thou dost pardon him, but so as be do punish himself: and by that means both mercy & truth are preserved.  
Our fourth reason: the Prophets of God, when the people were threatened with Famine, the Sword, the Plague, or such like punishments for their sins, did commonly exhort them to works of penance, as fasting, prayer, haircloth, and the like to appease God's wrath justly, kindled against them: which being performed by them, God was satisfied. So (for example sake) the Nimuites at jonas preaching, doing penance in sackcloth and ashes, turned away the sentence of God against them.  
M PERKINS answereth, that famine, the plague, and such like scourges of God, were not punishments of sins, but corrections of a Father.  
Reply. This is most flat against a thousand express texts of the Scripture: which declare that for the transgressions of God's commandments, he hath sent those punishments upon the people of Israel. And what is the correction of a Father, but the punishing of a shrewd son for some fault committed, yet in a mild sort? Or doth the Schoolmaster (which is Caluins' example) whip the Scholar, or strike him with the ferula, but to punish him for some fault? So that great Rabbins seem not to understand, what they say themselves, when they admit those scourges of God to be the corrections of a Father, but not the punishment for a fault. As though Fathers used to correct those Sons, who never offended them? Or Masters to beat such Scholars as commit no faults.  
But saith M. PERKINS, these punishments be tending to correction, not serving for satisfaction: what senseless rhyming is this? By due correction of the fault, the party is satisfied in justice: and when he that hath offended, doth abide such punishment as the grievousness of his offence did require, there is both due correction of the offender, and due satisfaction unto the party offended.  
M. PERKINS finally flieth unto his old shift of imputative satisfaction: that forsooth our sufferings do not satisfy, but the party punished, by faith layeth hold on the satisfaction of the Messias, and testify the same by their humiliation, and repentance.  
Reply. As we first grant that all satisfaction hath his virtue, from the grace of God, dwelling in us, which is given us for Christ's sake: so to say that Christ's satisfaction taketh away all other satisfaction, is just to beg the principal point in question, and therefore an old trivants trick, to give that a final answer, which was set in the beginning to be debated: look upon the forenamed example of the Ninivites, of whom it is not certain that they had any express knowledge of the Messias, and therefore were far enough off from laying hold on his satisfaction. But most certain and evident it is in the text, that God upon the contemplation of their works of penance, took compassion on them, and was satisfied; as by turning away the threatened subversion is most manifest.  
Our fift reason: Daniel giveth this counsel to Nabuchodonosor. 
Daniel 4.  Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy offences with mercy on the poor. If by such good deeds our sins may be redeemed, as Holy writ doth testify, than it followeth that such works yield a sufficient satisfaction for them, for redemption signifieth a full contentment of the party offended, as well as satisfaction.  
M. PERKINS answereth, The skilful in the Caldey teach, that the word importeth rather a breaking off, then redeeming.  
Reply. To Authors in the air, without any pressing of the propriety of the word no answer can be given: but let us admit that it be broken off; ●i● sin not being covetousness, but pride and lack of acknowledging all Kingdoms to depend upon God, as the text itself doth specify. To break off this sin by alms, and compassion of the poor, is nothing, else but by such works of charity, in some sort to satisfy God's justice, there to move him to take compassion of him. And that by alms deeds we are cleansed from our sins, our Saviour himself doth teach, saying. 
Luc. 11.  Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you. Our sixth. Bring forth the worthy fruits of penance. 
Math. 3. Luc 3.  That is, do such works, as become them who are penitent: Which (as Saint chrysostom expoundeth) are: He that hath stolen away another man's goods, 
Hom. 10. in Math.  let him now give of his own: he that hath committed fornication, let him abstain from the lawful company of his own wife, and so forth. Recompensing the works of sin, with the contrary works of virtue: 
Hom. 10 in evang. In Psal. 4.  The same exposition giveth Saint Gregory, and to omit all others, venerable Bede interpreteth them thus. Mortify your sins by doing the worthy fruits of penance, to wit, by afflicting yourselves so much for every offence, as worthy penance doth require, which will be a sacrifice of justice, that is, a most just sacrifice.  
To this M. PERKINS answereth, that this text is absurd, for the word repent, signifieth, only change your minds from sin to God, and testify it by good works.  
Reply. His answer is most absurd, for we argue out of these words (Worthy fruits of penance?) And he answereth to the word going before, repent: which we use not against them; and for his gloze or testifying our repentance, is sufficiently confuted, by the Fathers before alleged.  
And S. john expressly maketh them the means to escape the wrath of God: saying, that the Axe was set to the root of the Tree, and unless by worthy fruits of penance they appeased God, they should be cut up, and cast into hell fire: and seemeth to confute the laying hold on Christ's satisfaction by faith: saying, it will not help you to say that ye are the Sons of Abraham, who was Father of all true believers: as much as if he had said, trust not to your faith, hand off ye generation of vipers. For notwithstanding ye be the Sons of the faithful, unless ye amend your lives, and for the evil works, which ye have done heretofore, make recompense, and satisfy the justice of God with good, ye shall be cast into hell fire.  

2 Cor. 7.10  The 7. objection with M. PERKINS. Paul setteth down sundry fruits of repentance, whereof one is revenge, whereby repentant persons punish themselves to satisfy God's justice, for the temporal punishment of their sins.  
M. PERKINS answereth. A repentant sinner must take vengeance of himself, and that is, to use all means to subdue the corruption of nature, and to bridle carnal affections, which kind of actions are restraynements properly, but no punishments directed against the sin, but not against the person.  
Reply. I never saw any writer so contradict himself, and so dull, that he doth not understand his own words. If this subdueing of our corrupt nature, be restraynements only from sin hereafter, and not also punishments of sin past, how then doth the repentant sinner take vengeance of himself, which you affirm that he must do? Revenge as every simple body knoweth, is the requital of evil past: We grant that all satisfaction is directed against sin, and not against the person, but for the great good of the man, albeit that for a season it may afflict, both his body and mind too, as Saint Paul's former Epistle did the Corinthians, but this sorrow being according unto God, doth much benefit the person, as the Apostle declareth. For besides this revenge taken on himself to appease God's wrath, it breedeth (as it is in the text following) in our corrupt nature, that loveth not such chastisement, A fear to return to sin, lest it be again punished, for where there is no fear of pains, and much pleasure, thither our corruption will run headlong. It stirreth up also in us, Indignation against sin, and all the wicked instruments of it, A defence and clearing of ourselves, with the honester sort, And an emulation, and desire to fly as far from sin as other our equals, and consequently, A love of virtue and honest life, which freeth us from that sorrow and all other troublesome passions, all which are plainly gathered out of the same text of Saint Paul.  
Lastly sayeth M. PERKINS. They make three works of satisfaction, Prayer, Fasting, and almsdeeds.  
For the first, it is mere foolishness to think, that a man by prayer can satisfy for his sins, it is all one as if you had said, that a beggar by ask an alms can deserve the alms, or a debtor, by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt, should thereby pay his debt.  
That Prayer doth appease God's justice, and obtain pardon, God himself is witness, saying. Call upon me in the day of tribulation, 
Psal. 49.  and I will deliver thee. Prayer cannot be made without faith in God's power, & hope in his goodness, and therefore must needs be pleasing in God's sight: by prayer we humble ourselves before God, and acknowledge his omnipotency, and our infirmity. By prayer we lament with bitter tears our own ingratitude, folly and wickedness, and bewail the grievousness of our sins: such prayer made King David (as his Psalms do testify) water his couch with tears, making them his food day and night: and by them he satisfied for his former offences. So did a far greater sinner than he, King Manasses: who falling into tribulition, 
2. Paral. 33.  prayed unto the Lord his God, and did great penance before the God of his fathers, and prayed, and entreated earnestly, and God heard his prayers, and brought him back again to jerusalem into his Kingdom. Now to M. PERKINS Similes. A beggar doth not deserve his alms, because he makes not this former kind of prayer, but the short sleight one of the Protestants from the lips outward: The like we say of a debtor, whose creditor being a needy man, will not be paid without money, but God who needs none of our goods, highly esteemeth of an humble and contrite heart, grieved much for having sinned in the sight of God, and humbly suing unto him for pardon. To such a one he said. 
Math. 18.  Did I not forgive thee all thy debt, because thou besoughtest me.  
Secondly, saith M. PERKINS. Fasting is a thing indifferent, of the same nature with eating, and drinking, no more conferring to the Kingdom of heaven, then eating, and drinking doth. What an Epicurian, and fleshly Doctrine is this? Why then did the Ninivites fast, put on sackcloth, and lie on the ground (all which bodily afflictions are reduced to fasting) rather than eat, and drink, and presume of God's mercy, if the one had been as acceptable to God as the other? Why is S. john Baptist commended for his rough garments and thin diet, if chearishing the flesh please God as well, as punishing of it? 
Math. 6.  Christ saith expressly. That if we fast in secret, his heavenly Father will repay us openly: Will he reward eating, and drinking so liberally? but of fasting we shall have a whole Chapter hereafter. Therefore briefly I here conclude, that this Doctrine tendeth to the establishment of the Kingdom of Atheists and Epicures, whose sweet speech is. Let us eat, and let us drink, for after death there is no pleasure. True: for such Belly-gods and their followers.  
Lastly he saith, that almsdeeds cannot be works of satisfaction for sins. For when we give them as we ought, we do but our duty, and we may aswell say, that a man by paying one debt, may discharge an other, as to say by doing his duty, he may satisfy God's justice for the punishment or his sins. A man might suppose, that this man were prettily well seen in Carolo Buffone, that thus ruffleth in grave matters with his simple Similes.  
That almsdeeds redeem our sins, purge us from them, and make all things clean unto us, hath been already proved out of holy Scriptures, I will join thereunto this one testimony of that worthy Martyr S. Cyprian. 
Serm. de opere & cleemos.  Our frailty could not tell what to do, unless the goodness of God, by teaching us the works of justice and mercy, had showed us a certain way of preserving our salvation, which is, that with almsdeeds we might wash clean away the filth of sins, which we had contracted after Baptism. The holy Ghost speaketh in the Scripture, and saith. Sins are purged by almsdeeds and faith.  
Now to M. PERKINS Simile. We deny that a man is bound to give all the alms that he can: We are bound to give that which we may well spare, when there is great want: But alms (which is a part of satisfaction) is not given out of our superfluity, but spared from our necessary uses. And is many times bestowed, when there is no such great need, upon building Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, and Chapels. And this may serve to answer M. PERKINS Similes against these three works of satisfaction: If any man desire to know why we make special reckoning of these three works, it is principally for two causes: First, we being to satisfy, must perform it with such things, as be our own, which be of three sorts, either they belong to our soul, or to our body, or to our external goods, the goods of our mind, we offer to God by prayer, by fasting, and other reasonable bodily discipline, we exhibit unto him, A living host, holy and pleasing God. 
Rom. 12.1.  By almsdeeds we make him an agreeable present of our goods. Secondly, all sin as S. john teacheth, 
1. Epis 2.  may be reduced to three principal heads. The concupiscence of the flesh: that is Lechery, which is cooled by fasting and such like afflicting of the body; Concupiscence of the eyes, Covetousness, which is purged and chased away by almsdeeds: And pride of life, which is suppressed by humble prayer, and often meditation of our own miseries.  
But now to knit up this question. Let us hear briefly what the best learned, and purest antiquity hath taught of this satisfaction done by man, and because M. PERKINS began with Tertullian, omitting his ancients. Let us first hear what he saith of it in his book of penance. How foolish is it (saith he) not to fulfil our penance, and yet to expect pardon of our sins, this is not to tender the price, and yet to put out a hand for the reward: for God hath decreed to set the pardon at this price: he proposeth impunity to be redeemed with this recompense of penance.  
His equal in standing, and better in learning Origen, thus discourseth. See our good Lord tempering mercy with severity, 
Hom. 3. in lib. iudic.  and weighing the measure of the punishment in a just and merciful balance: he delivereth not up a sinner for ever. But look how long time thou knowest thyself to have offended, so long do thou humble thyself to God, and satisfy him in the confession of penance.  
That glorious Martyr, and most learned Archbishop S. Cyprian, is wonderful vehement against them, that would not have severe penance done, by such as fell in persecution, saying. That such indiscreet men, labour tooth and nail, that satisfaction be not done to God, highly offended against them. And saith further, That he who withdraweth our brethren from these works of satisfaction, doth miserably deceive them, causing them that might do true penance, and satisfy God their merciful Father, with their prayer and works, to perish daily. 
Lib. 1. Ep. Li 3. Ep. 14 Orat. in illa verba attend tibi.  And to be more and more seduced to their further damnation.  
S. Basil saith. Look to thyself, that according to the proportion of thy fault, thou mayst hence also borrow some help of recovering thy health. Is it a great and grievous offence? it hath then need of much confession, bitter tears, a sharp combat of watching, 
Idem Am. ad virg. lap. cap. 8. Orat. in sanct. lum.  and uncessant and continued fasting: if the offence were light and more tollerahle, yet let the penance be equal unto it.  
S. Gregory Nazianzen saith, It is as great an evil to pardon without some punishment, as to punish without all pity. For as that doth lose the bridle to all licentiousness, so this doth strain it too much.  

Idem de paup. amor  By compassion on the poor and faith, sins are purged, therefore let us be cleansed by this compassion, let us scour out the spots and filth of our souls with this egregious herb, that makes it white, some as wool, others as snow, according to the proportion of every man's compassion and alms.  

De helia & ●●eiun.  S. Ambrose saith, We have many helps whereby we may redeem our sins, hast thou money? Redeem thy sin, not that our Lord is to be bought and sold, but thou thyself art sold by thy sins, redeem thyself with thy works, redeem thee with thy money. 
Epist. 82.  And, How could we be saved, unless we washed away our sins by fasting.  
S. Hierome maketh Paula a blessed Matron say, My face is to be disfigured, which against the commandment of God I painted: my body is to be afflicted, that hath taken so great pleasure: my often laughter, is to be recompensed with continual weeping: 
Ad Eusioch de obitu Paul.  my silks and soft clothing, is to be changed into rough hair. Read another Epistle of his to the same Eustochium, about the preserving of her virginity, and see what penance himself did, being a most virtuous young man.  

Epist. 54.  S. Augustine saith, He that is truly penitent, looks to nothing else, then that he leaves not unpunished the sin which he committed: For by that means, not sparing ourselves, he whose high and just judgement no contemptuous person can escape, doth spare us.  

Li 50. hom Hom. 50. cap. 11. Cap. 15.  And he showeth how that a penitent sinner doth come to the Priest, and receive of him the measure of his satisfaction. And saith directly against our Protestants position, That it is not sufficient to amend our manners, and to departed from the evil which we have committed, unless we do also satisfy God, for those things which we had done.  

Lib. 6. in 1. Reg.  S. Gregory saith, That sins are not only to be confessed, but to be blotted out with the austerity of penance.  
I will close up these testimonies, with this sentence of our learned countryman venerable Bede: 
In Psal. 1.  Delight (saith he) or desire to sin, when we do satisfaction is lightly purged by almsdeeds, and such like: but consent is not rubbed out, without great penance: now custom of sinning is not taken away, but by a just and heavy satisfaction.  
And if you please in few words, to hear the Protestants works of penance and satisfaction: In steed of our fasting, and other corporal correction: they fall to eating, and that of the best flesh they can get, and take in the Lord, all such bodily pleasure, as the company of a woman will afford. In am of giving alms unto the poor, they pill them by fines and unreasonable rents: and by usury and crafty bargains, are not ashamed to cousin their nearest kin. Finally, in place of prayer, and washing away their own sins by many bitter tears, they sing merely a Geneva Psalm, and rail, or hear a railing at our imagined sins, or pretended errors. And so leave, and lay all pain and sorrow, upon Christ's shoulders, thinking themselves (belike) to be borne to pleasure and pastime, and to make merry in this world.    

FIRST, OF TRADITIONS.  M. PARK. pag. 134. Traditions are doctrines delivered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth or writing, besides the written word of God. 

OUR CONSENT.  
WE Hold that the very word of God was delivered by Tradition from ADAM to MOSES, who was the first Penman of holy Scripture. Item, that the History of the New Testament, (as some for eight, not eighty, or as other think for twenty years) went from hand to hand by Tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others, was approved by them. Hitherto we agree (but not in this which he interlaceth) that in the state of Nature, every man was instructed of God immediately in both matters of faith and religion: For that God then as ever since used the ministery aswell of good fathers, as godly masters; as ENOCH, NO, ABRAHAM, and such like, to teach their children and servants the true worship of God, & true faith in him; otherwise, how should the word of God pass by Tradition from ADAM to MOSES, as M. P. affirmeth: If no child learned any such thing of his Father, but was taught immediately from God, but M. P. seemeth to regard little such petty contradictions.  
His 2. concls. We hold that the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, & his Apostles, spoke, & did many things good & true, which were not written in the Scriptures, but came to us by Tradition: but these were not necessary to be believed: For one example he puts; that the B. Virgin MARY lived & died a Virgin: but it is necessary to salvation to believe this, for HELVIDIUS is esteemed by S. AUGUSTINE an Heretic, for denying it. 
* De haeres. ad Quod. li. 84.   
His 3. Concl. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe Ordinances & Traditions touching time & place of God's worship: And touching order & comeliness to be used in the same. (marrow with these four caveats) First, that it prescribe nothing childish or absurd: See what a reverent opinion this man carrieth of the Church of God, governed by his holy spirit, that it nevertheless may prescribe things both childish & absurd. But I must pardon him, because he speaketh of his own Synagogue, which is no part of the true Church. Secondly, that it be not imposed as any part of God's worship: This is contrary to the conclusion, for order and comeliness to be used in God's worship, which the Church can prescribe, is some part of the worship. Thirdly, that it be severed from superstition, etc. This is needless; for if it be not absurd, which was the first proviso, it is already severed from superstition. The fourth, touching multitude may pass; these be but mere trifles: That is of more importance, that he termeth the decree registered, in the xv. of the Acts of the Apostles, a Tradition: whereas before he defined Traditions to be all doctrine delivered, besides the written word. Now the Acts of the Apostles is a parcel of the written word, as all the world knows: That than which is of record there, cannot be termed a Tradition.   

THE DIFFERENCE.  
Catholics teach, that besides the written word, there be certain unwritten Traditions, which must be believed & practised, as both profitable and necessary to salvation. We hold that the Scriptures contain in them all doctrine needful to salvation: whether it concern faith or manners, and acknowledge no Traditions for such, as he who believeth them not, cannot be saved.  
Before we come to the Protestants reasons against Traditions; observe that we divide Traditions into three sorts: The first we termed Divine, because they were delivered by our blessed Saviour, who is God: The second, Apostolical, as delivered by the holy Apostles: The third, Ecclesiastical, instituted and delivered by the Governors of the Church, after the Apostles days. And of these three kinds of Traditions, we make the same account, as of the writings of the same Authors: to wit, we esteem no less of our saviours Traditions, than of the sour Gospels, or any thing immediately dictated from the holy Ghost. Likewise as much honour & credit do we give unto the Apostles doctrine unwritten, as written. For ink & paper brought no new holiness, nor gave any force and virtue unto either Gods on the Apostles words; but they were of the same value and credit uttered by word of mouth, as if they had been written. Here the question is principally of divine Traditions, which we hold to be necessary to salvation, to resolve & determine many matters of greater difficulty. For we deny not but that some such principal points of our Faith, (which the simple are bound to believe under pain of damnation) may be gathered out of the holy Scriptures: as for example; that God is the Creator of the world, Christ the Redeemer of the world, the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier: and other such like Articles of the Creed, M. P. goeth about to prove by these reasons following; that the Scriptures contains all matter of belief necessary to salvation. Testimony, 
* Deut. 4.2  Thou shalt not add to the words that I command thee, nor take any thing there from. Therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrine pertaining to salvation. If it be said, that this is spoken as well of the un-written as written word; for there is no mention in the text of the written word: then M. P. addeth, that it must be understood of the written word only, because these words are as a certain preface set before a long commentary made upon the written Law.   

ANSWER.  
Let the words be set where you will, they must not be wrested beyond their proper signification. The words cited signify no more, then that we must not either by addition or subtraction, change or pervert God's commandments, whether they be written or unwritten. Now to infer, that because they areas a preface unto MOSES Law, that therefore nothing must be added unto the same Law, is extreme dotage. Why then were the books of the Old Testament, written afterward, if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, besides that one book of Deuteronomy? Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many volumes after this, had not read these words; or that they either understood them not; or that understanding them well, did wilfully transgress against them? one of these the Protestants must needs defend, or else for very shame surcease the alleging of this text for the all-sufficiency of the written word.  
M. P. His testimony: 
* Esa. 8.2. ●  To the Law and testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is, because there is no light in them: Here the Prophet teacheth (saith M. P.) What is to be done in cases of difficultly? men must not run to the Wizard's and Soothsayers, but to the Law and to the Testimony, commending the written word as sufficient to resolve all doubts whatsoever.   

ANSWER.  
By the Law and testimony in that place; the five books of MOSES are to be understood, if that written word be sufficient to resolve all doubts whatsoever: What need we then the Prophets? what need we the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles? What Wizarde would have reasoned in such sort? The Prophet willeth there, that the Israelites who wanted wit to discern whether it be better to fly unto God for council, than unto Wizard's and soothsayers, to see what is written in the Law of MOSES concerning that point of consulting-Wizards: which is there plainly forbidden in diverse places. Now out of one particular case, whereof there is express mention in the written word, to conclude that all doubts and scruples whatsoever are thereby to be decided, is a most unskilful part, arguing as great want of light in him, as was in those blind Israelites.  
3. Testimony, 
* john 20.31.  These things were written, that ye might believe that JESUS is the CHRIST: and in believing, might have life everlasting. Here is set down the full end of the Gospel, that is, to bring men to faith, and consequently to salvation: to which, the whole scripture alone is sufficient without Traditions.   

ANSWER.  
Here are more faults than lines. First the text is craftily mangled: Things being put instead of Miracles. For S. JOHN sayeth, Many other Miracles CHRIST did, etc. but these were written, etc. Secondly, S. JOHN saith not that for faith we shall be saved, but believing we should have salvation in his name, which he clipped off: thirdly, remember to what faith S. JOHN ascribes the means of our salvation, not to that whereby we apply unto ourselves Christ's righteousness, but by which we believe JESUS to be CHRIST the MESSIAS of the jews, and the Son of God, which M. P. also concealed.  
Now to the present matter, S. JOHN saith, that these miracles recorded in his Gospel, were written, that we might believe JESUS to be the Son of God; and believing, have salvation in his name, etc. Therefore the written word contains all doctrine necessary to salvation.   

ANSWER.  
S. JOHN speaks not a word of doctrine, but of miracles: and therefore to conclude sufficiency of doctrine out of him, is not to care what one sayeth. But M. P. soreseeing this, sayeth, it cannot be understood of miracles only; for miracles without the doctrine of CHRIST, can bring no man to life everlasting: True, and therefore that text speaking only of miracles, proveth nothing for the sufficiency of the written word. CHRIST'S miracles were sufficient, to prove him to be the Son of GOD, and their MESSIAS: But that proveth not Saint JOHN'S Gospel, to contain all Doctrine needful to salvation: For many other points of faith must be believed also. And if it alone be sufficient; what need we the other three Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or any of their Epistles, or the same S. JOHN'S Revelations. Finally, admit that S. JOHN'S Gospel were all-sufficient, yet should not Traditions be excluded; for Christ sayeth in it in plain terms, 
* joh. 16.  that he had much more to say unto his Apostles, but they as then being not able to be are it; he reserved that to be delivered unto them afterward; of which high mysteries S. JOHN recordeth not much in his Gospel after Christ's resurrection; and so many of them must needs be delivered by Tradition unwritten. This place of S. JOHN, M. P. patcheth up with an other of S. PAUL. 
* Gal. 1. ●.  If we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any thing besides that which we have preached, let him be accursed: And to this effect he blames them that taught but a divers doctrine, to that which he had taught. 
* 1. Tim. 1.3.    

ANSWER.  
Now we must look unto this Gentleman's singers: There were three corruptions in the text of S. JOHN: here is one, but it is a soul one. In steed of Preaching unto them an other Gospel, he puts (preach unto them any other thing:) when there is great difference between an other Gospel, & any other thing. The Gospel comprehendeth the principal points of faith, & the whole work of God's building in us: which S. PAUL like a wise Architect 
* 1. Cor. 3 12.  had laid in the Galathians; others his fellow-work-men, might build upon it, gold, silver, and precious stones, with great merit to themselves and thanks from S. PAUL: Mary if any should dig up that blessed and only foundation, and would lay a new one, him S. PAUL holdeth for accursed. So that, that falcification of the text is intolerable; and yet when all is done, nothing can be wringed out of it, to prove the written word to comprehend all doctrine needful to salvation: for S. PAUL speaketh there only of his Gospel, that is, of his preaching unto the Galathians, and not one word of any written Gospel: No more doth he in that place to TIMOTHY: And so it is nothing to purpose.  
The fourth Testimony. 
* 2. Tim. 3.16.  The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct to righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect unto every good work. In these words are contained (saith M. P.) two arguments to prove the sufficiency of Scripture: The first; that which is profitable to these four uses, to teach (all necessary truth is not in the text) to confute errors, to correct faults in manners, to instruct (all men in all duty, is M. P. his addition to the text) that is sufficient to salvation: But the Scriptures serve for all these uses. etc.   

ANSWER.  
This text of holy Scripture, is so far from yielding our adversaries two Arguments, that it affordeth not so much as any probable colour of half one good argument. In searching out the true sense of holy Scriptures; we must observe diligently the nature & proper signification of the words; as M. P. also noteth out of S. AUGUSTINE, in his sixth objection of this question; which, if the Protestants did here perform, they would make no such account of this text: for S. PAUL saith, only that all Scripture is profitable, not sufficient, to teach, to reprove, etc. How are they then carried away with their own partial affections: that cannot discern between profitable and sufficient. Good Timber is profitable to the building of an house, but it is not sufficient, without stones, mortar, & a Carpenter. Seed serves well, yea, is also necessary to bring forth corn: but will it suffice of itself, without manuring of the ground, and seasonable weather? And to fit our purpose more properly; good laws are very profitable: yea, most expedient for the good government of the commonwealth: But are they sufficient without good customs, good governors, and judges, to see the same Laws & customs rightly understood and duly executed? Even so the holy Scriptures (S. PAUL affirmeth) are very profitable; as containing very good & necessary matter, both to teach, reprove, & correct: but he saith, not they are sufficient, or that they do contain all doctrine needful for these four ends: And therefore, to argue out of S. PAUL, that they are sufficient for all those purposes; when he saith only, that they are profitable to them, is plainly not to know, or not to care what a man saith: And to press such an impertinent cavil, so often and so vehemently as the Protestants do, is nothing else but to bewray (unto the indifferent reader) either their extreme ignorance, or most audacious impudency, that think they can face out any matter, be it never so impertinent. The same answer I make unto M. P. his second argument, out of the same place: that the holy Scriptures be profitable to make the man of God absolute, but not sufficient.  
I say moreover; that M. P. doth falsely English these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the whole Scriptures: when it signifieth all Scripture, that is, every book of Scripture: and is there put to verify, that the Old Testament only serves to instruct to salvation: For, in the words next before, S. PAUL showeth, how that TIMOTHY from his infancy, had been trained up in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures: which, saith he, can instruct thee to salvation: And annexeth, as the confirmation thereof the Text cited: All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, etc. Now, in TIMOTHYS' infancy, no part of the New Testament was written, and therefore, all Scripture which is here put, to prove that Scripture which TIMOTHY in his Infancy knew; cannot but by unreasonable wresting, signify more than all the books of the Old Testament. So that there are three soul faults in this the Protestants Achilles': The first, in falsification of the text, that it might seem to be spoken of the whole, which is spoken of every part. The second, in applying that which is spoken of the Old Testament, unto both the Old and New. The third, in making that to be all-sufficient which S. PAUL affirmeth only to be profitable. And this is all they can say out of the Scripture, to prove that the written word contains all doctrine needful to salvation: whereupon, I make this invincible argument against them out of this their own position.  
Nothing is necessary to be believed, but that which is written in holy Scripture. But in no place of Scripture is it written, that the written word contains all doctrine needful to salvation, as hath been proved.  
Therefore, it is not necessary to salvation to believe the written word, to contain all doctrine needful to salvation. And by the same principle, I might reject all testimony of Antiquity as needless, if the Scriptures be so all-sufficient as they hold. Yet let us here what testimony M. P. brings out of antiquity, in favour of his cause.  
TERTULLIAN 
* De resur. carnis.  saith, Take from Heretics the opinions which they defend with the Heathens, that they may defend their questions by Scripture alone, and they cannot stand.   

ANSWER.  
Here Scripture alone is opposed (as every one may see) unto the writings of Heathen Authors, and not to the Traditions of the Apostles; and therefore maketh nothing against them. Again, (saith M. P. out of the same Author:) We need no curiosity after JESUS CHRIST, nor inquisition after the Gospel, when we believe it, we desire to believe nothing besides it: for this we must believe that there is nothing else which we may believe.   

ANSWER.  
By the Gospel there, is understood all our Christian doctrine, written and unwritten; and not only the written word of the four Evangelists, else we should not believe the Acts of the Apostles, or their Epistles, no more than Traditions: which Christian doctrine, written and unwritten, we only believe by divine faith; to all other Authors, we give such credit as their writings do deserve. If any man desire to see TERTULLIANS' judgement of Traditions, let him read his book of prescriptions against Heretics, where he averreth, that Traditions serve better than the Scriptures themselves, to confute all Heresies, Heretics always, either not allowing all the books of Scripture, or else perverting the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. And in his book De Corona militis, he formally proposeth this question: Whether Traditions unwritten are to be admitted or no? and answereth by many instances, that they must be received; concluding thus: For these and the like points, if thou require law out of the Scriptures, thou shalt find none: but Tradition is alleged to be the Author of them, Custom the confirmer, and Faith the observer. So that nothing is more certain than that TERTULLIAN thought unwritten Traditions necessary to be believed.  
Come we now unto his second testimony out of S. JEROM 
* In cap. 23 Mat.  who writing (as he saith) of an opinion that S. JOHN Baptist was killed because he foretold the coming of Christ (the goodman would say, ZACHARIE S. JOHN'S Father, for the Scripture showeth plainly why S. JOHN lost his head 
* Mat. 14 ) But S. JEROM there sayeth this, Because it hath not authority from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as approved: But of which particular, M. P. (showing himself a doughty Logician) would enforce an universal, that sorsooth all may be contemned, that is not proved by Scripture. As if you would prove no Protestant to be skilful in the art of true reasoning, because M. P. behaves himself in it so unskilfully. But S. JEROM in the same place declareth why that might be as easily reproved as allowed, not having any ground in the Scripture, because (saith he) It is taken out of the dreams of some Apocryphal writings, opposing Scripture to other improved writings, and not to approved Traditions; to which (he saith in his Dialogues against the Luciferians, before the middle) That the Church of God doth attribute the like authority, as it doth unto the written Law.  
M. P. His third Author is S. AUGUSTINE. 
* Lib. 2. de doct. Chri. cap. 9  In those things which are plainly set down in Scriptures, are found all those points which contain faith and manners of living well.   

ANSWER.  
All things necessary to be believed of every simple Christian, under pain of damnation, that is, the Articles of our Belief, are contained in the Scriptures, but not the resolution of harder matters, much less of all difficulties, which the more learned must expressly believe, if they will be saved, which distinction S. AUGUSTINE elsewhere doth signify: 
* De peccatorum meritis cap. vlt.  And is gathered out of many other places of his works, as in that matter of rebaptizing them, who became Catholics after they had been baptised by Heretics. He saith, 
* Lib. 5. de bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23.  The Apostles truly have commanded nothing hereof (in their writings) but that custom which was laid against S. CYPRIAN, is to be believed to have flowed from an Apostolical tradition, as there be many things which the universal Church holdeth, and therefore are to be believed. The same saith he of the custom of the Church in Baptizing infants. 
* De genes. ad litra. lib. 10. cap. 23.  And in his Epist. 174. of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not in the holy Scripture, and yet nevertheless is defended to be used in the assertion of faith. As also (saith he) we never read in those books that the Father is unbegotten, and yet we hold that he is so to be called. 
* Lib. 3. cap 3. cont. max Arianum.  And S. AUGUSTINE holds that the holy Ghost is to be adored, though it be not written in the word. The like of the perpetual Virginity of our B. Lady, 
* Haeresi 4.  out of which and many more such like, we gather most manifestly that S. AUGUSTINE thought many matters of faith, not to be contained in the written word, but to be taken out of the Church's treasury of Traditions.  
M. P. His last testimony is taken out of Vincentius Lirinensis, who saith (as he reporteth) that the Canon of the Scripture is perfect and fully sufficient for all things.   

ANSWER.  
I think that there is no such sentence to be found in him; he says by way of objection: What need we make recourse unto the authority of the Ecclesiastical understanding, if the Canon of the Scripture be perfect? He affirmeth not that they be fully sufficient to determine all controversies in religion, but throughout all his book he proves the clean contrary, that no heresy can be certainly confuted and suppressed by only Scriptures, without we take with it the sense and interpretation of the Catholic Church.  
Thus M. P. having ended with the Law & Testimony, addeth in a postscript, two other slender reasons unto his former: The first, that Christ and his Apostles used always to confirm their doctrine, with the testimonies, of Scriptures, and not with Tradition.   

ANSWER.  
Fist, for our Saviour CHRIST JESUS, he out of his divine wisdom delivered his doctrine most commonly in his own name, (But I say unto you) And very seldom confirmeth it with any testimony out of the Law. The Evangelists do often note how CHRIST fulfilled the old prophecies; but never, or very seldom seek to confirm his doctrine by testimonies: their own they do sometimes; but to say they never wrote any thing out of Tradition, proceeds of most gross ignorance. Where had Saint MATHEW the adoring of the Sages? S. JOHN Baptists preaching? briefly, that was done before his own conversion, but by Tradition? S. MARK wrote the most part of his Gospel out of Tradition, received from S. PETER, as witnesseth EUSEBIUS, 
* Lib. 2. hist cap. 14.  S. LULE testifieth of himself, that he wrote his whole Gospel, 
* Cap. 1.  as he had received it by Tradition, from them who were eye-witnesses. What desperate carelessness was it then to affirm that the Apostles never used Tradition, to confirm any doctrine? when some of them built, not only parcels, but their whole Gospels upon Traditions. His other reason is; that if we believe unwritten Traditions were necessary to salvation, than we must aswell believe the writings of the ancient Fathers, as the writings of the Apostles: because, Apostolical Traditions are not elsewhere to be sound, but in their books; but that were absurd, for they might err.   

ANSWER.  
That doth not follow for three causes: First, Apostolical Traditions, are aswell kept in the mind of the learned, as in the ancient Father's writings: and therefore have more credit than the Father's writings. Secondly, they are commonly recorded of more than one of the Fathers, and so have firmer testimony than any one of their writings. Thirdly, if there should be any Apostolical Tradition, related but of one ancient Father, yet it should be of more credit than any other thing of his own invention, because that was registered by him, as a thing of more estimation. And again, some of the rest of those blessed and godly personages, would have reproved it, as they did all other falsehoods, if it had not been such indeed as it was termed: Which when they did not, they gave a secret approbation of it for such; and so that hath the interpretative consent at least of the learned of that age, and the following for Apostolical Tradition.  
But M. P. proves the contrary by S. PAUL, who sayeth, 
* Act. 26.22.  That I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other thing then that which the Prophets and MOSES did say should come. Why make you here a full point: let S. PAUL make an end of his speech, and tell us for what points of doctrine he allegeth MOSES and the Prophets: Marry to prove that CHRIST should suffer death, and rise again, and that he should give light to the Gentiles. For these and such like, which were evidently foretold in holy writ: he needed not to allege any other proof, but when he was to persuade them to abandon MOSES Law, he then delivered to them the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keep them: 
* Act. 16.  As also when he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar, he beginneth with Tradition, saying: 
* 1. Cor. 12  I deliver unto you as I have received from our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth. And in the same Chapter putteth down the contentious scripturist, with the custom of the Church, saying, If any man lust to strive, we have no such custom: so that out of S. PAUL, we learn to allege Scriptures, when they be plain for us, and when they bear not so clear with us, to plead Tradition, and the custom of the Church.  
Hitherto I have confuted what M. P. brought against Traditions. Now to that which he saith for them in our behalf.  
First, saith he, the Catholics allege, 
* 2 Thes. 2.15.  Where, the Apostle bids the Church to keep the Ordinances which he taught them, either by word of mouth, or by Epistle: Hence they gather that besides the written word, there be unwritten Traditions that are necessary to be kept and obeyed.   

M. Perkens ANSWER.  
It is likely, that this, Epistle to the Thessalonians, was the first that ever PAUL wrote to any Church: and then somethings needful to salvation might be delivered by word of mouth: but that was afterwards written in some others of his Epistles.   

REPLY.  
Observe first, that instead of Traditions (according to the Greek and Latin word,) they translate 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ordinances; ever flying the word Tradition, where any thing is spoken in commendation of them. But if any thing sound against them, than thrust they in the word Tradition, although the Greek word bear it not. See for this their corruption, and many other, a learned Treatise, named, The Discovery of false translations, penned by Master GREGORY MARTIN, a man most singularly conversant in the Greek and Hebrew tongues.  
secondly, is it not plain dotage, to avouch that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians, was the first that ever he wrote? Surely, if none of his other were written before it, yet his first to the same Church must needs have been written before it. But let us give the man leave to dream sometimes. To the point of the answer, that all was written after in some other of his Epistles, which before had been delivered by word of mouth. How proveth M. P. that? the man hath such confidence in his own word, that he goeth not once about to prove it. Good Sir, hold you not here; that nothing is needful to be believed, which is not written in the word? Show us then where it is written in the word, that Saint PAUL wrote in his later Epistles, that which he taught by word of mouth before? or else by your own rule it is not needful to believe it. But yet for a more full satisfaction of the indifferent reader, I will set down the opinions of some of the ancientest and best Interpreters of this place of the Apostle, that we may see whether they thought that S. PAUL committed all to writing, and left nothing by Tradition.  
S. chrysostom in his most learned and eloquent Commentaries upon this text, concludeth thus. Hereupon it is manifest that the Apostles delivered not all in their Epistles, but many things also unwritten; and those things are aswell to be believed, as the written. OECUMENIUS and THEOPHILACTUS upon that place teach the same.  
S. BASIL 
* De spu. cap. 27.  speaketh thus, I hold it Apostolical to persever in Traditions not written: for the Apostle sayeth, I commend you that ye are mindful of my precepts: and, do hold the Traditions, even as I delivered them unto you: and then allegeth this text: Hold the Traditions which you have received of me either by Word or Epistle.  
S. JOHN DAMASCEN accordeth with the former saying, 
* Lib. 4. De fide cap. 17  That the Apostles delivered many things without writing. S. PAUL doth testify, when he writeth, Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which have been taught you either by word of mouth or by Epistle. These holy and judicious expositors of S. PAUL, free from all partiality, gather out of this text of his, that many things necessary to be believed, even until their days remained unwritten, and were religiously observed by Tradition; which throweth flat to the ground M. P. his false supposition (fenced with neither reason nor authotie) that S. PAUL put in writing afterward all that he had first taught by word of mouth.  
Moreover S. PAUL immediately before his death in one of the last of his Epistles, commandeth his dear disciple TIMOTHY, 
* 2. Tim. 2.  To commend unto the faithful, that which he heard of him by many witnesses; & not that only which he should find written in some of his Epistles, or in the written Gospel.  
The second Argument for Traditions, is this, to believe that there be so many books of holy Scripture, and no more: and that those be they which are commonly taken so to be, is very necessary to salvation; now this is not to be found written in any place of holy Scripture, but is received only by Tradition, wherefore it is necessary to salvation to believe some Tradition. M. P. answereth that the books of the Old and New Testament, be Scripture, is not believed on bare Tradition, but by the books themselves on this manner. Let the man who is endued with the spirit of discerning, read the books and consider first the Author of them, who is God; then the matter contained, which is divine; the manner of speech, which is full of majesty in simple words: Lastly, the end aimed at, which is God's honour, and by this means he shall discern any part of Scripture from the writings of men whatsoever.   

REPLY.  
A Wise and deep observation I warrant you, and well-worthy a grave Author: Let us examine it briefly; first he will have his man endued with the spirit of discerning: Who shall endue him with that spirit? M. P. seemeth to say, that every Sheep of Christ hath his spirit. But S. PAUL 
* 1. Cor. 12  teacheth plainly the contrary; that some certain only have the judgement to discern. And touching this matter of discerning which books are Canonical, which are not: Not the learnedst in the Primitive Church would take upon him to discern which they were, three hundred years after CHRIST, was left vndefined by the best learned, whether the Catholic Epistles of S. JAMES and IVDE: the second of S. PETER: the second and third of S. JOHN, and his apocalypse, were Canonical or no, as is confessed on all parts: hath then every Christian this spirit of discerning, when the best Christians wanted it? Who more prosound, more skilful to discern, than that subtle and sharp Doctor S. AUGUSTINE, and yet the Protestants will not allow him the true spirit of discerning which books be Canonical. For he, in divers places of his works, 
* De doct Christ. c. 8 18. de civi dei 36. lib. count ep. gaudent. 2  holdeth the books of the Maccabees, to be Canonical Scriptures; and expressly proveth the book of Wisdom so to be. 
* De prae dost. Sanc● 14.  And yet our Protestant's will not admit them. See therefore how foolish and vain his first rule is: Come to the second.  
His second is, that he who goeth about to discern whether the book be Canonical or no, must consider the Author, who is God. If he must at the first take God to be the Author of the book, what needs any further labour? It must needs be Canonical that hath God for the Author. This man's wits were surely from home, when he discoursed thus; and therefore it should be but folly to stand upon his particularities; let this one reason in general serve to confute him: all this manner put together, serveth only to help particular men to discern which books are Canonical, who may easily after their diligent inquiry err and be deceived in this point, because every man is a liar. 
* Rom.  And if there be no more certain means to assure them of this which is the ground of all their Religion, than every particular man's discretion and judgement, than out of doubt their whole Religion is most unwisely builded upon meane-mens' inventions and discretion: who also for the most part do neither understand the language in which they were first penned, nor the usual phrases of Scriptures translated; that, I say nothing of the figures, parables, prophecies and controversies which seem to be; and many other difficulties, and yet these men need not doubt having learned some halfe-dozen-lines of M. P. but that reading any book, they shall be able presently to discern whether it be Canonical or no. A goodly mockery: Men were not so taught in the Primitive Church, but the most skilful and wisest in discerning Canonical books, trusted not unto their own judgement, but learned always upon Apostolical Traditions. So did CERAPION an ancient holy writer (as EUSEBIUS reporteth) reject certain books set out in the Apostles names, because they had not received from their Predecessors any such. The like doth CLEMENT of Alexandria, 
* Cap. 11.  and that famous ORIGEN 
* Cap. 1●.  of the same book, who observe the Ecclesiastical Canon, as he had learned and received by Tradition. So doth he deliver his opinion of the four Evangelists, and other books of Canonical Scripture, and not relying on his own wit, which was excellent, or learning which was singular in all manner of languages and matters: That S. AUGUSTINE was of the same mind, may be gathered out of these words of his, 
* Lib. 35 cap. 6.  Contra Faustum. Of what book can there be any assurance, if the letters, which the Church propagated by the Apostles, and by such excellency declared throughout all Nations, doth teach and hold to be the Apostles, should be uncertain, whither they be the Apostles or no. So that he maketh the declaration of the Church descended of the Apostles, to be a sure pillar to rest upon, for the certain knowledge of Canonical Scripture and other spirits whatsoever, if they follow not that rule to be rejected; so far is he off from encouraging every sheep of Christ's sold, to take that weighty matter upon himself as M. P. doth. And what can be more against the most prudent providence of the divine wisdom, than to permit every one to be a judge of the books of Canonical Scripture. For if all those books, and no others should pass currant for Canonical, (which any Christian taking upon him the spirit of discerning, would censure to be such) then away with all the Old Testament, because divers esteemed it to proceed of some evil spirits, as witnesses Freveus 
* Lib. 1. ca 20.21 22.  and Ephiphanius: 
* Haeres 6.6  Yea, not only all the Old must be abrogated, but all the New also, because it hath many falsehoodes mixed with the truth; as some presuming greatly of their spirit & skill in discerning did teach: so testifieth S. AUGUSTINE, 
* Lib. 32. cap. 2.  Cont. Faust. Some would have had but one of the sour Gospels, some five, some six, some seven; some rejected all S. PAUL'S Epistles: Many, and those of the faithful did not admit for Canonical some of the other Apostles Epistles, nor the Revelations. If then the divine sore-sight of our Saviour had not prevented this most soul inconveniency by instituting a more certain means of discerning and declaring which books were penned by inspiration of the holy Ghost: which not then by leaving it unto every man's discretion, he might be thought to have had but slender care of our salvation, which every true Christian heart doth abhor to think: and therefore we must needs admit of this most holy and provident Tradition of them from hand to hand: as among the Protestants Brentius doth in his Prologemenis, & also Kemnitius, handling the second kind of Traditions, in his examination of the council of Trent; albeit they reject all other Traditions, besides this one.  
The two next arguments for Traditions, be not well propounded by M. P. The third is to be framed thus:  
Either all the books of holy Scripture contain all needful doctrine to salvation, or some certain of them without the rest; not some of them without the rest, for then the other should be superfluous, which no man holdeth: therefore all the books of holy Scripture put together, do contain all necessary instruction. Now than the argument followeth, but some of those books of holy Scripture have been lost; therefore, some points of necessary doctrine contained in them, are not extant in the written word, and consequently to be learned by Tradition. M. P. answereth: First supposing some of the books to be lost, that all needful doctrine, which was in them, is in some of the others preserved. But why did he not solve the Argument proposed? were then those books superfluous? Doth the Holy Ghost set men to pen needless discourses? which this answer supposeth: Therefore he gives a second more shameful, that none be perished, which is most contrary unto the plain Scriptures: 
* 1. Paral. vlt. 2. Paral. 9  as S. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM proveth: 
* Hom. 9 in Mat. E● Hom. 7. in priorem ad Corinth.  where he hath these express words: That many of the Prophetical books are lost may be proved out of the history of Paralipomeneon (which they translate Chronicles.) Now as for M. P. guesses, that some of them are yet extant, but otherwise called: some were but little rolls of Paper; some profane and of Philosophy, I hold them not worth the discussing, being not much pertinent, and avowed one in word only, without either any reason or authority.  
M. P. His fourth objection of the Jewish Cabala, is a mere dream of his own: our Argument is this; MOSES who was the Penman of the Old Law, committed not all to writing, but delivered certain points needful to salvation by Tradition, nor any Lawmaker that ever was in any Country comprehended all in letters, but established many things by customs, therefore not likely that our Christian law should be all written.  
That MOSES did not pen all, thus we prove. It was as necessary for women to be delivered from Original sin as men. Circumcision the remedy for men, could not possible be applied to women, as every one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell; neither is there any other remedy provided in the written law, to deliver women from that sin: Therefore some other remedy for them was delivered by Tradition.  
Item, if the Child were likely to die, before the eight day, there was remedy for them, as the most learned do hold, yet nowhere written in the Law: Also, many Gentiles, during that state of the Old Testament, were saved, as JOB, and many such like, according to the opinion of all the ancient Fathers: yet in the Law, or any other part of the Old Testament, it is not written, what they had to believe, or how they should live: wherefore, many things needful to salvation, were then delivered by Tradition.  
To that reason of his; that God in his providence should not permit such a loss of any part of the Scripture: I answer, that God permitteth much evil: Again, no great loss in that, according to our opinion, who hold that Tradition might preserve what was then lost. Now instead of M. P. his fift reason for us of milk and strong meat, wishing him a Mess of Pap for his childish proposing of it: I will set down some authorities out of the written word, in proof of Traditions.  
Our Saviour said, being at the point of his passion 
* joh. 16.12.  that he had many things to say unto his Apostles, but they could not as then bear them. 
* Act. 10.  Our Saviour after his resurrection, appeared often unto his Disciples, speaking with them of the kingdom of God, of which little is written in any of the Evangelists.  

* 1. Cor. 11  I commend you brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Traditions, even as I have delivered them to you.  

* 1 Tim. 6.  O TIMOTHY, keep the dispositum that is true, which I delivered thee to keep, 
* 2. Tim. 1  Hold fast by the holy ghost, the good things committed unto thee to keep: which was as S. CHRISOSTOM and THEOPHILACT expound the true doctrine of CHRIST, the true sense of holy Scriptures, the right administration of the Sacraments, and government of the Church: To which alludeth, that ancient holy Martyr, S. IRENEUS, 
* Lib. 3. c. 4  saying, that the Apostles laid up in the Catholic Church, as in a rich treasury, all things that belong to the truth.  
S. JOHN, who was the last of the Apostles left alive, said, 
* Epi. 3.13  that he had many other things to write, not idle or superfluous, but would not commit them to ink and pen, but referred them to be delivered by word of mouth.  
And to specify for example sake, some two or three points of greatest importance; where is it written that our Saviour, the Son of God, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of the same substance with his father? Where is it written, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, aswell as from the Father? Where is it written, that there is a Trinity, that is three persons really distinct in one, and the very same substance? And that there is in our Saviour CHRIST JESUS, no person of man, but the substance of God & man, subsisting in the second person of the Trinity: Be not all and every of these principal articles of the Christian faith, and most necessary to be believed of the learned, and yet not one of them in express terms written in any part of the holy Bible. Wherefore we must either admit Traditions, or leave the highest mysteries of our Christian faith, unto the discretion and courtesy of every wrangler, as shallbe more declared in the argument following.  
The sixth and last reason for Traditions: Sundry places of holy Scriptures be hard to be understood, others doubtful whether they must be taken liberally or figuratively: If then it be put to every Christian to take his own exposition, every several sect, will coin interpretations in favour of their own opinions: & so shall the word of God, ordained only to teach us the truth, be abused and made an Instrument to confirm all errors. To avoid which inconvenience, considerate men have recourse unto the Traditions and ancient Records of the Primitive Church, received from the Apostles, and delivered to the posterity, as the true copies of God's word; see the true Exposition and sense of it, and thereby confute and reject all private and new glosses, which agree not with those ancient and holy Commentaries: So that for the understanding of both difficult and doubtful texts of Scripture, Traditions are most necessary,  
M. P. His answer is, that there is no such need of them, but in doubtful places, the Scripture itself is the best gloss: If there be observed; first the analogy of faith, which is the sum of religion, gathered out of the clearest places. Secondly, the circumstance of the place, and the nature and signification of the words. Thirdly, the conference of place with place; and concludeth, that the Scripture is falsely termed the matter of strife, it being not so of itself, but by the abuse of man.   

REPLY.  
To begin with his latter words, because I must stand upon the former: Is the Scripture falsely termed matter of strife, because it is not so, of his own nature? why then, is CHRIST truly called the stone of offence or no, to them that believe not? S. PETER sayeth, Yes, 
* 1. Pet. 2.  No sayeth M. P. because that cometh not of Christ, but of themselves. But good Sir. Christ is truly termed a stone of offence, and the Scripture, matter of strife, albeit there be no cause in them of those faults, but because it so falleth out by the malice of men.  
The question is not wherefore it is so called, but whether it be so called or no truly: That which truly is, may be so called truly: But the Scripture truly is matter of great contention, every obstinate Heretic understanding them according to his own fantasy, and therefore may truly be so termed, although it be not the cause of contention in itself, but written to take away all contention.  
But to the capital matter; these three rules gathered out of Saint AUGUSTINE, be good directions, whereby sober and sound wits may much profit in study of divinity, if they neglect not other ordinary helps of good instructiors, and learned Commentaries: But to affirm that every Christian may by these means be enabled to judge which is the true sense of any doubtful or hard text is extreme rashness and mere folly. S. AUGUSTINE himself well conversant in these rules, endued with a most happy wit, and yet much bettered with the excellent knowledge of all the liberal Sciences; yet he having most diligently studied the Holy Scriptures, for more than thirty years, with the help also of the best Commentaries he could get, and counsel of the most excusit; yet he ingeniously confesseth, That there were more places of Scripture, that after all his study, he understood not, than which he did understand, 
* Ep. 119. cap. 21.  And shall every simple man furnished only with M. P. his three rules of not twice three lines be able to dissolve any difficulty in them whatsoever. Why do the Lutherans (to omit all former Heretics) understand them in one sort, the Calvinists after an other, The Anabaptists a third way, and so of other sects.  
And in our own Country, how cometh it to pass that the Protestants find one thing in the holy Scriptures, the Puritans almost the clean contrary? Why I say is there so great, bitter, and endless contention among brothers of the same spirit, about the sense and meaning of God's word: If every one might, by the aid of those trivial notes, readily disclose all difficulties, and assuredly boult out the certain truth of them; It cannot be but most evident to men of any judgement, that the Scripture itself can never end any doubtful controversy, without there be admitted some certain judge to declare what is the true meaning of it. And it cannot but redound to the dishonour of our blessed Saviour to say, that he hath left a matter of such importance at random, and hath not provided for his servants an assured mean to attain to the true understanding of it. If in matters of Temporal justice it should be permitted to every contentious smatterer in the Law, to expound and construe the grounds of the Law and statutes, as it should seem fittest in his wisdom, and not be bound to stand to the sentence and declaration of the judge, what iniquity should not be Law, or when should there be any end of any hard matter; one Lawyer defending one part, an other the other: One counsellor assuring on his certain knowledge, one party to have the right, an other, as certainly averring, not that, but the contrary to be Law, both alleging for their warrant some texts of Law: What end and pacification of the parties could be devised, unless the decision of the controversy be committed unto the definitive sentence of some, who should declare whether counsellor had argued justly and according to the true meaning of the Law: none at all, but bloody debate and perpetual conflict, each pursuing to get or keep by force of arms, that which his learned counsel avouched to be his own.  
To avoid then such garboils and intestive contention, there was never yet any Lawmaker so simple, but appointed some governor and judge, who should see the due observation of his Laws, and determine all doubts that might arise about the letter and exposition of the Law, who is therefore called the quick and lively law; and shall we Christians think that our divine Lawmaker, who in wisdom, care, and providence, surmounted all others, more than the heavens do the earth, hath left his golden laws at random, to be interpreted as it should seem best unto every one pretending some hidden knowledge from we know not what spirit: no no, It cannot be once imagined without too too great derogation unto the sovereign prudence of the Son of God.  
In the Old Testament, which was but a state of bondage, and as it were an introduction to the New, yet was there one appointed unto whom they were commanded to repair for the resolution of all doubtful cases concerning the Law: yea, and bound (were they under pain of death) to stand to his determination; and shall we be so simple as to suffer ourselves to be persuaded, that in the glorious state of the Gospel, plotted and framed by the wisdom of God himself, worse order should be taken for this high point of the true understanding of the Holy Gospel itself, being the life and soul of all the rest.  
Give me leave gentle Reader, to stay somewhat longer in this matter, because there is nothing of more importance, and it is not handled any where else in all this Book. Considder then (with yourself) that our Celestial Lawmaker gave his Law, not written in Ink and Paper, but in the hearts of his most faithful subjects, endowinng them with the blessed spirit of truth, 
* jerem. 31 2 Cor 3.  and with a most diligent care of instructing others, 
* joh. 16.  that all their posterity might learn of them all the points of Christian doctrine, and give credit to them aswell for the written as unwritten word, and more for the true meaning of the word, than for the word itself. These and their true successors be lively Oracles of the true and living God, then must we consult in all doubtful questions of Religion, and submit ourselves wholly to their decree. S. PAUL (that vessel of election) may serve us for a singular model and pattern of the whole; who having received the true knowledge of the Gospel from God, yet went up to jerusalem with BARNABY, to confer with the chief Apostles, the Gospel which he preached, lest perhaps he might run in vain, and had run, as in express words he witnesseth himself. 
* Gal. 2  Upon which fact and words of S. PAUL, the ancient Fathers do gather, that the faithful would not have given any credit unto the Apostles doctrine, unless by S. PETER and the other Apostles, it had been first examined and approved. 
* Tertal. li. 4. in M rc. Hierom. ep 89. que est 11. inter ep. Augustin●. August. lib 28. cont. fa●st c. 4  Again, when there arose a most dangerous question of Abrogating MOSES Law: Was it left to every Christian to decide by the written word? Or would many of the faithful believe S. PAUL, that worthy Apostle in the matter? Not so, but up they went to jerusalem, to hear what the Pillars of the Church would say: Where, by the decree of the Apostles in counsel, the controversy was ended: Which S. PAUL afterward delivered in his Preaching, commanding all to observe and keep the decree and ordinance of the Apostles 
* Act. 16. . And if it would not be tedious, I could in like manner show, how in like sort, every hundredth year after, errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written Word, they were confuted and rejected, not by the written word only, but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles, Scholars, and successors.  
See Cardinal BELLARMINE, 
* Tom. 1 lib 3. cap, 6  I will only record two noble examples of this recourse unto Antiquity, for the true sense of God's word, The first, out of the Ecclesiastical History, 
* Lib. 11. cap. 9  whereof Saint GREGORY NAZIANZEN and Saint BASIL, two principal lights of the Greek Church, this is recorded: They were both noble men, brought up together at Athens: And afterward for thirteen years space, laying aside all profane books, employed their study, wholly in the holy Scriptures. The sense and true meaning whereof they sought, not out of their own judgement and presumption, (as the Protestants both do, and teach others to do) but out of their Predecessors writings and authority: namely, of such as were known to have received the rule of understanding from the Tradition of the Apostles: These be the very words.  
The other example shall be the principal pillar of the Latin Church, S. AUGUSTINE, who not only exhorteth & adviseth us to follow the decree of the ancient Church, if we will not be deceived with the obscurity of doubtful questions, 
* Lib. count Crescon. cap. 33.  but plainly affirmeth, That he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him unto it. 
* Cont. ep. fund. c. 5.  Which words, are not to be understood as Caluin would have them: that S. AUGUSTINE had not been at first a Christian, if by the authority of the Church, he had not been thereunto persuaded: but that when he was a learned and judicious Doctor, and did write against Heretics; even than he would not believe these books of the Gospel to have been penned by divine inspiration, and no others, and this to be the true sense of them; unless the Catholic Church (famous then for antiquity, generality, and consent) did tell him, which and what they were: So far was he off from trusting to his own skill and judgement in this matter, which notwithstanding was most excellent. This matter is so large, that it requireth a whole question: but being penned up within the compass of one objection, I will not dwell any longer in it, but here fold-up this whole question of Traditions, in the authorities of the ancient Fathers; out of whom, because I have in answering M. P. and elsewhere, as occasion served, cited already many sentences; I will here be brief.  
S. IGNATIUS the Apostles Scholar, doth exhort all Christians, 
* Euseb. lib 30.36.  To stick fast unto the Traditions of the Apostles, some of which he committed to writing.  
POLICARPUS, by the authority of the Apostles words, which he had received from their own mouths; confirmed the faith full in truth, and overthrew the Heretics. 
* Ibid. lib 5 cap. 20.   
S. IRENEUS, who imprinted in his heart Apostolical Traditions, received from POLICARP, sayeth, * If there should be a controversy about any mean question, ought we not to run unto the most ancient Churches, in the which the Apostles had conversed, and from them take that which is clear and perspicuous to define the present question! For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all, must we not have followed the order of Traditions, which they delivered to them to whom they delivered the Churches?  
ORIGEN teacheth, that the Church received from the Apostles by Tradition, to baptise Infants. 
* Rom. 6   
ATHANASIUS sayeth: 
e Lib. de decret. N●caeni con●  We have proved this sentence to have been delivered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers: but ye, O new jews, and sons of Caiphas, what Ancestors can ye show of your opinion.  
S. BASIL hath these words: 
* De Sp● Sanct. c. 2  We have the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church; partly written, and part we have received by Tradition of the Apostles in mystery both which be of the same force to godliness, and no man opposeth against these, who hath at the least, but mean experience of the Laws of the Church. See GREGORY NAZIANZ. Orat. 1. in julian.  
Because I have cited already some of the Latin Ancient Doctors: Instead of the rest, I will record out of them in a word or two, how old rotten Heretics used always to reject unwritten Traditions, and fly wholly unto the written word. See the whole book of TERTULLIANS' prescriptions against Heretics, which principally handleth this very point. The same doth IRENEUS witness of the Valentinians and Marcionis. 
* Lib. 3. c. 2  The Arrians common song unto the Catholics was, I will not admit to be read any words that are not written (in the Scriptures) as witnesseth S. HILARY, in his book against CONSTANTIVS the Emperor, against whom he allegeth the preaching of the Apostles, and the authority of the ancient Bishops, expressed in his lively colours.  
S. AUGUSTINE, some thousand two hundredth years ago, recordeth the very form of arguing, which the Protestants use nowadays, in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first book against him in the beginning. If thou shalt (saith this Heretic) bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all, we must needs here thee, but these words which are without the Scriptures are in no sort to be received of us: when as the Lord himself hath admonished us, and said: in vain do they worship me, teaching commandments and precepts of men. How S. AUGUSTINE opposed against them unwritten Traditions, hath been afore declared. The like doth S. BERNARD affirm of certain Heretics of his time, called 
* Hom. 62 Cantica.  Apostolici.  
So that most truly it may be concluded, that even as we Catholics have learned of the Apostles and ancient Fathers, our noble progenitors, to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we have received by word of mouth, aswell as that which is written: Even so the Protestants have received as it were from hand to hand, of their ignoble predecessors, old condemned Heretics, to reject all Traditions, and to fly unto the only Scriptures.    

FIRST, OF VOWS.  M. PERK. pag. 151. Is very intricate and tedious in delivering his opinion concerning Vows: I will in as good order as I can, briefly correct his errors herein. 

OUR CONSENTS.  
IN This passage (which he entitleth of our consents) he rangeth many things, wherein we differ much; as first, in the definition of a Vow, which he defineth thus: A Vow is a promise made to God, touching some duty to be performed to him. This definition cometh too short of a Vow, and agreeth unto all other covenants made between God & man, and so ADAM'S acceptance not to eat of the forbidden fruit should be a Vow: and noah's building of the Ark: and briefly, every acceptance and promise to fulfil any of God's commandments; and consequently, every breach of them must needs be two several sins; the one of disobedience in such a precept, the other of infidelity, by breaking our Vow. All which absurdities, necessarily follow of M. P. his definition, and be things unheard of either in holy Scriptures, or among the ancient Holy Fathers, proceeding only out of the dross of their own devices: and therefore, with as great facility to be denied of us, as they do with audacity avouch them. To make up then the definition, we must add, that the promise to God be of some better good proceeding from our own free choice and liberty: so that no Vow is made without a man's free choice to bind himself, over and besides all other necessary bonds: which to be of, the nature of a Vow we gather first out of holy Scriptures. 
* Deut. 23  If thou make a Vow be not slow to perform it: but if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin.  
What can be more clear, then that a man may choose whether he will Vow or no? 
* 1. Cor. 7  which is confirmed in S. PAUL: He that decreeth in his heart, not having necessity, but having power over his own will, etc. So that this liberty to promise, or not to promise, is of the substance of a Vow, and that if he list not to Vow, he doth not sin: which were very false, if the acceptance of necessary duties were Vows. For he that refuseth to accept them, doth sin: as if a man should refuse to perform any of God's commandements. Hence it followeth most manifestly, that the promise which we make to God in Baptism, of keeping Gods commandments, is no Vow, if a Vow be taken properly: because it lieth not in us to refuse it, without we will withal, refuse the grace of Baptism, and remain in the state of damnation. And M. P. affirming it to be a Vow; and often repeating it, doth not once confirm it with any shadow of proof, but takes that for granted, which he knows we do deny flatly.  
The second point of our supposed consent is, that Vows were some part of God's worship in MOSES Law, but are not so in the Gospel, which we also deny, M. P. proves his assertion thus. Vows belonged to the ceremonies of MOSES Law, but all those Ceremonies are abolished, by Christ's Passion.   

ANSWER.  
That Vows in themselves were no part of the Ceremonies of MOSES Law, but true parts of the worship of God in all estates; aswell in the state of Nature and the Gospel, as in MOSES Law: but this point M. P. handleth again in the first point of our difference, where it shall be discussed. Thirdly he saith, that special Vows may be made in the New law, to perform some bodily exercise for some good end, as to fast, to task ourselves to prayer, or study of holy Scripture, and such like: but many rules must then be observed: that we Vow an honest thing agreeable to God's word: this we allow. Secondly, that it be so made, that it may stand with Christian liberty: that is, that it make not such things necessary in conscience, which Christian religion leaves at liberty: This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a Vow, & contrary to himself. For he saith a little before; that a Christian may Vow Fasting, Prayer, almsdeeds. I then demand, having Vowed these things; is he not bound to perform them? Yes, or else he breaks his Vow, with which God is highly displeased. 
* Deut. 23  An unfaithful promise displeaseth God. Then is it manifest, 
* Eccles. 50  that all Vows do abridge us of our liberty, and make that unlawful for us, which before our Vow was lawful: which is so evident of itself, that I marvel where the man's wit and memory was, when he wrote the contrary.  
His other rules, that a Vow be made with good deliberation, & with consent of our Superiors; and not only of things possible, but also of the better sort, we allow, for they are taken out of our Doctors: See S. Thom. 
* Quest. 88    

Now to the points indifference.  
FIrst, the Church of Rome (saith M. P.) teacheth, that in the New Testament, we are as much bound to make Vows, as was the Church of the jews, we say no; Considering that the Ceremonial Law is now abolished, and we have only two Ceremonies by commandment to be observed for parts of God's worship: Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.   

ANSWER.  
What, is not your Holie-day service (which you call divine service) any part of God's worship in your own opinions? Can a public assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thanksgiving? with external ceremony of time, place, apparel, kneeling, standing and sitting, be no part of God's worship? In your irreligious Congregations, assembled together against CHRIST and his Catholic Church, be it so. But admitting as you do, your service to be good; it could not truly be denied to be long unto the worship of God. But to the matter of difference, you grow very careless in your reports of our doctrine: for we hold that neither in the Old nor New law, any man is bound to Vow, but that it is and ever was a council, and no commandment, nevertheless, a thing of great devotion and perfection in both states, intrinsically belonging and much furthering the true worship of almighty God, which we prove in this sort. In a Vow are two things; the one is the good which is Vowed, called the natural part: as for example, Fasting, etc. The other, the promise itself made to God, which is the form; the material parts do belong unto their several virtues: but this promise and performance of it be substantial parts of God's worship. For by promising of any good thing unto God, we acknowledge & profess that God is the sovereign goodness itself, and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations: therefore, to honour and worship him, we make that good promise again, In performing that good service of God, we testify, that he is most majestical, reverend, and dreadful. And consequently, that all promises made to him, are to be accomplished most diligently, and without delay, wherein we honour and worship him, as contrariwise they do much dishonour him who break with him, as if he were of no better account then to be so deluded. This thing in itself is so certain and clear, that he who denies it, must needs either be ignorant in the nature of a Vow, or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth: for according unto the holy Scriptures itself, all good deeds done to the glory of God, be acts of the true worship of God. And S. ANNE 
* Luk. 1  did worship God, by fasting and prayer: And 
* Phil. 4.  alms bestowed on God's prisoners, is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God: And it is said, 
* jac. 5.  to be a pure religion before God, to visit Orphans and widows: If then all other virtuous duties done to the glory of God, be parts of his true worship; much more Vows, which by special promise dedicate a good deed to God's honour: they then being of their own nature, special parts of his true worship of God: it followeth necessary, that at all times they were and may be used to the true worship of God: that they were in practice before MOSES Law is evident, by that Vow which JACOB made 
* Gen. 28. , of setting up a stone, which should be called the house of God, and of paying the tenths of all his goods. Out of which Vow, we also gather, that God holdeth for agreeable, any kind of good service offered unto him out of our own devotion: albeit he hath not commanded it, for no such thing as JACOB there Vowed was commanded him, but he being well assured that it would be well taken by God, which was offered of good will, to his greater honour, he Vowed it, and is in holy Scripture commended for it.  
Again, that when S. PAUL 
* Colos. 2.  seemeth to disallow voluntary worship, he must be understood to speak either of irronious, or of frivolous and foolish things, promised to God, which do not properly serve to the setting forth of his honour.  
Now that Vows should be frequented in the state of the Gospel, besides the evidence of S. PAUL'S Vow 
* Act. 18. , and diverse other such like the Prophet ESAY did foretell, in these words: 
* Esa. 19.18  They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts, and they shall Vow Vows unto our Lord and perform them. To which M. P. answereth, first, that by such ceremonial worship as then was in use, the Prophet doth express the spiritual worship of the New Testament. This exposition is voluntary and nothing proper: For what is more wild and absurd, than (to declare that Christians shall make no Vows) to say that they shall make Vows, as though one contrary were sit or would serve to express the other. This exposition being very unmeet, M. P. adjoineth a second, that in the New Testament, we have Vows of Moral and evangelical duties, but such are not any part of God's worship: so that first you shall have no Vows at all: secondly, the wind being changed, you shall have them, but as no parts of God's worship, as though Moral and evangelical duties undertaken and performed to God's greater glory be not the very sinews and substance of his service and worship.  
Again saith M. P. they allege for evangelical Vows: 
* Psal. 75  Vow unto God and pay it: M. P. his answer is, that this binds the jews, he would have you understand not the Christians. We say; that it is no commandment to either of them, but an exhortation, aswell to the one as to the other. First, because good Vows do tend to the greater glory of God in all states: (as hath been proved before) secondly, for that the Prophet in the next verse, yielding the reason why we must pay our Vows, sayeth, That he unto whom we have Vowed is terrible unto the Kings of the earth; And therefore most likely that such Vows he spoke of there, may be made of any sort of men inhabiting the earth.  
Thirdly, because the ancient Fathers take it to extend unto us Christians, as well as unto the jews; let one Saint AUGUSTINE serve in his commentary upon this Psalm 75. Because we have handled those things (sayeth he) peradventure thou who wast willing before, but now wilt not Vow: but mark what the Psalm said unto thee: It sayeth not, Do not Vow, but Vow and pay it: wilt thou not Vow? Therefore wouldst have Vowed, but not have fulfilled it, nay rather do both: Let the one be of thine own promise, the other shall be performed by the help of God: He than took these words to belong unto his Auditors who were no jews.  
In the same place, he doth highly commend Christians for Vowing, some Chastity, some Hospitality, some Poverty: But because contraries being set together, each do more lively appear in his kind: Let us with this Exposition, compare M. Perk. his commentary upon this place: who sayeth, that the Prophet speaketh of Vows, of Prayer and thanksgiving: For so (saith M. Perk.) doth he expound himself, 
* Psal. 56.12.  My Vows are upon me, I will offer praises unto GOD: Well aimed I warrant you; The Psalm fifty six, written first, is the Exposition of the Psalm seventy five, which was conceited and uttered after: Again, in the Psalm seventy five, DAVID speaketh to others: in the other he speaketh of himself: Thirdly, the Prophet's words in Psalm fifty six, confirm rather that which he taught before, that all considerate Vows are praises and parts of God's worship, or as the words do more literally sound, because his Vows, that is, his prayers and desires were by God accomplished, therefore he would praise and thank him.  
Let us now come unto the second point, wherein we descent: They (saith M. P.) hold Vows made of things not commanded, as of Fasting, Prayer, etc. to be parts of God's worship; and that they tend unto a state of perfection. We say flatly no; holding that lawful Vows be stays and props of God's worship, but not the worship itself: this is long since confuted. But here M. P. setteth up a rotten prop or two, to up-hold his ruinous building, saying, S. PAUL saith plainly, 
* 1. Tim. 4  Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness profiteth much. Where are you good Sir? We treat here of Vows, which are formally actions of the mind: what do you now about bodily exercises? Vows are principal parts of that godliness, which is so profitable. And if by bodily exercise, Fasting, and other corporal pain or labour be understood, than we say, that such things of themselves would profit little; but our being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh, to the end we may less offend, & better serve God, than they may much profit us. But let us here M. P. his second reason against such Vows. God's kingdom standeth not in outward things, and therefore his worship standeth not in outward things.   

ANSWER.  
God's kingdom in itself standeth not in outward things, and as it is in us also, it doth consist chiefly in inward worship, by faith, hope, charity, and religion, in whose kingdom Vows hold a honourable rank: but a great part of this worship among us, depends of outward things; for be not the two only parts of God's worship among Protestants (as M. P. sayeth in this question) Baptism and our Lord's Supper, both which partly consist in outwardly, both speaking and doing. And is not faith (which is the root of all Christian Religion) gotten by outward preaching and hearing? But it would weary a willing man to trail after all M. P. his impertinent errors: Let us then at length come unto the principal point in controversy. Catholics (saith he) maintain such Vows to be made as are not agreeable to the rules aforenamed. The first is, that of Continency, whereby a man promiseth to God to keep chastity in a single life, that is, out of the state of Wedlock. This kind of Vow, is flat against the word of God, as he sayeth, which he proveth first out of S. PAUL, If they can not contain, then let them Marry: True, if they have not Vowed Chastity before, 
* 1. Cor. 7.  as the common Christians of Corinth, (to whom S. PAUL there speaketh) had not. For such, if they can not live otherwise chastely, it is better they marry then be burned, that is, defiled with incontinency. But to them who had Vowed chastity before, S. PAUL, writeth in an other stile, That if they but desire to marry, they incur damnation, 
* 1. Tim. 5  because they have made frustrate and broken their former saith and promise made unto God of their chastity: So that this first text is a Furlong wide at the least from the mark.  
The second is much like: 
* 1. Tim. 4.  It is a doctrine of devils, to forbid to marry: truth, if one should hold marriage in itself to be wicked, & therefore condemn it in all sorts of persons, as Mountanus, & the Manichees did. But we have a more reverend opinion of marriage, than the Protestants themselves. For we with the Apostle 
* Ephes. 5.  hold it to be a great Sacrament: they, that it is a moral contract only. Notwithstanding, we maintain, that such persons, who being of ripe years, have advisedly Vowed chastity, may not marry; not because marriage is not honourable, but for that they have solemnly promised to God the contrary: which we also hold to be better, than if he had married. And so to use S. AUGUSTINE'S words, He forbiddeth to marry, who sayeth it to be evil, but not he who before this good thing, preferreth a better. And a little after, you see (saith he) that there is great difference between persuasion to Virginity, by preferring the greater good before the lesser, and forbidding to marry, by accusing lying together for issue. The first is, the doctrine of the Apostles, which we teach, the latter only of devils 
Lib 3. count Faust. Manich. cap. 6. .  
M. P. His third and last text is, 
* Heb. 13.4  Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled. The strength of this place lieth a double corruption of the text: For this verb (is) is not in the text, nor cannot be the course of the Apostles speech, requiring a verb of the Imperative Mood, as both the sentences before and after do convince.  
Again, if you will have the Apostle say, that Marriage is honourable among all men; we must also needs take him to say, that the bed is also undefiled among all, which was not true. Also, that their conversation was without covetousness, etc. For there is no reason why this word (is) should be joined with the one more than with the other. And nothing but passion doth cause them to make the middle sentence an affirmative, when they turn both the other into exhortations.  
The second corruption is in these words (among all) when they should translate (in all) and the adjective: being put without a substantive, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  must in true construction have this word (things) joined with it, and not (men,) wherefore the text being sincerely put into English, it would carry no colour of their error: For the Apostles saying is: Let Marriage be honourable in all things, and the bed undefiled: Here is no willing of any man to marry, but only a commandment to them that be married to live honestly in marriage, to keep (as he else where sayeth) their vessels in sanctification, and not in dishonour, and then shall their marriage be honourable in all things, that is, in all points appertaining to Matrimony: So that now you see that M. P. is not able to bring any one place out of Scripture to disprove the Vow of chastity; the Scripture being so barren for him, he shall belike recompense it with the abundant testimony of antiquity, in favour of his cause: but oh unhappy chance, he hath clean forgotten in this question the record of the ancient Church: What was there not one Father? who with some one broken fragment of a sentence or other, would relieve you in this your combat against the Vow of Chastity? I will help you to one, but I fear me, you will scarce thank me for my pains: It is such a one, as is neither holy nor father, but the ancient Christian Epicure JOVINIAN, who as S. AUGUSTINE hath recorded: 
* Heres. 82 ad Quod vult.  and S. JEROM 
* Lib. 1. cont. iovi.  did hold that Virginity of professed persons, men and women was no better than the continency of the married. So that many professed Virgins believing him did marry, yet himself did not marry, as Friar Luther did; not because he thought chastity should be rewarded in the life to come, with a greater crown of glory; but because it was fit for the present necessity, to avoid the troubles of marriage; see just the very opinion of M. P. and our Protestants. But this heresy saith S. AUGUSTINE in the same place, was quickly suppressed and extinguished; it was not able to deceive any one of the Priests: And in an other place 
* Lib. 2. re●roct 22.  thus he speaketh of JOVINIAN: Holy Church most faithfully and valiantly resisted this monster: So that no marvel, if that M. P. could find small relief in antiquity for this his assertion, which the best of them esteemed no better than a monstrous sacrilegious heresy. But M. P. hath an argument that shall nevertheless demonstrate the Vow of perpetual chastity to be intolerable. For (saith he) this Vow is not in the power of him that Voweth: for, continency is the gift of God, who giveth it not unto all, but unto whom he will, when he will, and as long as he will: And if we object that by prayer and fasting, the gift of continency may be obtained of God: he answereth that it cannot, because it is not necessary to salvation: We reply, that it is necessary for all them that have Vowed chastity: And be it so, that God giveth it not unto all, yet doth he certainly give it to some, for otherwise they cannot keep their Vows, but to the dishonour of God, and to their own damnation should break them.  
And we only teach, that some such who have Vowed chastity, could keep it, so that the argument is very childish and too too weak to lead any wise man away from the holy and ancient Doctrine of the Church. But to the further confirmation of this point, let us hear what the holy Fathers teach touching the possibility of this Vow.  
TERTULLIAN near the end, expounding these words 
* Lib. de monog. : He that can take, let him take. 
* Mat: 19  Choose (sayeth he) that which is good if thou say thou canst not, it is because thou wilt not, for that thou mightest if thou wouldst, he doth declare who hath left both to thy choice.  
ORIGEN upon the same place, 
* Mat: 19  He that will take this word that is set down of chastity, let him pray for it, believing him that said, ask and it shall be given you, and he shall receive it; which doth plainly confute Maist. Perk. Who sayeth, that although we ask never so much, we can not obtain this gift: with ORIGEN agreeth Saint JEROM upon the same place, who sayeth, It is given unto them who have requested it? who have desired it, and travailed that they might receive it?  
The same Song chanteth GREGORY NAZIANZ. which is of three kinds of Eunuches. 
* Orat. 3 1.   
Saint chrysostom sayeth, it is possible to all them who make choice of it: and further addeth, that our Saviour CHRIST himself doth prove it there after this sort: Think with thyself if thou hadst been by nature an Eunuch, or by the malice of men made one, what wouldst thou then have done, when thou shouldest both have been deprived of that pleasure, and yet not have had any recompense for thy pain. Therefore thank GOD, because thou shalt have a great reward, and a glittering Crown, if thou live so as they must do without any reward: yet (sayeth he) thou mayest do it more easily, safely, and pleasantly, both, because thou art fortified with hope of recompense, and also comforted with a virtuous conscience.  
We will wrap up this point with Saint AUGUSTINE, who directly confuteth M. Perk. by many reasons and examples: Lib. 2. De adulterinis coniug. cap. 12. Et de bono viduit. cap. 20.  
And upon the Psalm, an hundredth thirty seven, he yieldeth an other reason, why God will more really assist them, saying: He that exhorteth thee to Vow, will help thee to fulfil it. All which heavenly Doctrine, because it is spiritually judged, (as the Apostle speaketh) the Carnal man cannot understand: And therefore M. P. being persuaded that few can live chastened except they marry, avoucheth that this Vow, doth bring forth innumerable abominations in the World: Not the hundredth part, so many as the fleshly Heretics imagine, and out of flying and lying tales report and bruit abroad: Nay, I dare affirm, that let the authentical Records of our Realm be well perused, and you shall find more lewd filthy Lechery, to have been practised by Ministers and their Wives this last age, than was in a thousand year before, by all the Catholic Priests and Religious persons of the Land.  
This may serve for a reproof of all that M. P. objecteth against the Vow of chastity: afterward, the man would somewhat reason the matter by showing how he condemneth not chastity: yet sayeth, that Marriage is better than it, in two respects, If JOVINIAN was reputed by the learnedst an holiest Fathers (a Christian Epicure and a Monster) because he durst make marriage equal with Virginity: What shall this man be who sayeth it is better? His reasons are so childish, that by the like you may prove, dirt to be better than gold: wherefore I will not stand upon them.  
He nevertheless afterward concludeth, that one may purpose constantly with himself to lead a single life, but so as he may change upon occasion, and this to be a council of expedience, but not of perfection.  
Lastly, that if any having the gift of continency, do Vow, and afterward Marry (the gift remaining) they have sinned, which is flat against his own second rule, which prohibits us to lose our liberty, and to make any thing unlawful in conscience, which Christian religion leaveth at liberty.  
Now liberty supposeth M. P. his default, who was accustomed to rehearse, although many times untowardly, yet lightly always some reasons for the Catholic party; which in this question he hath wholly omitted. I will briefly prove by an argument or two, that it is both lawful & very commendable for men and women of ripe years; and consideration having well tried their own aptness, to Vow virginity; if by good inspirations, they be thereunto inwardly called. My first reason is this, that which is more pleasant and grateful unto God, may very well be Vowed to him. but Virginity is more acceptable to God than Marriage. The first proposition is manifest, and hath no other exception against it, but that which before is confuted, to wit, if we be able to perform it. The second is denied by them, which we prove in express terms out of S. PAUL 
* 1. Cor. 7.  He that joineth his Virgin doth well, but he that joineth her not, doth better: and again of Widows: 
* Esa. 56.  They shall be more happy by S. PAUL'S judgement, if they remain unmarried: This may be confirmed out of ESAY, Where God promiseth the Eunuch that holdeth greatly of the thing that pleaseth him, that he will give him in his household, and within his walls a better heritage and name, than if they had been called sons and daughters. I will (saith God) give them an everlasting name. And also, out of the book of Wisdom, 
* Cap. 3.  Blessed is the Eunuch which hath wrought no unrighteosnesse. etc. For unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and the most acceptable portion in our Lord's Temple, for glorious is the fruit of God: Which is also plainly taught in the Revelations, 
* Revelat. 14.  Where it is said, that no man could sing that song but 14400, and the cause is set down, These be they which have not been defiled with women, for they are Virgins. To these latter places, M. P. answereth pag. 241. that to the Eunuch is promised a greater reward; but, not because of his chastity, but because he keepeth the Lords Saboth and covenant. But this is said unadvisedly; for to all others that keep Gods commandments, shall be given a heavenly reward: but why shall they have a better heritage, and more acceptable portion than others, but because of their special prerogative of chastity.  
M. P. then answereth otherwise here; that the single life is better and more happy, because it is freer from common cares of this life, and yieldeth us more bodily ease and liberty to serve God. But 1200. years ago S. AUGUSTINE of set purpose confuted this error in sundry places of his learned works, specially in his Treatise, De virginity, in these chapters, 13. 23. 24. 25. Where he accounteth him no Christian that doth contradict, CHRIST promising the kingdom of heaven to Eunuches. 
* Mat 19  And in the 25. Chapter more vehemently exclaiming: O impious blindness, why dost thou cavil and seek shifts? why dost thou promise temporal commodity only to the chaste and continent: when God saith 
* Esai 16. , I will give them an everlasting name: And if thou wouldst perhaps take this everlasting, for a thing of long continuance: I add, inculcate, and often repeal, that it shall never have end. What wouldst thou more? This eternal name, whatsoever it be, signifieth a certain peculiar and excellent glory, which shall not be common to many, albeit they be placed in the same kingdom, etc. Which in the 29. Chapter he confirmeth out of that place of the apocalypse, cited above in these words: The rest of the faithful shall see you, and not envy your estate, but joy in it, and so be partaker of that in you which they have not in themselves: For the new song which is proper unto you they cannot sing, but shall hear it, and be delighted with your so excellent a blessedness: but you, because you shall both sing and hear it, shall more happily rejoice and reign more pleasantly. Which may be also confirmed out of the Apostles in the same place: where he assureth that the single life is better for the service of God, saying; that a woman unmarried and a Virgin, think of the things which belong unto our Lord; how she may please God, and be holy both in body and spirit. And our blessed Saviour teacheth, 
* Mat. 19  That some become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: which, to be taken there properly for the reward in heaven. Saint AUGUSTINE, (with the rest of the Fathers) teacheth: 
* De virginit. cap. 23.  What could be spoken more truly or more perspicuously? CHRIST saith, The truth sayeth the Wisdom of God affirmeth them to geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, who do of a godly determination refrain from marriage: And contrarily, human vanity doth contend by impious temerity that they who do so, do it to avoid the necessary troubles of Matrimony, and that in the kingdom of heaven, they shall have no more than other men. Secondly, all the Protestants doctrine for marriage, and against Vows, is notably confuted by S. PAUL, 
* Tim. 5  where he sayeth: That there were then certain Widows, who when they waxed wanton against CHRIST, would marry, having damnation (sayeth he) because they made void and cast away their first faith: which was as Saint AUGUSTINE 
* De sanct. virg. ca 23.  and the rest of the Fathers expound it, they had Vowed continency, but would not perform it.  
Now these young Widows (if the Protestants doctrine were true) not having the gift of continency, did very well to marry, and were in no sort bound to keep their Vows, which was not in their power: But the Apostle doth not acquit them of their Vow, but teacheth that they were bound to keep it; in that he pronounceth damnation to them if they marry.  
thirdly, the example of our heavenly Saviour, who would never marry: and of the blessed Virgin S. MARY, who 
* Aug cap. 44. de virg. Bed. 1. Luc  Vowed perpetual virginity. And of the glorious Apostles, as who S. JEROM witnesseth, 
* Cle. Alex lib. 3. stom Lib. 1. count jovin. In apol. 2. ad Aut. Tertul. ap. 2. cap. 9  were in part Virgins; and all after their following of Christ, abstained from the company of their Wives. And of the best Christians in the purest antiquity, who as JUSTINIUS, one of the ancientest Greek authors among Christians: And TERTULLIAN his peer among the Latins, do testify, * did live perpetual Virgins.  
Out of these examples, we frame this Argument.  
Our Captains and ringleaders, who knew well which was the best way; and whose examples we are to follow as near as we can, Vowing Virginity: we must needs esteem that state for more perfect, specially, when as the single man careth only how to please God, that to be holy in body and mind (as the Apostle writes) when as the married are choked with cares of this world. And unless a man had made a league with hell, or were as blind as a Beetle, how can he ever persuade himself, that to wallow in fleshly pleasure and satisfying of the beastly appetites, is as grateful to God, as to conquer and subdue them by Fasting and Prayer.  
Finally, if S. PAUL give counsel to the married, to contain during the time of Prayer 
1. Cor. 7  Priests and religious (that must always be in a readiness to minister the Sacraments, and to think upon such things as belong unto our Lord) are therefore upon a great consideration bound to perpetual chastity.  
We will close up this point with some sentences taken out of the ancient Fathers, in praise of Virginity, which M. P. in all this question vouchsafeth scarce once to name, as though Virgins and Virginity were no English words, or not as plain as continency.  
S. CYPRIAN, De habitu Virginum: entitleth Virgins to be the most noble and glorious parson of Christ's flock: and addeth, that they shall receive of God the highest reward and greatest recompense.  
S. chrysostom 
* Lib. 3. cont. vitup. vit. necess.  citeth, Virginity to be the top of perfection, and the highest tip of virtue.  
And ATHANASIUS, De virginitate; in the end bursteth out into these words: O virginity, a treasure that wasteth not, a garland that withereth not; the Temple of God, the Palace of the Holy Ghost, a precious stone, whose price is unknown to the vulgar, the joy of the Prophets, the glory of the Apostles, the life of Angels, the Crown of Saints.  
S. AMBROSE Lib. 1. de Virginibus paulo post init. Virginity is a principal virtue, and not therefore commendable that it is found in martyrs, but because it maketh martyrs: Who can with humane wit comprehend it which nature doth not hold within her Laws, it hath fetched out of Heaven that it might imitate on Earth: neither unfitly hath it sought a manner of life in heaven, which hath found a spouse for her in heaven.  
This surmounting the clouds, the stars and Angels hath found the word of God in the bosom of his Father; etc. See who list to read more to this purpose the rest of the Fathers in their works of Virginity; of which most of them have written. And S. JEROM, who is behind none of the rest in his books against jovinian and helvidius, all which do most diligently exhort to Vow Virginity; do teach how to keep it, and most vehemently inveigh against all them that do break it. And if any be so mad as to credit rather our fleshly ministers, than all that honourable and holy senate of the ancient Fathers, he deserveth to live and die in perpetual darkness.  
In this matter I have stayed somewhat longer, because our carnal teachers, with the lewd example of their dissolute Disciples, have corrupted our age with fleshly and beastly liberty: In the other points, I will recompense it with brevity.  
Concerning the Vow of poverty and monastical life, in which, as M. Perk. acknowledgeth, men bestow all they have upon the poor, and give themselves to Prayer and Fasting: yet he is not ashamed to avouch that this Vow is against the will of GOD, and assureth to prove it: Acts cap. 20. vers. 35. It is a more blessed thing to give, than to receive.   

ANSWER.  
As the very proposition (that it is displeasing to God to cut off all cares of the world, and to betake ourselves wholly to his holy service and contemplation of heavenly matters) is in itself profane and ungodly, so the proof thereof is devoyde of natural wit and sense. Mark the Argument: It is against God's will to give away all, because it is more blessed to give, than to receive: Why, if it be a more blessed thing to give; than they please God better that give. So that this his proof, improves flatly his own assertion: But the dreamer means perhaps, that if you give all at once, you shall not be able to give afterward, but rather stand in need to receive.   

REPLY.  
But no such humane prudence can be drawn out of that sentence, which encourageth rather to give for the present, then to provide for hereafter.  
The true meaning of the place, is to exhort Christians to labour and travail, at vacant times to get their own living, and to provide something also to bestow upon them who stand in need rather than to be idle, and to stand in need of alms, as S. PAUL himself did: which they did best perform, who had sold all they had and distributed it to the poor, as the example of PAUL himself, and the first Christians doth sufficiently declare, who sold all, and laid the price at the Apostles feet. 
* Act. 4.   
The next place is, 
* Pro. 2.  Give me neither riches nor poverty.   

ANSWER.  
The Prayer is good, and fitteth the persons of honest men, who live in the world, and was of some perfection too, in the state of Moses Law, in which it was made, as dissuading from covetousness of great riches, but it cometh too short of the perfection of the Gospel, wherein we are counseled to esteem as doing all worldly riches.  
M. P. His third reason is taken out of Deut. 28.22. where poverty is numbered among the curses of the Law, none of which are to be Vowed.   

ANSWER.  
It is one thing to be punished with poverty, for transgressing of God's Law, and an other (I trow) for the love of God to give away all we have to the poor: The former was a curse in the Law of MOSES, the latter is a blessing, and the first blessing in the Gospel: 
* Luc. 6.  Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven: Which sentence, albeit it may be applied verie-well unto humility, yet more literally signifieth voluntary poverty, as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest: 
* Verse 24  Woe be to you rich men, etc.  
Thus M. P. his texts of Scripture against poverty failing him, he fetcheth about an other way, saying, that it is a rule of the Holy Ghost: He that will not labour (namely, in some special and warrantable calling) must not eat 
* Thes. 2 .   

ANSWER.  
I allow both the text and the gloss, and find nothing there against Religious persons, whose calling is special perfect, and therefore best warrantable; not so (sayeth he) because they give themselves to prayer and fasting: What a profane stupidity is this? Is not a life given to prayer and fasting agreeable to the will of God, and Laws of his Church? albeit many religious men do over and besides very great services to God's Church, in Preaching, teaching, and writing of most learned books. But suppose they did nothing else but fast and pray, did they not very well deserve their sustenance? yes much better than they which travail all the year about the providing of it: For in vain do men labour, if God bless not their work, with seasonable weather, which he doth rather at the Prayer and instance of such good innocent souls, that are to be fed with it, than for the Ploughman's own labours sake. And if by their Fasting, Watching, and such like afflictions of their bodies, they do partly satisfy for our superfluous pampering of the flesh, and teacheth us by their good example to bridle and correct it: do they not deserve at our hands bodily sustenance? And who better performs all duties of the second Table than they, being most obedient to all their Superiors, and not hurting their neighbour in life, persons, or any manner of their goods? And so in their several callings offend no honest men, and do much good both unto the Church and common wealth.  
After all this waste-winde, M. P. confesseth, that a man may upon a special calling, sell all his goods, as the Apostles did. What then (good Sir) shall become of your former arguments? May one then Vow a curse of the Law, and leave of prayer, neither poverty nor riches, and say that it is not a blesseder thing to give, then to receive.  
All these arguments which were whilom of great force, must now be nothing worth: because it pleaseth M. P. the wind now sits in an other corner, such weathercockes surely are to be much respected.  
He sayeth further; in time of persecution, a man may also leave all: he should rather have said, he must leave all, or else lose all; for the persecutor will not spare him. lastly, he doth not condemn old ancient Monks, who lived by the sweat of their brows, and were married, many of them, as he sayeth, but his authors cited, sayeth not so, neither shall he be able to cite one ancient allowed and approved writer, who sayeth that the ancient Monks lived with their wives, if perhaps they had been married before. But no marvel if fleshly ministers think it no life without their fleshly mates. As for labouring at vacant times, it was always, and is to this day in practice among many religions. If other do in good studies, writing or teaching, employ that time of labour, no doubt but they do far better.  
In defence of the Catholic party, M. P. hath not a word, wherefore I will briefly supply his want and prove it to be very grateful to God to sell all, and give it to the poor.  
I omit the example of our B. Saviour, (who would not have any poor cottage of his own, so much as to rest his head in, but would wholly live of alms) and come unto his heavenly doctrine. 
* Mat 19  He teacheth a young man whom he loved, in flat words, That if he would be perfect, he should go and sell all he had, and give it to the poor, and come and follow him, and then should have a treasure in heaven. These words are so express and evident, that there can be but one way to shift from them, which M. P. flieth unto Pag. 244. to wit, that these words were only meant unto that young man, and not to be applied unto any others, no more than those words to ABRAHAM of sacrificing his son ISAAC. But this silly shift of our poor Protestants is confuted, manifestly in the same chapter of saint MATTHEW, where a little after S. PETER sayeth. Lord, behold we have left all things, and have followed thee, what reward shall we therefore have: We have done (as S. HIEROM expoundeth it, and the very sequel of the text doth plainly require) that which thou commandest in the words before, to that young man, What answer made our Saviour? That his commandment was only meant unto that young man, and that they had done foolishly in so doing, nothing less, but promiseth that they shall therefore sit with him in twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And that who-so-ever would forsake Father, Mother, Landes, goods, etc. for his sake, should receive an hundredth fold, and possess life everlasting. Can any thing be more plain out of the word of God itself, than that, not this or that man, but whosoever shall forsake all for Christ, doth very blessedly. And if need were, I could cite most of the ancient Fathers, teaching those words of Christ, Go and sell all, to be an heavenly counsel given generally unto all. S. ANTONY took them spoken to him, In vita eius apud Athanas. S. AUGUSTINE to him. ad Hilarium 
* Epist. 89. : to omit latter Religious men, I will only cite S. HIEROM who doth briefly both declare our Catholic doctrine, and shows also who was the Author of the Protestants opinion, 
* Lib. count vigilant.  saying thus: To that which thou affirmest, that they do better, who use their goods, and do by little and little distribute to the poor, the profits of their possessions, then others who selling them, give all at once, not I, but our Lord shall answer: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast and give it to the poor. CHRIST speaketh to him that will be perfect (not to the young man only) who with the Apostles, forsook both father ship and nets: That which thou VIGILANTIUS commendest, obtaineth the second and third degree: so that the first (which is to sell all at once) be preferred before the second and third: Which is, to give by little and little, the fruit of our revenues to the poor.  
I might confirm this former argument, with the example of the foresaid best Christians, 
* Act 4.  who having possessions and lands, sold all and brought the price of them, and laid it at the Apostles feet: and more yet enforce it by the fact of ANANIAS and SAPHIRA, his wife, who having sold all theirs, presented but part of the money unto the Apostles, and reserved the rest unto themselves. Belike they were of M. P. his mind, that it is better to give then to receive, and therefore kept part to that purpose; but they therefore were both punished with present death: Which proveth invincibly, both how laudable it is to sell all, and how dangerous to halt in such holy works.  
But to avoid prolixity, I do but point at the places: And that ANANIAS; as the rest had promised this to God (which is a Vow) it appeareth in the text, where it is said, that he lied not unto men, but unto God, in not performing his promise.  
And here we deduce very clearly, that such a Vow is much pleasing unto God thus: That which is commended by our saviours own both example and doctrine, and was practised by the Apostles and most holy Christians, that may be Vowed very laudably: but to sell all and give it to the poor is such.  
Now one word of obedience before we end this question. This Vow sayeth M. P. is against Christian liberty, whereby we have granted us a free use of all things indifferent, and therefore to be bound to certain meats and apparel is intolerable: but this reason hath been reproved already: 
* Gal. 5.10  he addeth, stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath made you free: Doth your breath or heart fail you Sir, that you stop thus in the midst of a sentence, the rest belike discovereth the fraud of it: And wrap not yourselves again in the yoke of bondage, to wit, bind not your selves to the observation of MOSES Law, as ye shall do if ye be Circumcised. All this is good; but doth it follow hereof, that in the Law of grace, we should not obey our superiors, nor observe such good orders as Holy Church hath approved nothing less: but happy is that necessity as S. AUGUSTINE witnesseth, which holdeth us close to those things which be better to do, than to leave undone, otherwise our weakness would quickly shrink back. And again, if Christ's sufferings, without his obedience (as M. P. himself testifieth, Pag. 61.) had not been available for our justification: No doubt, but those works which are garnished with the virtue of obedience, are more acceptable in God's sight.  
Finally M. P. sayeth, that we magnify these three Vows of Chastity, poverty, and obedience: And good reason have we so to do, as hath been showed: but sayeth he, for the Vow of Baptism, we hath made no such account of it, as they do; which is not so: We hold indeed that the covenant which we make in Baptism, is no Vow, but a full and assured promise to believe in God, to renounce the devil and all his works, and to keep all God's commandments, which we keep or do our best endeavour to keep; at least we teach not as the Protestants do, that they are impossible to be kept, for that is enough to discourage any man from endeavouring to keep them. And as touching the Vow which he saith we made in our Creation, we remember nothing of it, nor never heard speak of it by any good author, not that we make, or mean we any Vows when we receive the B. Sacrament. These be but novelties of words, and the ravening of some decayed wits.    

FIRST, OF IMAGES. M. PERK. pag. 170.  

OUR CONSENTS.  
WE Acknowledge the civil use of Images, as freely and truly as the Church of Rome doth. By civil use, I understand that which is made of them in the common society of men, out of the appointed places of the solemn worship of GOD: And this to be lawful appeareth, because the arts of painting and graving are the Ordinances of GOD, and to be skilful in them is the gift of GOD, as the example of BEZALEEL and AHOLIAB declare. 
* Exod. 35.  This use of Images may be in sundry things. First in adoring and setting forth of buildings; so the Lord commanded his Temple to be adorned with Images of palm-trees and Pomegranates; of Bulls, Cherubs, and such like. Secondly, they serve for distinction of coins. Thirdly, Images serve to keep in memory friends departed whom we reverence, and therefore in the days after the Apostles, Christians used privately to keep the Pictures of their friends departed; which afterward (sayeth he) by abuse came to be set in Churches and worshipped, of which hereafter.  
Second conclusion: We hold the Historical use of Images to be good and lawful: that is, to represent to the eye the acts of Histories, whether they be humane or divine; and thus we think that the histories of the Bible may be painted in private places.  
Third conclusion: In one case it is lawful to make an Image, to testify the presence or effects of the majesty of God; namely, when God himself commands it: so was the brazen Serpent made to represent Christ crucified 
* joh. 3.  and the Cherubs over the Mercy seat, to represent the Majesty of God, when the Angels adore: And therefore it is said: Thou shalt not make to thyself (that is upon thine own head) any graven Image: This by the way is a very wilful perverting of those words (to thyself) which cannot signify, but, to thine own use, that is, to adore them, as is plainly declared in the text following.  
The fourth conclusion: The right Images of the New Testament are the doctrine and Preaching of the Gospel, wherein Christ and his benefits are lively represented unto us: but these be metaphorical Pictures, not belonging to this purpose: for it is one thing to describe in words, an other to express in lively colours, and liveaments  
These conclusions contain, as M, P. affirmeth, the doctrine of the Church of England; which I would believe, if I did not see the Magistrates publicly to take away Pictures from Catholics, to tear and burn them, which were kept but in private places: yea, their more fervent disciples, cannot abide a Cross standing by the High-waie-side, or in any, never so profane a place, but either they beat and hale them down, or most despitefully deface them: bewraying indeed unto all moderate men, their cankered stomaches against him that died on the Cross: who will one day (when he pleaseth) confound them. But to cover this their malice, they cast over it the mantle of zeal, saying that the Papists make them their Gods, and that therefore they are to be abolished.  
O men blinded with spite against true devotion. We Catholics are a thousand times more zealous of the true honour of the living God, than any Protestants ever were or will be: And that small reverence which we yield unto Images, is more different from the honour and obedience due unto Almighty God, than the cope of heaven is distant from the centre of the earth.  
And that these hotter brethren may see what reason M. P. had to allow of the civil and historical use of Images: I think it expedient to note here, how in the purest antiquity, Images were made and respected.  
That famous Image of our blessed Saviour, which the woman cured of the bloody flxe, 
* Mat. 9  set up in Brass at Caesarea Philippi, upon a Pillar of stone, is not unknown unto any that have read the Ecclesiastical History of EUSEBIUS, Lib. 7. cap. 14. And how God did approve it by giving virtue unto an herb when it did grow, to touch the hem of that Picture, to cure all manner of diseases. Which Image, EUSEBIUS himself did see standing until his days, which was 1300. years ago, as he there testfyeth: as also, that he saw divers others, namely, of Saint PETER and PAUL.  
This goodly stature being most memorable both for antiquity of it, being made our Saviour yet living, and for the miracles wrought by that herb, growing at the foot of it, JULIAN the Apostata for malice against our Saviour, caused to be broken down, and set up his own Image in the place of it: but his was presently with lightning and thunder from heaven consumed into ashes, and our Soviours, by the Christians carried into their Church, as witnesseth ZOZOMENIUS. 
* Lib. 5. hist. c. 20.   
another Picture of our saviours visage, he himself is reported to have sent unto ABGARUS Prince of Edessa, as witnesseth METAPHASTES In vita Constantini, DAMASEN 
* Lib. 10. de imagis. , and EVAGRIUS, 
* Lib. 4. hist cap. 28.  who doth in the same chapter rehearse a notable miracle, wrought by the same Image, to deliver the Town from the sacking of the Persians. And in his fift book and eighteenth chapter, recordeth an other miracle done by the image of the blessed Virgin MARY in a Prison at Antioch.  
The third Image representing our blessed Saviour, is said to have been made by NICODEMUS his secret Disciple, which afterward was taken by the jews, and in despite of Christ, was crucified, and to their confusion, much blood issued out of it.  
This history is in the work of S. ATHANASIUS that sound pillar of the Church, entitled, De passione imaginis, and is either his, or some other very ancient and grave writer: For it is related in the seventh general counsel. act. 4.  
That Saint LUKE the evangel drew the Picture of our blessed Lady, is registered by Theodorus Lector 100 years ago, 
* Lib. 1. collectam.  and Metaphrastes, In vita Lucae, and Nicephorus 
* Li. 14. hist. 1. 2 .  
TERTULLIAN, an author of the second hundredth year after Christ, hath left written, 
* Lib. 2. de pudicitia.  that the Image of Christ in shape of a shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders, was engraven upon the holy Chalices used in the Church. In the time of S. chrysostom, they were so common, that they were carried in rings, drawn on cups, painted in Chambers. See THEODORET. In histor. relig. in vita Simeonis Stelitae. Aug. lib. 2. de cons. evang. c. 10. And the 7. Synod Act. 4.  
This briefly of Images in general: now a word or two of the sign of the Cross, which our Protestants have banished from all their followers: Nevertheless, it can not be denied to have been in most frequent use among the best Chiistians of the Primitive Church.  
TERTULLIAN hath these words, 
* De corono militis.  At every going forward and return, when we dress us and pull on our shoes, when we wash and sit down at the lighting of Candles, and entering into our Chambers, finally, when we set ourselves to any thing, we make the sign of the Cross one our foreheads.  
S. AMBROSE 
* Serm. 84  exhorts us to begin all our works with the sign of the Cross.  
S. AUGUSTINE. 
* 118. in joan.  What is that ensign of Christ, which all men know, but the Cross of CHRIST, the which sign, unless it be made on the foreheads of the faithful, yea, on the water by which they are regenerate, and on the Oil and Chrism, wherewith they are anointed, and on the sacrifice wherewith they are nourished, not one of them are orderly and duly administered. Our Protestant's then that have neither holy Oil, nor sacrifice to make the Cross upon, are in pitiful taking.  
But hear also what some of the best Greek Doctors do say of this same sign of the Cross.  
S. CIRILL 
* Catech. 4.  agreeth fully with TERTULLIAN, saying: Make this sign of the Cross both eating and drinking, both sitting and and standing, and walking and speaking, in sum, at all times.  
S. BASIL 
* De Spu. sand. cap. 27  accounteth this making the sign of the Cross among some of the principal Traditions of the Apostles.  
ORIGEN 
Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Ex.  yieldeth one reason why we make this sign, affirming that fear and trembling doth fall upon the evil spirits, when they see the sign of the Cross made with faith.  
S. GREGORY NAZ. 
Orat. 1. in julian.  reporteth, that the wicked Apostata julian, being frighted with spirits, made the sign of the Cross, which he had renounced, and yet it delivered him from them.  
S. chrysostom most largely discourseth of the glorious use of the Cross Orat quod Christus sit Deus. See the place, among an hundred other commendations of it, he hath these words: That the heads of Kings are not so decked with their Diadems, as with the sign of the Cross, and concludeth, that all men strive to pass other in taking to them this admirable Cross, and that no man was ashamed of it, but esteemed themselves more beautified with that, than with many jewels, borders and chains, garnished with Pearl and precious stones.  
Heu quantum mutamur ab ipsis: Alas, what a pitiful change is this, that that which was of the best Christians reputed dear and holy, should now be accounted a point of superstition and plain witchcraft.  
By all which we learn, that the best Christians both used always and highly esteemed of holy Images, even from our saviours own days, and God himself hath by divine testimony of miracles recommended them unto us, not only for the civil and historical uses of them, but more to honour them whose pictures they were: for no man in his right wits can deny but that it is and hath always been reputed, as a great honour done to the deceased, to erect him an Image, to eternize the memory of his noble acts: as also that it is a great encouragement to all beholders of such Pourtraits, to endeavour to imitate their glorious examples: The very sight of the Image of POLEMON, a most chaste and holy parsonage, moved an unchaste woman to change her life, as out of S. GREGORY NAZ. is related. 
* Synod. 7 act. 4.   
Having so great testimony for the ancient use of Images, and such manifold commodities, by the discreet and holy practise of them, he must needs be furiously transported with blind zeal, that makes war against Crosses, and burns holy pictures; as of late the superintendant of Hereford did in the market place openly.   

THE DIFFERENCE.  
NOw to the points in controversy, which are three, as M. P. delivereth: The first is, in that the Church of Rome holds it lawful to make Images to resemble God; though not in respect of his divine nature, yet in respect of some properties & actions: We contrarily saith M. P. hold t unlawful to make Images any way to represent the true God. For the second commandment saith plainly, 
* Exod. 20.  Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing in heaven, etc. The Papists say that the commandment is meant of the Images of false Gods; but it must needs be understood by the Image of the true jehovah, and it forbids to resemble God, either in his nature, or in his properties and works; for so sayeth the Roman Catechism upon the second Commandment.   

ANSWER.  
This passeth all kind of impudency to quote the Roman Catechism in defence of that opinion, which it doth of set purpose disprove. It teacheth indeed, that the very nature and substance of God, which is, wholly spiritual, cannot be expressed and figured by corporal lineaments and colours, and allegeth the places produced by M. P. to prove that unlawful; yet by and by annexeth these words: Let no man therefore think it to be against religion, and the Law of God, when any person of the most holy Trinity is purtraited in such sort as they have appeared, either in the Old or New Testament, etc. But let the Pastor teach, that not the nature of God, but certain properties and actions appertaining to God, are represented in such Pictures. If the man be not past grace, he will surely blush at such a foul error. His texts of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechism, and do prove only, that God's proper nature cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporal shape or likeness.  
Then M. P. returns to confute the answer made him; that Idols are there only prohibited, and sayeth that we then confound the first and second commandment. For in the first was forbidden, all false Gods which man frames unto himself, by giving his heart and the principal affections thereof unto them. (Good) and in the second, (admitting it to be the second) is forbidden to draw into any material likeness, that Idol which the heart had before framed unto itself, and to give it any bodily worship: which is distinction good enough to make two several commandments. Now the Roman Catechism, following CLEMENT of Alexandria: Lib. 6. stromat. And S. AUGUSTINE Quest. 71. super exod, and ep. 119. cap. 11. and the schooledoctors in 3. sent. distinct. 37. doth make two commandments of the Protestants last distinguishing, desiring thy neighbour's wife, from coveting thy neighbour's goods, as they do: Thou shalt not commit adultery, from, thou shalt not steal; and make but one of the first two, because the former doth forbid inward, and the second outward Idolatry: and the outward and inward actions: about the said object are not so distinct, as the desiring of so diverse things, as a man's wife for lechery, and his goods of covetousness: And yet besides, add an other reason very probable, that the reward and punishment belonging alike to all the Commandments, cannot in good order be thrust into the middle of them, but must be placed either with the first or last, now comprehending the two former in one, the reward is annexed conveniently to the first; whereas, if you make them two, it is out of order, and without any good reason put after the second. This I say, not to condemn the other division, which many of the ancient writers follow: but to show how little reason M. P. had to trust to that answer of his, that we should confound the first and second, which he saw the very Catechism cited by himself, do make but one of both. But M. P. goeth on and sayeth, that our distinction between Image and Idol (that an Image representeth a thing that is, but Idol, a thing supposed to be, but is not) is false and against the ancient writers, who make it all one: We prove the contrary, First, by the authority of the ancient Doctors, ORIGEN 
* Hom. 8. in exod. Q. 38 in ex  and THEODORET, * who in express words deliver the same difference of Image and Idol: which is taken out of S. PAUL, 
* 1 Cor. 8.  saying that an Idol is nothing in the world: that is, such Idols as the Heathen take for their Gods, are nothing formally, that is, though they be great pieces of wood or stone materially; yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a God, which is nothing less. Let M. P. but quote one place in the whole Bible, where they are used both for one.  
I will cite somewhere, if you use the one for the other, you must offend all good Christian ears; As where man is said to be made after the Image of God, may you say after the Idol of God? CHRIST is said to be the Image of his Father; will you call him the Idol of his Father? Surely he cannot deny, but the seventh general Counsel holden about nine hundredth years past and gone, is so far off from making Image and Idol all one, that it doth accurse all them, who call the Image of CHRIST and his Saints, Idols.  
But TERTULLIAN 
* De Idololat.  (sayeth M. P.) affirmeth them to be all one; not so neither: For he maketh Idolum a divinity of eibos, which signifieth a form or similitude: So that Idolon, is but a small similitude or slender Image, not so much for the quantity, as for that it representeth but darkly.  
EUSTATHIUS an excellent Greek interpreter, upon the elleventh book of HOMER'S ODISSEA, describeth Idolum to signify a vain and vanishing Image, as the shadow of a man, a ghost, or fantastical Imagination. And so it cannot be, that all profane Authors use these two words indifferently, seeing both in proper signification, and by the declaration of the learned, there is great difference between them.  
But Saint STEPHEN calls the golden calf an Idol, so it was indeed: What is that to the purpose?  
And S. HIEROM sayeth, That Idols are the Images of deadmen (add) that are taken for Gods: True, many Idols be Images: all such as truly represent any person that was once living here, but no Images be Idols, unless it be taken for a GOD: And so Idols requires besides the Image, that it be made a God, or the Image of a false God.  
Now to those few authorities which M. Perk. citeth in his favour: To them of the counsel of ELIBERIS and EPIPHANIUS, which seem to speak against setting up of Images in Churches: I will answer in their place, to that out of LACTANTIUS Lib. 2. instit cap. 19 Where Images are for Religion sake, there is no Religion, the force lieth in false translation of Images for Idols: Put, where Idols are for Religion, there is no Religion: But what, suppose he spoke against worshipping of Images in gemeral, it were not proper to this purpose, where we speak only of making Images, and not of all sorts of Images neither, but of an Image only to represent some properties or actions of God.  
That out of ORIGNE 
* Cont. cell. lib. 7.  is yet far wider; We suffer not any to worship JESUS at Altars, Images or Temples, because it is written: Thou shalt have none other Gods. Here is nothing concerning the making of God's Image; only Christians are forbidden to go unto the heathen Temples, and there at their Altars or Idols to worship JESUS, who hath no affinity nor can endure any fellowship with Idolaters.  
Having confuted the Protestants arguments against the making Images, to represent some property or action of God; I now come unto Catholic proof of them. The first reason set down by M. P. I reserve to the next point: the second is; God appeared in the form of a man to ABRAHAM 
* Genes. 18  and to DANIEL, Who saw the ancient of days sitting on a throne. 
* Dan: 9  Now as God hath appeared, so may he be purtraited and drawn: M. P. his answer is, not so, unless it be expressly commanded by God.   

REPLY.  
This first is flat against his own second conclusion, where he holdeth it lawful to present to the eye in Pictures, any histories of the Bible in private places, both the foresaid apparitions be in the Old testament, and therefore may be painted in private places, which cannot be truly done without you do represent God in the same likeness, as there he appeared. And what reason leadeth in words to represent those actions of GOD, the same serveth to express them in lively colours: Not so sayeth M. P. because when God appeared in the form of man, it was a sign of God's presence, for that time only, and for no longer: be it so, it might notwithstanding be recorded in writing, that the memory of such majesty joined with loving kindness might endure longer. And if it pleased God, that this short presence of his should be written to be perpetually remembered, even so the same might be engraven in brass, to recommend it to us 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.   

Such worthy acts as by the ears are to the mind conveyed,  
Do move us less than that which is by faithful eye descried.   
This argument may be confirmed by the pictures of Angels, of Virtues, and other such like of spiritual or accidental nature: for if such things as have no bodily proportion or shape, may notwithstanding be counterfeit and resembled in some qualities, why may not some property or action of God be in like manner represented? That thou mayest (Reader) understand the better what we mean, observe that pictures represent after three sorts. Some express to the quick, the very shape, proportion and colour of the pattern; as the lively picture of man, or of any such corporal thing: others represent things as they did appear and were acted, as if the Painter should express the meeting of God with ABRAHAM and his entertainment, he must then resemble God in the same likeness of a man in which he showed himself to ABRAHAM.  
Thirdly, an Image of a spiritual thing, may be drawn not to resemble the nature of it, but to lead our understanding by such a similitude, into some better knowledge of that thing: so are Angels painted like goodly young men with wings; to teach us that they be of an excellent pure nature, ever flourishing and most ready to dispatch with all expedition any employment to which God sends them; and so may God the Father be pourtraited, as a goodly old grave man, sitting in his throne of majesty, attended upon by millions of Angels, (as he is described in Daniel 9) to instruct us how he is eternal, infinite, wise, and of most redoubtable majesty: In either of these two latter sorts, we hold that God may be represented, and so in the seventh general Council, the drawing of the Holy Ghost, in form of a Dove, as he appeared, Mat. 3. is approved.  
The first point then being obtained, that such Images of God may be made; I come to the second: That all holy Pictures may be placed in Churches; which I prove by the argument that M. P. made for our first objection. In salomon's Temple were erected Cherubins, which were Images of Angels, on the Mercy seat, where God was worshipped, and upon the walls and very doors of the same pictured. To this M. P. answereth, that they were erected by special commandment from God, who prescribeth the very form of them, and the place where they should be set, and thereby MOSES had a warrant to make them, let them show the like warrant for their Images, if they can.  
Secondly, (saith he) the Cherubs were placed in the most inward place of the Temple, & so were removed from the sight of the people, and the Cherubs without the vail, though they were seen, yet were they not. worshipped.   

REPLY.  
This man's wits were gone a woolgathering, when proposing to himself the Cherubs erected in salomon's Temple: he answereth of the Cherubs made by MOSES 350. years before; a most gross oversight and a shameful shift: but such as men desperately defending untruths, must needs use: For if he had answered directly, he had not had a word to say; for neither did God prescribe the form of them, nor give any special commandment to SALOMON, to make and erect any such Cherubs, as he that pleaseth to read the Chapter may see, & there they were placed not only in the inward, but also in the outward parts of the Temple, upon the walls and very doors, that they might be seen of all the people: which M. P. finding, flitted from thence, and did fly unto an other, which because it spoke of Cherubs, he thought would serve to blind his simple followers.  
MOSES indeed had an express precept for the making of them, as he had for the Curtains and Curteine-rods, and every particular belonging to the Tabernacle. But SALOMON without any special commandment out of his high and holy wisdom, understood that he might most lawfully and lawdably imitate that heavenly pattern of MOSES: And as the building was far more sumptuous and stately: so in the number and quantity of pictures exceeded, which is a sufficient instruction & warrant for all men after his days to make and set Images in the Church. And this finally M. P. seems to grant, when he sayeth, that these Cherubs without the veil, were there to be seen, but not to be worshipped: so that we have gotten one step further; that Images may not only be made, but also be set up in the Churches: which is fortified by the testimony of TERTULLIAN, in the place cited before: where he sayeth, that our Saviour was pictured upon holy Chalices, which were used at the Altars: and of SOZOMENUS, who witnesseth that our saviours Picture was taken into the Church.  
S. GREGORY NAZ. 
* Epist. 49.  maketh mention of Images in the Church of Diocesaraea, trimmed up by himself.  
Saint BASIL, 
* Orat. in Barlaam.  pointeth to that holy man's Picture, standing in the Church.  
DAMASUS 
* In vita Siluest.  shows how CONSTANTINE in the Church of S. JOHN LATERAN, erected a silver Image unto our Saviour.  
S. chrysostom In demonst. quod Christ. sit Deus: And S. AUG. 
* Serm. 19 de sanc.  do teach, that the Cross was on the holy Tables, and used at all holy functions. And the reason why Images should principally be set in Churches, is very pregnant. For where should holy pictures of holy men be more properly bestowed, than in holy places: And the Church being a resemblance of heaven (as S. PAUL teacheth, 
* Heb. 9 ) is most conveniently decked up with Images: the representations of heavenly creatures: that men entering into that holy place, may by the view and consideration of such a heavenly show, retire their minds from worldly business, and lift them up unto the sovereign monarch of both heaven and earth.  
Now let us come to those two objections of M. P. which seems to be against the erection of Images in Churches. The first is out of the Council of ELIBERIS cap. 36. which commandeth, that nothing should be painted on the walls of the Church, that was adored of the people.   

ANSWER.  
That if the Council speak of the Image of God (in which sense. M. P. citeth it, and the word (adored) doth insinuate) than it may be said, that the Council inhibiteth that sort of God's Images, which are made to express the divine nature: If it be extended unto all sorts of Images: I answer, that they were then forbidden to be drawn upon the Church walls, but not to be set in Tables upon the Altar, or in any other place. The reason is, because that Council was holden in time of persecution, as appeareth by the twenty five Canon of it: and then, if the persecutors had found out the place of their assembly, as they often did: those pictures must needs either have been defaced by themselves, or left unto the derision and despite of the Heathens; And pictures also painted upon such poor walls as they had then to their Churches, would either by the moisture of the walls, or other incommodity, have been quickly disfigured: wherefore, to the greater honour of such sacred things, those grave Father's thought it not meet to have them drawn upon the Church walls, there being many more meet places for them in the Churches.  
The second objection is out of a postscript of EPIPHANIUS letter, unto JOHN PATRIARCH of jerusalem, in which is written, as M. P. falsely reporteth: that it is against the authority of Scripture, to see the Pictures of Christ, or of any Saint to hang in the Church.   

ANSWER.  
It is there only, to see the picture of a man. Now that he should mean of Christ or of some Saint is only gathered, yet M. P. makes no bones to thrust them both into the Text: even so do we think that some old enemy of Images added that postscript unto EPIPHANIUS letter. Our reasons are, because it hath no coherence with the former letter or stile. Again, in the seventh Council, when all that could be found out of antiquity, was cited against Images: no tidings there of this place, which if it had been true, might have been one of the principal. Thirdly, in the same Council, 
* Act. 6.  other two places brought, as it were out of EPIPHANIUS works, were found to be none of his: And for Images was alleged, that EPIPHANIUS own disciples, erected an Image to their master, and set it in the Church; which they would never have done, if he had taught them to be against the Scripture so to do.  
M. P. observes a special reason in EPIPHANIUS other counterfeit testimony: That Images must not be suffered in the common house, because we must carry God in our minds. To which we answer, that Images must be suffered in all places, that we may the better carry God in our hearts, being by the sight of them, both often put in mind of him, and much moved to honour and love him.  
Now I come unto a third point, which M. P. maketh the second of our difference: That Images may be not only made and set in Churches, but also worshipped.  
M. P. holds the contrary: and his principal ground is the second commandment; which contains, saith he, two parts. The first, forbids the making of Images to resemble God; the second, the worshipping of them or God in them, in these words: Thou shalt not bow down to them.   

ANSWER.  
If it be only forbidden to make the Image of God, and to adore it: then the making and worshipping of the Image of Christ, or of any other creature, is not there prohibited: And so this second commandment more than thrice alleged, will not serve the turn against any other Image but God only. And in plain reason, according also to M. P. his own confession, the Commandments of the first Table, touch only our duty towards God, that we give him all his due honour, and do not give any part thereof unto any thing else whatsoever: Wherefore divine and godly worship is only there spoken of, and not such worship as we give unto any creature, or to the picture of it: And consequently, there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy Images.  
Observe that there is a sovereign worship due to God, as to the Creator and governor of all the world, and to give this to any creature, is Idolatry. another honour by infinite degrees inferior, yet absolute in itself, is ascribed unto Angels, and men as creatures endued with reason, and made after the likeness of God; and to exhibit this to whom it is due, is civility and not Idolatry. This honour may be divided into two parts, because these creatures are like to God, aswell in their natural powers and qualities, as in their supernatural: And that honour which is given to man or angel (in respect of any natural quality, may be called moral or civil; But that which is attributed unto them, in regard of their supernatural gifts may well be called religious and spiritual, because it is due unto them only for their spiritual and religious qualities.  
There is a third kind of worship, yet meaner than the other; which is a kind of dependent and respective worship; as when a servant is honoured or cheerished, not for his own, but for his masters sake. And this is that worship which we allow unto Images, which, for the Saints sake whom it doth represent, we do either reverently regard, or take off our hat, or bow our knee unto it. This third kind of worship, being all we allow unto Pictures, were he not that understands it, more than half frantic, that should think it a great desparagement unto the incomprehensible worship of God, that to one of his servants pictures, I should yield some such petty reverence; or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten Commandments? nothing less.  
But let us go on with M. P. his argument: His second is; the brazen Serpent was an Image of Christ crucified, appointed by God: yet when the children of Israel burned incense unto it, EZECHIAS broke it in pieces 
* 4. Reg. 18 .   

ANSWER.  
So when Christians generally give godly honour to Images, as those Israelites did to the Serpent, let them also be broken by their lawful superior, if no better remedy may be found: But as that very brazen Serpent duly worshipped many hundredth years by the same people before they sell to Idolatry (as witnesseth S. AUGUSTINE 
* Lib. 3. de trinit. c. 10. , where he reckoneth the brazen Serpents, among those signs which are worthy of religious worship) so good Christians, may worship all sorts of holy Pictures, so they think no God to dwell in them, nor put any trust in the Pictures, but use them only to stir up devotion, to keep their minds from wandering after their domestical affairs, and to conserve the memory of God's happy servants.  
Now to the third argument, which is jolly and worthy the wilde-witte of a madde-minister. CHRIST would not so much as bow his knee unto the devil, although he would have given him the whole world for doing of it. Therefore we must not odour Images, true, if the Image were M. Bezas' ensign, or of their master the devil, or of any of his hellhounds.  
M. P. His fourth reason: A man (sayeth he) may be worshipped with civil honour; not with religions, which is wholly prescribed in the first Table, and yet the meanest man is a more excellent Image of God, than any painted one.   

ANSWER.  
A man may be worshipped with religious honour, in respect of his supernatural gifts, aswell as with civil honour of his natural properties, as hath been before declared: and no other religious honour is either precribed or proscribed in the first Table, than such only as is proper to God.  
But (saith he) THOMAS of Watering 
* 3 Part. qu. 25. act. 3  holds, that the Crucifix is to be adored with the same honour that Christ is. Leaving THOMAS of Watering and of Wapping to them that deserve it: I answer to the place of Saint THOMAS of Aquine, that he speaketh (like a most learned Philosopher and divine) very profoundly; that the Image may be considered in itself, and so he saith, it is not to be worshipped at all: or as it doth convey our mind unto that which it doth represent: and so because there is but one & the same motion of our understanding & will towards Christ and the crucifix: we do adore them both at once with the same act of adoration, but in a far different degree: for Christ we adore properly as the true God, but the crucifix accidentally as a thing joined with Christ. Even as (saith he expounding himself) art. 4. when one doth his homage unto the king, he worshippeth with all his purple garment, not that any worship is due to the rob, but the whole is given unto the person, which cannot be seated from that which is so closely joined to the person: Even so the divine person of Christ is properly adored, but improperly all things conceived together with it; are said also by that deep doctor to be adored, he that hath ear of hearing, let him hear: for our purpose it sufficeth to know, that he assigns very small worship to themselves.  
Lastly M P. sayeth, without quoting any place that Augustine & Gregory in plain terms deny Images to be odored, and so do we too, taking adoring as they do for the worship that is proper to God.  
Having now answered to all that M. P. objecteth against the worshipping of Images: let us now examine the reasons, which he maketh in defence of it.  
The first by him proposed is this Psalm 98. Cast down yourselves before his footstool, which was the Ark: now if the Ark were to be worshipped, because it represented God's footstool, much more may the Image be worshipped. M. P. answereth, that the words must be englished thus, Bow at or before the ark, not to the ark, but to God before the Ark.   

REPLY.  
If it were so, yet must they admit that we must kneel, at or before Images, so we kneel to honour or pray to God: against which, some of their Preachers do cry like madmen: but the Hebrew phrase carrieth, that we must kneel to the ark, as they who be skilful in the language do know, & that the ark was worshipped of the Israelites is otherwise very evident: for first none, but the high Priest might come into the place where it was: and it was carried before the camp with great solemnity 
* 1. Reg: 4 Cap. 6.  to search out a reasting-place for the whole host. And when they were to fight against the Philistines, * they had great confidence in the presence of the ark: and cap. 6. 50000. of the Bethsamites were slain for seeing the ark; & 
* 2. Reg. 2  Oza was by God smitten to death for touching the ark. Doth not all this coruince in what reverence the ark was had, even by Gods own testimony?  
To this may be added the authority of S. JEROM, 
* Ep 17. Cap. 3.  who doth teach that it was the more worshipped for the Cherubins and pictures of angels that were erected at the ends of it: whereby he declareth that he thought Images worthy of religious worship.  
To this we may join that of S. PAUL, 
* Heb. 11.  that JACOB by faith adored the top of his son joseph's rod: so doth the Greek text of S. PVAL say, as ERASMUS also translateth it: The Protestants mangle the text pitifully, to avoid the place: see the Annot. of Rheims Testament.  
The second reason is taken out of Exodus 3. where God said to MOSES, Put off thy shoes for the place where thou standest is holy. Now if places he holly and to be reverenced by reason of the presence of Angels: why not, aswell the Image that representeth an angel or some Saints, which is equal to Angels: M. P. his answer rather confirmeth than solveth this argument: for he sayeth, that the Ceremony of putting off his shoes, was commanded to strike MOSES with a religious reverence; not of the place, but of the person there present, which was not God but an Angel, as the text there expresseth. 
* Exod. 3.  The place then being holy, required the reverend respect of putting off his shoes, and that reverence done to the place; stroke MOSES with a religious reverence of the Angel speaking in the person of God: even so holy pictures being first duly reverenced, do strike men with a religious regard of the Saint represented. To this, let us annex that days be truly called holy and worshipped, as the first and last days be truly called holy and worshipful, as the first and last days of the feast of Easter be. 
* Exod. 12.16.  And the vestments of Priests 
* Exod. 28.5.2. , because they are dedicated and employed to holy uses: even so Images which are made in honour of God and his Saints, and erected to move and teach us to embrace heavenly courses.  
The third reason proposed by M. P. in favour of the Catholics is: It is lawful to kneel down to a chair of estate, in the absence of the king: Therefore much more to the Images of God and his Saints in heaven glorified, being absent from us.  
To this he answereth, that it is but a civil worship to kneel to the chair of estate, and that very commendable to show our loyalty unto our Prince: But kneeling unto the Images of Saints, is religious, and therefore not alike.   

REPLY.  
He proposeth our argument to the halves, or else this answer had been prevented. For thus runneth our reason: As the chair of estate is to be worshipped with civil reverence, in respect of the temporal Prince, whom it representeth: even so the Images of holy personages that reign now in heaven, are to be worshipped with a holy and religious kind of courtesy: for as Temporal honour is due unto a Temporal Prince, so religious and spiritual honour, is due unto spiritual and most holy personages: And as a good subject testifieth his loyalty and good affection towards his Prince, by honouring his regal throne: So doth a good Christian give testimony of his dutiful, both estimation and devotion toward those heavenly creatures, by giving honour unto their Images. At leastwise, why do not the Protestants exhibit civil reverence aswell unto the representations of God's Saints, as to the shadows of the secular majesty? unless it be because they are fallen out with the Saints of God, and are become adorers of sinful men.  
M. P. makes a third point of difference, that we may not worship God in any such Image, in which he hath appeared unto men. In this we do not differ, unless he takes it otherwise then he delivereth it. Those Images we hold more reverend than any others, as representations nearer approaching unto the divinity, yet because they do not express the deity, God is not directly apprehended nor worshipped in them, but only by collection, as for example. The form of a grave old man, in DANIEL, doth not represent God's person, but we gather by that ancient form God's eternity, whereby we arise to a mere perfect conceit of God, whom we adore: now other Images of Christ & his Saints, do carry our minds directly upon their proper persons, whom in their Images we adore and worship unto their degrees. But we worship Images with far meaner reverence than any of the Saints, in regard only, that they do represent such personages, and do induce us more to love and honour them, and do stur up our dullness more often and ardently to honour God in the Saints, and the Saints in their degrees: as also to imitate their holy example as hath been said more than once, that all may understand how far off we are from giving God's honour unto either Saint or Image. But this point of difference is made to bring in a common argument of theirs, to wit, that the worshipping of the golden Calf is condemned as flat Idolatry: 
* Exod. 32  & yet the Israelits worshipped not the Calf but God: The Calf, to which we say, they did not worship the true God; the Calf, but the god of the Egyptians, which was taken by them to have the shape of a black Calf, with white spots. 
* Lib. 18. de civit. c. 5  See S. AUGST. 
* 1. De not dear.  And therefore making the golden calf to represent this false god, & attributing their deliverance, unto that supposed god, & not unto the God of Israel, committed idolatry, which the text proveth most manifest, these be thy gods that brought thee out of Egypt. M. P. answereth, 
Verse 4.  that the meaning is nothing else, but that the golden Calf was a sign of the presence of the true God: such glosses without any authority of the ancient fathers is ridiculous, being against the plain text: but sayeth he, we must not think them so mad, as to take a Calf made with their ear-rings to be their God, no: but we may well think them so ungrateful unto the true God their deliverer, that they did ascribe their deliverance not to him, but unto that God, which the Egyptians served, whose portraiture was that Calf.  
But now before we end this question, I must let you understand what worthy men they were that first began to wage battle against images: they were the jews in their Talmud. Ord. 2. tract. 1. dist. 2. See Synod. 7. act. 5. A barbarous Persian Xenias, as witnesseth NICIPHORUS Lib. 16. c. 27. Then Mahomet the great god of the Turks. Alcoran ca 15. & 17. with such like infidels sorcerers, and the scum of the earth.  
See Card. BELLARMINE de Imag. lib. 2. c. 6.  
I will with one or two testimonies of the ancientest Fathers, finish this controversy. LACTANT In car. de pass. Christ. Kneel down and adore the venerable wood of the Cross.  
HIEROM, in vita paula: She adored prostrate before the Cross, as if she had seen CHRIST hanging on it.  
BASIL against julian cited. ast. 2. Synod. 7. I honour the history of the Images, and do properly worship them.  
Finally, in the 7. general Council holden ●00 years past, they are condemned of heresy, that deny the use and worshipping of holy Images.   
FINIS.