Church Now then the testimony of the present Church is made of equall like authority with the holy Scriptures and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is For the testimonie of the present Church what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church therfore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are If this be not so let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion reuerence as those things that we are taught in Scripture then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument and they are such wise ones as that we may very well think them to be his own Secondly saith he they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings But what is this to M. Perkins his speech which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings but taketh them iointly and inferreth it as an absurdity that the writings of the fathers being taken all together should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures Thirdly saith he a tradition being related but by one auncient father yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation But what idle babling is this what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence as we doe those things that we are instructed by the Scripture He putteth a case of a tradition reported by one onely of the fathers He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures But he like a man in a wood that knoweth not which way he is to go telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours that can diue so deepe into matters and talke so profoundly that they themselues vnderstand not what they say To as little purpose is that which he addeth that if that tradition were not as it was termed some of the rest of the fathers would haue reproued it which when they did not they gaue it their interpretative consent to be Apostolicall tradition But let the consent be either interpretatiue or expresse what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers as we do to the holy Scriptures I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare who hauing nothing to say yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts where Saint Paule is brought in saying c Acts. 26.22 I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In which words it is plaine that the Apostle professed in the preaching of the Gospell * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to say nothing without the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets M Bishop answereth that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead c. For these things saith he euidently foretold in holy writ he needed not to alledge any other proofe Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine Forsooth when he was to perswade them to abandon Moses law he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles taught them to keepe them Yea but Paul preached a long while before those decrees of the Apostles were made as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter to the fifteenth Chapter where those decrees are made and all this while what other proofe did he vse but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God and his face to men that can apply himselfe to write in this sort He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees but of old traditions what proofe the Apostle had or what ground of doctrine from the old testament but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets The Apostle himselfe saith he had no other he taught nothing but according to the written bookes of the old testament according to that which elsewhere he saith that d Rom. 16.26 the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets For a summarie briefe thereof he nameth the suffering and resurrection of Christ c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets maketh him to dally and to speake a manifest vntruth in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophecied before Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles and taught them to keepe them Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose as hath bene said doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing e Acts. 15.23 They wrote letters by them after this manner c. But in the height of his wisedome he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech When he instructed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar he beginneth with tradition saying I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth when notwithstanding in his Epistle he sendeth it to them in writing Or what doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord not in writing but by word of mouth But what is that to the purpose when he deliuered
be content also to let it go leauing the messe of pap to them whose the reason is and let vs follow him to examine the authorities which he bringeth for proofe of their traditions The first is from the words of Christ a Iohn 16.12 at the point of his passion saying that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them Which words being of old a speciall refuge b Tertul. de veland virgin of Montanus the heretike an ancient Papist we cannot wonder to be vsed now by the Papists for the shrowding of that trash and the like as they haue borowed of him But of these words so much hath bin said c Sect. 7. before as that I need not here to stand vpon them any further His second authoritie is that in the Acts concerning our Sauiours appearing to his Disciples d Act. 1.3 by the space of fortie dayes and speaking of the things which appertaine to the kingdome of God Of these things saith M. Bishop little is written in any of the Euangelists And we desire to know what he hath learned of those things by tradition and if he will name to vs these or these things we desire to know how he can proue that those were the things whereof Christ spake if he cannot proue it we reiect his foolish presumption and can much better denie then he affirme What those things were by tradition we know nothing but by Scripture we do know The effect of all his speeches is set down by S. Luke in his last chapter There he maketh his Apostles e Luke 24.48 witnesses of those things which he spake What they witnessed appeareth in their sermons euery where in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles and writings all consonant and agreeable to that briefe summe there expressed by S. Luke Now then to argue as we haue done before we are sure as touching the things that are written that they are of those things wherof Christ spake but how doth M. Bishop proue that he spake any thing more then that that is written It is expressed by S. Luke that the things whereof Christ spake were things appertaining to the kingdome of God But S. Paul f Acts 28.23 testified the kingdome of God out of the law of Moses and out of the Prophets The things therefore which Christ spake as is also imported in the g Luk 24.27.44 46. last of S. Lukes Gospell were no other but according to the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets and therefore M. Bishops conceit of matters vnwritten must needs be an idle dreame Thirdly he alledgeth the Apostles words commending the Corinthians for that h 1. Cor. 11.2 they kept the traditions euen as he had deliuered the same vnto them Where we find the name of traditions which we denie not but traditions of doctrine that should remaine vnwritten we find not By traditions we vnderstand here out of the circumstance of the words following rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Apostle for order and decencie in the publicke assembly of their Church which kinde of traditions M. Perkins hath acknowledged in the beginning of this question If M. Bishop will alledge that this is but a shift and will needs enforce that it must be vnderstood of matters of doctrine we wil gratifie him so farre but still we require him to proue that those matters of doctrine were any other then were afterwards put in writing There was but litle of the new Testament written at the writing of this Epistle Those things which were afterwards written must needs be vnderstood in these traditions whereof the Apostle speaketh if we vnderstand them of doctrine because we know that by his preaching he had deliuered those things vnto them And if the Apostles words be necessarily to be vnderstood of those things that are written we desire to know how they can enforce any necessitie of vnderstanding any other things thereby One of these traditions he mentioneth afterwards i Ver. 23. the institution of the Lords Supper It is written by himselfe it is written by the Euangelists Here is then a tradition but no tradition vnwritten The sacrament of Baptisme was another of his traditions but that is written also Another tradition he himselfe expresseth to haue bene k 1. Cor. 15.3 the death and resurrection of Christ but that tradition is also plentifully contained in the Scriptures So elsewhere he signifieth it to haue bene his l 2. Thess 3.6 tradition that he which would not labour should not eate and that tradition he hath also m Ver 1 there set downe in writing Now sith these were of the number of his traditions and yet are written what should hinder but that the rest are written as well as these M. Bishop alledgeth the place and so leaueth it without head or taile there is the name of traditions and that is enough for him whereas if he should draw an argument from thence for their traditions he knoweth that his folly would too plainly appeare His next citation is out of S. Paul to Timothy n 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothy keepe the depositum saith he Where we see that one ape will be like another his masters of Rhemes would affect a foolish kind of singularitie in translating and he wil shew himselfe as wise as they Why could they not as well haue giuen vs English and said keepe that that is committed vnto thee to keepe seeing that is the signification of the word depositum Yet in the other place he is content to leaue them o 2. Tim. 2.14 Hold fast by the holy Ghost the good things cōmitted vnto thee to keep where they reade keep the good depositum But what is that that was thus committed to Timothy to keepe He telleth vs that it was the true doctrine of Christ the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacraments and the gouernment of the Church But what of all this We expected vnwritten traditions and in all these things we see no necessitie to vnderstand any thing but that that is contained in the Scriptures In the Scriptures we learne the true doctrine of Christ and whatsoeuer is contained in the true sence of Scripture is contained in the Scripture There we learne whatsoeuer necessarily belongeth to the administration of Sacraments and gouernment of the Church But our question is here of necessary doctrines which are neither contained in the word nor sence of holy Scripture and M. Bishop doth amisse in the citing of these places vnlesse he can make it good that such were committed to Timothy by S. Paul Albeit those particulars are neither set downe by Chrysostome nor Theophylact onely Theophylact generally expoundeth the words thus p Theop. in t Tim. cap. 6. Quaecunque scilicet tibi sunt per me demandata tanquam Domini praecepta seruata nec horū quicquam imminues p 2. Tim.
Bishops curtesie and gift but by the very light of the text we will wrest it from him whether he will or not Now this M. Perkins setteth downe indefinitely that the whore of Babylon is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertaine thereto he concludeth not ergo the Romane Church is the whore of Babylon but inferâ—eth that by other consequence afterwards and M. Bishop shall see God willing that there is sufficient to be said for proofe thereof But wheras he saith that of that assertion it followeth that Romulus and Remus were the purple harlot he is much deceiued therein because the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome cannot be strained to import all people that are the inhabitants of Rome Yet we must let him vnderstand that Romulus was the first founder of Babylon and in him was the beginning of the first of those seuen heads of the beast because he was the first king of Rome For Rome was Babylon euen from the first originall of it as before I noted out of Aâ—stin and as appeareth in that it is described to haue seuen heads and therefore must be Babylon not vnder one or two onely but vnder all those heads though we indeed most commonly speake thereof onely in respect of Antichrist which is the seuenth head So was she also from the beginning a purple harlot being founded in bloud and parricide as S. Austin obserueth by r August de ciu Dei lib. 15. cap 5 Romulus his slaughter of his brother Remus that he might be king alone established by Å¿ Tit Liu. Dec. 1. lib. 1. rauishment of virgins and maides allured thither vnder pretence of sports and playes increased by continualll slaughter and bloudshed to that huge greatnesse which it attained vnto though the name of purple harlot be more specially giuen in respect of shedding the bloud of the martyrs of Christ and of the filthines of Antichrist wherein he shold go beyond all other that had gone before him As for Constantine Theodosius and some other such like godly and Christian Emperours though they were heads of her that is the whore of Babylon yet it followeth not that they were the whore of Babylon or the purple harlot because it is not necessarie that simply all in that succession should be of the same affection For euen amidst the ranke and succcession of idolatrous heathen Emperours when M. Bishop denyeth not but that Rome was Babylon there was t Euseb hist lib. 6. cap. 33. Philip the Emperour a godly and Christian Prince so deuoted to religion as that he submitted himselfe to the censure of the Church Yea and Valerian the Emperour in the beginning of his raigne was so well affected to Christian religion as that his v Idem lib. 7. caâ— 9. Tota illius aula referta erat puÌ„s et ecclesia dei facta Court was full of godly and deuout persons and was become a Church of God Therefore though Constantine and Theodosius were godly princes yet Rome might still continue Babylon both by the remainder of those impieties that were before and by the seedes of that defection that was to come which soone began to be sowed and mightily to grow there Whatsoeuer may be alledged of Rome for that time it is easily to be vnderstood that some small interregnum as I may tearme it and intermission of beastly and Babylonish corruption and confusion could not take away the nature and name of that which it had bene so long before and was soone after to be againe And indeed a small time it was that Rome continued in the hands of those religious and godly Princes Necessarie it was in respect of those things that were afterward to be fulfilled that Christian religion should publikely be established and aduanced there which could not be but that the Emperours and Princes themselues must be professors of Christian faith But the chiefe seate of the Empire being by Constantine translated to Constantinople in the East Rome within a while fell into the possession of other Lords For about threescore and thirteene yeares after the death of Constantine in which time also for some part thereof it had bene holden by Constantius and Valentinian the second Arian heretikes by Iulian the Apostata and Maximus the tyrant it was wholy taken by the Gothes out of the Emperours hands and so continued as x Bellarm. de Antichristo cap. 5. Valens Arcadius Theodosius â—unior alij eorum successores vsque ad Iustinianum omnes Roma caruerunt Bellarmine also confesseth vnto the time of Iustinian the Emperour which was about the space of an hundred and foureteene yeeres yea and soone after it was distressed and taken againe and the Westerne Empire wholy ouerthrowen the prouidence of God by this confusion giuing way by little and little to the Bishop of Rome to take vpon him as afterwards he did to be the seuenth head of the Romane State Now then we hope M. Bishop can see that we haue no meaning to argue in that sort that they are of like affection in Religion who gouerne the same kingdome nay we are so far from arguing in that sort as that we rather confesse that they who both are properly heads of the whore of Babylon may yet bee diuerse in religion as were the heathen Emperours that were of old from the Popes that are now Yet vpon his loose imagination he censureth vs that with such fallacies wee take vpon vs to controule the learnedst in the world of which whosoeuer they are we are sure that he is none nor doe hold him a fit man to iudge who they are But M. Bishop let vs not contend who are the best learned You know what we are wont to say that the greatest Clerkes bee not alwayes the wisest men Solomon telleth you y Prou. 26.12 Seest thou a man wise in his owne conceipt there is more hope of a foole then of him Thinke humbly of your learning and it will haply serue you the better to learne the truth As for our learning thankes be to God it hath done you that sorow that ye haue no cause to bragge of yours only loosers must haue their words and he can do little that cannot talke But now he telleth vs that admitting the purple harlot to signifie the Romane state yet 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 Here is all that he hath to say and if this be nothing there is no remedie but Rome must be Babylon the Pope Antichrist and then what shall become of him Now we deny not but that Rome was the purple harlot vnder those heathen Emperours but we deny that in the falling of those Emperors she shold thencefoorth cease to be the purple harlot For the purple harlot described by S. Iohn was so to be vnder seuen
patience and patience experience and experience hope neuer to be ashamed whilest by this meanes the loue of God as touching the assurance thereof towards vs is more and more shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs. This haue I set downe the more largely good Christian Reader for thy sake that thou maiest vnderstand hereby what manner of certaintie and assurance it is that we defend that thou maiest know that it is the property of true faith to giue this assurance and that our assurance is the greater by how much our faith is greater and the weaknesse of our assurance the weaknesse of our faith that so thou maiest see what it is whereunto thou art to striue reioycing in that that thou hast attained vnto already and for that that is behind praying as the Apostles did f Luk. 67.5 Lord increase our faith not being discoÌ„forted at the feeling of thine imperfection because it is the coÌ„mon frailty of Gods children and faith that it may be strong must haue time and occasion to grow and haply seemeth weake to thee when it is strong to God but alwayes resoluing that those sparkles of true light which God hath kindled in thee shall neuer be quenched and thy little graine of faith euen g Mat. 17.20 Mar. 11.23 little as a graine of mustard-seed shall yet be strong enough to cast all mountaines into the sea that shall rise vp to diuide betwixt God and thee As for M. Bishop it is no maruell if being an enemy of faith he be vnacquainted with the secret of faith the ioy of the faithfull being h Cant. 4.12 Bernard Epist 10â— Eli fons signatus cui alienus non communicat sol iustitiae qui timentibus Deum tantùm oritur c. as a garden inclosed and a spring and fountaine shut and sealed vp to be priuate to themselues i Psal â—8 9 a gracious raine which God hath put apart for the refreshing of his owne inheritance What maruell is it if he know not that k Reuel 2 17. new name which no man knoweth but he that receiueth it because the l Iohn 14.17 world knoweth not nor receiueth that COMFORTER the spirit of truth by which it is written yet grudgeth at the sheepe of Christ that they should feede in pastures which they know not or should be sayd to know that which they cannot conceiue or vnderstand And this is the cause that he talketh so rudely and absurdly of the hope of saluation in all this discourse ouerthrowing the whole doctrine of the Gospell crossing the whole vse of faith and of the word of God and speaking no otherwise of this question then a Philosopher or Iew or Pharisee would do as hereafter we shall see In the meane time to go forward with his briefe notes he telleth vs in the fift conclusion of consent that onely in the sence there expressed the first conclusion is true that is that onely by extraordinarie reuelation a man may be certaine of his saluation which being the maine point of the controuersie I referre to the processe of this discourse At the sixt conclusion he noteth that the sixt and second are all one but the tautologie was in his head not in M. Perkins writing For the second conclusion serueth to note the efficient and materiall causes of saluation whereupon our affiance resteth which is the mercy of God in Christ but the sixt serueth to note the manner of our apprehending thereof To the third conclusion of dissent he noteth that it is false namely that our confidence in Christ commeth from certaine and ordinarie faith But we say that it is true and now he and I must ioyne vpon that issue 2. W. BISHOP Here M. Perkins contrary to his custome giueth the first place to our reasons which he calleth obiections and endeuoureth to supplant them and afterward planteth his owne About the order I will not contend seeing he acknowledgeth in the beginning that he obserueth none but set downe things as they came into his head Otherwise he would haue handled Iustification before Saluation But following his method let vs come to the matter The first Argument for the Catholike party is this 1. Obiect Where is no word of God there is no faith for these two are Relatiues But there is no word of God saying Cornelius beleeue thou Peter beleeue thou that thou shalt be saued therfore there is no such ordinarie faith for a man to beleeue his owne particular saluation M. Perkins answer Although there be no word of God to assure vs of our particular saluation yet is there another thing as good which counteruailes the word of God to wit the Minister of God applying the generall promises of saluation vnto this and that man Which when he doth the man must beleeue the Minister as he would beleeue Christ himselfe and so assure himselfe by faith of his Saluation Reply Good Sir seeing euery man is a lyar may both deceiue and be deceiued and the Minister telling may erre how doth either the Minister know that the man to whom he speaketh is of the number of the elect or the man be certaine that the Minister mistaketh not when he assureth him of his Saluation To affirme as you do that the Minister is to be beleeued aswell as if it were Christ himselfe is plaine blasphemie equalling a blind and lying creature vnto the wisedome and truth of God If you could shew out of Gods word that euery Minister hath such a commission from Christ then had you answered the argument directly which required but one warrant of Gods word but to say that the assurance of an ordinarie Ministers word counteruailes Gods word I cannot see what it wanteth of making a pelting Minister Gods mate On the other side to auerre that the Minister knowes who is predestinate as it must be granted he doth if you will not haue him to lie when he saith to Peter thou art one of the elect is to make him of Gods priuie Councell without any warrant for it in Gods word Yea S. Paul not obscurely signifying the contrarie in these words 2. Tim. 2.19 The sure foundation of God standeth hauing this seale our Lord knoweth who be his and none else except he reueale it vnto them M. Perkins then flieth from the assurance of the Minister and leaues him to speake at randon as the blind man casts his club and attributeth all this assurance vnto the partie himselfe who hearing in Gods word Seeke ye my face in his heart answereth Lord I wil seeke thy face And then hearing God say Thou art my people saith again The Lord is my God And then lo without al doubt he hath assurance of his Saluation Would ye not thinke that this were rather some seely old Womans dreame then a discourse of a learned Man How know you honest man that those words of God spoken by the Prophet 2000. yeares past to the
c Cap. 4. Sect. 4. What need any iustified man greatly feare the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge Hence are those most insolent speeches of theirs that good workes are d Rhem. Annot. 2. Tim. 4.8 truly and properly meritorious and fully worthy of euerlasting life that heauen is the due and iust stipend which God by his iustice oweth to the persons working by his grace that we haue a right to heauen and deserue it worthily that it is our owne right bargained for and wrought for and accordingly payed vnto vs as our hire e Ibid. Heb. 6.10 that good workes be so farre meritorious as that God should be vniust if he rendered not heauen for the same Thereupon Tapper sticketh not to say f Ruard Tapper in explic art Louan tom 2 art 9. Absit vt iusti vi tam aeternam expectent sicut pau per eleemosynam Multò namque gloriâ—sius est ipsoâ— quasi victores triumphatores eam possidere tanquam palmaÌ„ suit sudoribus debitam God forbid that the iust should expect eternall life as the poore man doth an almes for it is much more glorious that they should haue it as conquerers and triumphers as the prize due vnto their labours Thus you your selues haue written M. Bishop and do we slaunder you in reporting truly what you haue written No no your speeches are impudent and shamelesse in this behalfe and such as we wonder that your foreheads serue you to auouch Why doth it not suffice you to preach good workes simply as Christ and his Apostles did with commendation of Gods mercy in rewarding the same What need this vaine foolery of merite so improbable so absurd so impossible whereby you do not magnifie God but set vp the righteousnesse of man against the grace of God As for the definition of the Councell of Trent we esteeme it not knowing the same for the most part to haue bene but a conuenticle of base Italianate Machiauels who by equiuocations and sophistications haue deluded the world and by casting the chaffe of some phrases of the Fathers vpon the meeres and puddles of the schoolemen haue laboured to couer and hide the filth and mire thereof and indeed haue left them still to serue by false confidence and trust for gulfes and whirlpools to swallow vp and deuoure the soules of men Although the words of the Councell may beare some good construction according to the auncient fathers meaning of the name of merites yet by them they are deceitfully set downe to leaue open a gappe to the absurd and intollerable presumption of men in aduancing and lifting vp the desert of mens workes as if God were thereby greatly bound and beholding vnto them How farre their meaning extendeth will appeare by M. Bishop who will not haue vs thinke that he will speake any thing but by the authoritie of that Councell And first he telleth vs that they hold that eternall life is a grace which indeed they dare not denie because the Scripture expresly so affirmeth g Rom. 6.23 Eternall life is the grace or gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. But he addeth to grace a supply of workes quite contrary to the Scriptures for it is expresly sayd h Chap. 11.6 If it be of grace it is not of works otherwise grace is no grace i August contra Pelag. Celest lib. 2. ca 24. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit vllo modo nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo Grace saith Saint Austin is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort It is of grace saith M. Bishop and yet it is of workes also But still to make a shew of vpholding grace he telleth vs that though eternall life be by workes yet the first grace out of which those workes do issue is freely bestowed vpon vs. Which he saith only as ashamed to deny grace altogether and not of any conscience that hee maketh faithfully to auouch the same For if the grace whence those workes do issue which is the grace of iustification be freely bestowed vpon vs why doth he before labour to approue that we are iustified by workes Or if we obtaine the grace of iustification by workes how doth he say that the same is freely bestowed vpon vs The plaine truth is that by their works of preparation they make a man at least in some sort as we haue heard before out of Bellarmine to merit and deserue euen the first grace if by the first grace we vnderstand the grace of their first iustification as M. Bishop vsually doth But beside grace it is also a reward due in iustice saith he And how so Marry partly by the promise of God Now if he rested here we would not contend with him For promise is indeed grace and iustice in respect of promise is nothing but truth in the performance thereof neither is here any impeachment of the free gift of God But not contented herewith he addeth that it is due in part also for the dignitie of good workes And thus he confoundeth those things which the Scripture still very precisely distinguisheth aduertising vs that k Rom. 4.14 if they which are of the law that is of workes be heires then is faith made voide and the promise is made of none effect and againe l Gal. 3.18 if the inheritance be of the law that is of workes it is no longer by promise To be inheritors by workes and to be inheritors by promise are things so opposite as that the one wholly excludeth the other neither can they possibly stand together As for that which he saith of infants merite and dignitie it is also the schoolemens fiction and deuice Remission of sinnes is their saluation as it is ours and in them it standeth good which the Apostle saith m Rom. 5 2â— As sinne hath raigned ouer them vnto death so grace also raigneth by righteousnesse that is by imputation of righteousnesse vnto eternall life not by any dignitie in them but through Iesus Christ our Lord. But as touching them that arriue to yeares of discretion he telleth vs that either they must by good vse of grace merite life or for want of such fruite fall into the miserable state of death A very hard sentence for himselfe for if he neuer haue life till he merite and deserue it we can well assure him that he shall go without it And I wonder that his heart did not tremble at the writing hereof but that he hath hardened the same against the truth and writeth but only for maintenance of that occupation and trade that must yeeld maintenance backe againe to him What will he say in the end when he shall lie wrastling with death and readie to resigne his soule into the hands of God Will he then craue for mercie who writeth now so earnestly for merite Let him take heede that God do not then answer him n Luk. 19.22 Out of thine
the end resolueth that eternall life is most truly rendred vnto good workes as the due reward of them but because those good workes could not haue bene done vnlesse God had before freely through Christ bestowed his grace vpon vs therefore the same eternall life is also truly called grace because the first roote of it was Gods free gift The very same answer doth he giue where he hath these words Epist 106. Eternall life is called grace not because it is not rendred vnto merits but for that those merits to which it is rendred were giuen in which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly affirming that S. Paule might haue said truly eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes but to hold vs in humilitie partly and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation and damnation chose rather to say that the gift of God was life eternall because of our damnation we are the whole and onely cause but not of our saluation but principally the grace of God the onely fountaine of merit and all good workes R. ABBOT M. Perkins alledged the whole words of the Apostle not to argue onely from the assertion expressed in the latter part that a Rom. 6.23 eternall life is the gift of God but also from the connexion of the whole sentence that whereas it being said that the wages of sinne is death the sequele of the speech if there were any merit in our workes should haue bene The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life he saith not so but the gift of God is eternall life and so both by that which he doth not say and also by that which he doth say sheweth that there is no place to be giuen to the merit and desert of man Now Maister Bishop taketh the first part of the sentence by it selfe The wages of sinne is death as if Master Perkins had thence argued against merit and asketh Where were the mans wits Surely his owne wits were not so farre from home but that he well knew wherein the proofe stood but we see he is disposed sometimes to shew his apish trickes that we may see how he can skippe and leape about the chaine howsoeuer he aduantage himselfe nothing at all thereby But at his pleasure he produceth the words which M. Perkins properly intended Eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord. He telleth vs that the place is answered 1200. yeares past by S. Austine in diuers places of his works Now indeed it is true that S. Austine in diuers places of his works hath handled those words but the spite is that in none of all those places he hath said any thing to serue M. Bishop for an answer This may appeare by that that he saith in the very same booke and very next Chapter to that that M. Bishop citeth b August de grâ—◠〈◊〉 arbit cap. 9. Câ—â—â— posseâ— dicere rectè dicere Stiâ—â—endâ—m iustitiae vita etâ—rnâ— maluâ—â—â—â—eÌ„ dicere Gratia Dei c. vt intelligantus non pro meritâ— nostru Deum nos ad vitam aeternaÌ„ seâ— pro miseratione sua perducere de quo c. Whereas the Apostle might say and rightly say The wages of righteousnesse is eternall life yet he chose rather to say The grace of God is eternall life that we may vnderstand that not for our merits but for his owne mercies sake he bringeth vs to eternall life whereof it is said in the Psalme He crowneth thee in mercie and compassion Hereby it may seeme that S. Austine meant to yeeld M. Bishop small helpe by his expounding of this place to the maintenance of their merits But in the Chapter cited by M. Bishop she propoundeth the question c Ibid. cap. 8. Si vita aeterna bonus operibus redditur sicut apertissiâ—â—è dicit Scriptura Quoniam Deus redâ—es c quomodo gratia est vita aeterna cum gratia non operibus reddatur sed gratis detur c. how eternal life should be called the grace of God seeing that it is elsewhere said that God will render vnto euery man according to his workes The difficultie he sheweth to arise of this that that is called grace which is not rendred vnto workes but is freely giuen Whereof he citeth the words of the Apostle If it be of grace it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace Then he solueth the question thus that d Intelligamus ipsa bona opera nostra quibus aeterna redditur vita ad Dei gratiam pertinere we must vnderstand that our good workes to which eternall life is rendred do belong also to the grace of God signifying that God of his mercie intending to giue vs eternall life doth by the same mercie giue vs those good workes to which he will giue it For conclusion of that Chapter he saith consequently that e Vita nostra bona nihil aliud est quâ—m Dei gratia sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis â—ata est quia gratis data est illa cui datur sed illa cui datur tantum modo gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quomaÌ„ praemiuÌ„ eius est gratia est pro gratia tanquam merces pro iustitia vt verum sit c. because our good life is nothing else but the grace of God therefore vndoubtedly eternall life which is rendred vnto good life is the grace of God for that is freely giuen because that is freely giuen to which it is giuen But good life to which eternall life is giuen is onely grace eternall life which is giuen to good life because it is the reward thereof is grace for grace as it were a reward for righteousnesse that it may be true as it is true that God will render to euery man according to his workes In all which discourse plainely he sheweth that good life is the grace and gift of God and when God rendreth thereto eternall life he doth but adde one grace to another grace which although it be as it were a reward for righteousnesse yet is indeed but grace for grace Which fully accordeth with that that was cited out of him before that f Supra Sect. 2. August in Psal 109. Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to men vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being grace might according to the name be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as a man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God So that although eternall life be as it were a reward of righteousnesse in consequence and order yet absolutely to speake it is not so because both the one and the other are only the grace and gift of God Now if God by his free gift intending to vs eternall life do giue vs his grace to leade a iust and holy life that thereto
1. Non vtilitatis sed honoris duntaxit gratia vt PetruÌ„ spectaret not for any benefit but for honors sake to see him saith Theophylact. Not for any such honors sake as M. Bishop imagineth as to acknowledge him his superior in place office S. Paul himself professing himself e 2. Cor. 12.11 in nothing to haue bene inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles but for that honours sake of which the same Apostle saith f Rom. 12.10 In giuing honor go one before another wherof we are wont to say that we name a man honoris gratia for honors sake by which g Theophyl vt supra Vt cum qui aetate esset prouectâ—or veneraretur magnificeret the yonger honoreth the elder the equall his equall yea the superior his inferior For otherwise it is true which Cyprian saith that h Cyprian de simpl Pralat Hoc eraÌ„t reliqui Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari conserito praediti hoacris potestatis the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was indued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power But to go forward i Gal. 2.1 14. yeares after befell that that M. Bishop here speaketh of that Paul went vp againe to Ierusalem The occasioÌ„ whereof was that that the mentioneth here as another matter about the question of the Gentils obseruing of Moses law Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospell with great successe amongst the Gentils and namely at Antioch Whilest they were abiding there k Act. 15.1 there came downe certaine froÌ„ Iudea taught the brethren Except ye be circumcised after the maner of Moses ye cannot be saued Hereupon there was great dissention and great disputation of Paule and Barnabas against theÌ„ These false Apostles pretended theÌ„selues to haue come froÌ„ the Apostles at IerusaleÌ„ and to haue receiued their instructions froÌ„ theÌ„ as may appeare by those words of their answer l Ver. 24. We haue heard that certaine which departed froÌ„ vs haue troubled you with words and cumbred your minds saying ye must be circumcised keep the law to whom we gaue no such commandement Vnder this colour they slandred Paul as teaching another Gospell then the other Apostles did Now when as they thus preteÌ„ded the Apostles names and made shew to haue receiued commandement from them it was necessarie for the satisfaction of the Church that the matter should be cleared by the Apostles themselues Wherefore it was thought good God m Gal. 2.2 by reuelation also so directed as the Apostle signifieth that n Act 15.2 he and Barnabas some other of theÌ„ should go to IerusaleÌ„ to the Apostles and Elders about this question This occasion of his going let S. Ambrose declare o Ambr. in Gal. 2. A Iudaeis causa legis mala illi siebat opinto quasi discordaret à praedicatione caeteroruÌ„ Aposto lorum hinc fiebat multis scrupulus ita vt gentes possent perturbari ne in aliud inducerâ—â—tur ab eo quà m tradebant Apostoli qui cum Domino fuerant Nam ipsa occasione subuersi suÌ„t Galatae à Iudaeis dicentibus quiae aliud tradebat Paulus quam Petrus Hinc factum est vt admonitus reuelatione Domini ascenderet HierosolymaÌ„ c. The Iewes saith he caused an euill opinion of him in behalfe of their law as if he disagreed froÌ„ the preaching of the rest of the Apostles herby some scruple grew to many so as that the Gentils might be troubled or perplexed with doubt left by him they should be drawne to any thing else then the Apostles deliuered who had bene with the Lord. For by this occasion the Galathians were peruerted by the Iewes saying that Paul deliuered or taught otherwise then Peter did Hence it came to passe that being admonished by reuelation from the Lord he went vp to Hierusalem What to do to be examined and approued of theÌ„ as his superiors iudges as M. B. saith What had he preached the Gospell now 17. yeares doth he now at length remember himselfe to come to his superiors to be examined of them no such matter He came as he saith p Ver. 2. to confer with them of the Gospell which he preached among the Gentils Now q Hiero. in Gal. 2. Aliud est coÌ„ferre aliud discere Inter conferentes aequalitas est inter docentem discenteÌ„ minor est ille qui discit it is one thing to confer saith Ierome another thing to learne There is equality bewixt theÌ„ that conferre but betwixt him that teacheth and him that learneth he that learneth is the lesser He conferred then with the other Apostles as his equals not in respect of himselfe as to haue any thing added to himself by theÌ„ but only for satisfactioÌ„ of the Church that the scandall of the slander of the false Apostles might be remoued all the Church might know that in their doctrine they coÌ„sented al in one that so neither his labor thenceforth nor that that he had bestowed might be bestowed in vaine by reason of any such false suggestions of his dissenting from the rest And to shew that he conferred with theÌ„ to no other end he saith afterwards that r Ver 6. they added nothing further to him that Å¿ Ver. 7. they saw that the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospell of the circumcision was committed to Peter t Ver. 9. that they who seemed to be pillars Iames Peter and Iohn gaue vnto him and Barnabas right hands of fellowship yea that he was so farre from being inferiour to them as that at Antioch u Ver. 11. he withstood Peter to his face as iustly to be blamed for not going the right way to the truth of the Gospell in that he seemed by his cariage to draw the Gentiles to the obseruation of the law contrary to that which before had bene acknowledged by him Now then the reason is manifest of S. Pauls going vp to the pillars of the Church albeit he were as great a pillar as any of them And as for the sentence of the Councel it did not teach him any thing which he knew not but onely signified the common acknowledgement of that which he had before taught x Chrysost in Gal 1. Ab initio quid esset agendum perspexerat nec opus hâ—bebat vllo doctore sed quae post multaÌ„ discussioneÌ„ erant Apostoli decreturi haec ipsa citra discussionem coelitus hâ—bebat apud se certa indubitata He vnderstood from the beginning saith Chrysostome what was to be done and needed no teacher but what the Apostles after much debating should decree the same had he certain and vndoubted with himself from heauen without debating Now by this that hath bene said we may conceiue what to thinke of those allegatioÌ„s which M. Bishop for a shew hath quoted in the margeÌ„t That which Tertullian saith is
may be vowed vnto God but virginity is more acceptable to God then mariage therefore it may be vowed He nameth an exception to the first proposition if we be able to performe it and saith that it is before confuted but his confutation commeth too short and it still standeth good that continency is a thing whereof we cannot promise the ability to our selues and therfore cannot make any lawfull vow thereof But letting that passe let vs examine the proofes of his minor proposition that virginity is more acceptable to God then mariage He bringeth first the words of S. Paul b 1. Cor. 7.38 He that ioineth his virgin in mariage doth well but he that ioineth her not doth better and concerning the widow c Ver. 40. she shall be more blessed if she so abide in my iudgment We heare the words but yet we see not any proofe therein of that which M. Bishop would proue by them We know that liberty is better and more blessed then bondage and yet liberty is not more acceptable to God then bondage or the free-man then the bondman d Act. 20.35 It is a more blessed thing as our Sauiour saith to giue then to receiue and yet it followeth not that he that giueth is more acceptable to God or more blessed with God then he that receiueth S. Paul himselfe giueth vs to vnderstand in what respects he meaneth better and more blessed First when he saith e Ver. 26. It is good for the present necessity that mariage be forborne by them that can forbeare f Hieron cont Heluid sub fineÌ„ Quae est ista necessitas Vae praegnantibus lactentibus in die illa Jdeò sylua succressit vt postea recidatur Ideò ager seritur vt metatur Iam plenus est orbis terra nos non capit Quotidie bella nos secant morbi subtrahunt naufragia absorbent c. What is this necessitie saith Hierome Woe saith he to them that be with child and to them that giue sucke in that day Therfore the wood groweth that it may afterwards be cut downe Therefore is the field sowed that it may afterwards be reaped The world is full the earth containeth vs not warres are still hewing vs downe diseases take vs away shipwrackes swallow vs vp He giueth hereby to vnderstand that the Apostle meaneth this necessitie of the troubles that are incident to the faithfull by persecutions other temporal calamities the bearing wherof is so much the more easie by how much the lesse a man is distressed and distracted with care of wife children hath therby no hinderance but that either by life or by death he may freely do that that shall be according to God Againe to signifie his meaning the Apostle further saith g Ver. 28. The maried shall haue tribulation in the flesh but I spare you h Ver. 32. I would haue you to be without care The vnmaried careth for the things of the Lord how he may please the Lord but the maried careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife i Ver. 35. I speake for your commoditie that ye may cleaue to the Lord without separation By all which words the Apostle importeth that there are many cares and distractions incident to mariage whereby a man is holden to the respect of the things of this life and of the world that he cannot so wholy addict himselfe to God From these distractions single life if a man will so vse it is more free and giueth a man full liberty of applying himselfe entirely to those things wherin consisteth the seeking of the kingdome of heauen Thus therefore single life is better and more blessed because there is in it greater oportunity of following those good things wherein consisteth the attainment of eternall blisse Thus the father doth better that continueth his daughter being so willing vnmarried because he leaueth her at full liberty to bestow her self to the Lords vse Thus the widow is more blessed if she so abide because she is more free to serue the Lord. But M. Bishop telleth vs that twelue hundred yeares ago S. Austine of set purpose confuted this error and specially in his Treatise de Virginitate whence he nameth sundry chapters 13. 23. 24 25. Where it appeareth that M. Bishop neither vnderstandeth what we say nor what it is that S. Austin confuteth S. Austines speech his against the k Aug. de sanct Virgiuit cap. 13. Qui putant continentiae bonum non esse necessarium propter regnum coeloruÌ„ sed propter praesens seculum quod scilicet ceniugid terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus distenduntur qua molestia virgines continentes carent who thinke that the benefite of continencie is not needfull for the kingdome of heauen but onely for this present world because mariage is distracted with many earthly and troublesome cares the incumbrance whereof virgins and continent persons do auoide in a word as afterwards he expresseth it that l Ibid. cap. 24. Praesenti vitae vâ—le esse non futurae it is profitable for this life not for the life to come Now when we say that single life where the gift of continency is is more helpfull and yeeldeth greater oportunity to the seruice of God do we make it profitable for this life only and not for the life to come Hath the seruice of God a reference onely to this world and do we follow Châ—ist onely for a benefit in this life Indeed we should be far wide if we thought that the end to which the Apostle driueth shold be an idie voluptuous life but we determin that the preferment of continency single life so coÌ„cerneth this present life as that it specially respecteth eternal life We recken not of the preferment thereof in respect of this life but all the account that we make of it is in respect of the life to come knowing that by how much the more industriously and incessantly we apply our selues to the worke of God so much the greater reward of glorie we shall haue with him not by reason of anie merite or desert but by the heauenly disposition of that voluntarie grace and mercy which hath promised that m 1. Cor. 15.58 our labour shall not be in vaine in the Lord because n Cap. 3.8 euery man shall haue his wages according to his worke S. Austin therefore in confuting them that say that the benefite of continencie is onely for this life saith nothing against vs. He accouÌ„teth him no Christian saith M. Bishop that doth contradict Christ promising the kingdom of heauen to Eunuches Though those be no words of Austin yet we will aske him for what Christ doth promise them the kingdome of heauen Doth he promise it to them for being Eunuches Surely then many should come to the kingdome of heauen who neuer had anie beliefe thereof It is not then their being Eunuches that Christ respecteth but