A REPROOFE OF M. DOCT. ABBOTS DEFENCE, OF THE CATHOLIKE DE­FORMED BY M. W. Per­kins.

WHEREIN His sundry abuses of Gods sacred word, and most manifold man­gling, misaplying, and falsifying, the auncient Fathers sen­tences, be so plainely discouered, euen to the eye of euery indifferent Reader, that whosoeuer hath any due care of his owne saluation, can neuer here­after giue him more credit, in matter of faith and religion.

THE FIRST PART.

Made by W.B. P. and Doct. in diuinity.

As Iannes and Mambres resisted Moyses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in minde, reprobate concerning the faith, but they shal prosper no further, for their folly shal be manifest to al, as theirs al­so was.

2. TIM. 3. vers. 8. & 9.

¶ Printed with Priuiledge, Anno Domini, 1608.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

GOOD CHRISTIAN READER,

I doe volunta­rily confesse, that after I had seene M. Abbots an­swere to my Epistle vnto his Majesty, I was a long time vnwilling to reply vpon it; not for that I estee­med it to containe any such extraordinary learning, as be too too fondly vaunteth off (for I dare be bold to say, that in a skilful mans judgement, there are more pregnant proofes of their new doctrine in two leaues of M. Perkins booke, then in tenne of his:) but cleane contrary, I finde so little substance in his worke, and so great store of impertinent and vile stuffe, such super­fluity of idle amplifications, so many vnciuil and foule wordes; that I could not thinke the time wel bestowed, which should be spent in so friuolous and paine an altercation. Notwithstanding being often admonished by my friendes, that diuers Protestants much commended M. Abbots discourse, some for the stile, and his cunning and confident carriage in it; others for that they saw it thicke interlaced with sundry ancient Authors sentences: and thereby thought and gaue out, that he refused not to deale with vs at our owne weapons. Herevpon I resolued at length to afford it some an­swere, specially for such good peoples sake, who are desirous to bolt out that truth of God, which only can saue their soules, and are not willing to be deceiued with fine tricks, nor doe wittingly suffer themselues to be car­ried away with faire glozing speeches, or stout brags, when they finde no correspondence of sound and wel grounded matter. To giue the man his due, I acknowledge that he inditeth not amisse, if he did not defile and poi­son his penne with so huge a multitude of ougly, venimous, and vnsauoury [Page 4] tearmes. But what account is to be made of choise, picked, and pleasing wordes, when they be imployed not only to abuse and beguile simple soules, but also to disgrace the sincere verity of Gods word? surely for the deba­ting of controuersies in religion, plaine vsual speeches without painting or superfluity, haue alwaies beene taken by the learned for most decent and expediēt, according to that ancient Adage: simplex est veritatis oratio, the stile of truth is simple and plaine. And where much colouring and flourishing is vsed, there is no smal suspition of a badde cause and fraudu­lent dealing. What neede bad M. Abbot to fil vp thirty sheetes of paper, to giue answere vnto one sheete and halfe of mine? doth it not argue to a man of vnderstanding, that what he could not answere vnto directly in few wordes, he would at least cloake with long circumstances, and cast a mist before the Readers eies with gay glorious phrases, that he might not see and discerne the truth?

Touching his frequent disgraceful and odious tearmes, and most bitter rayling against the best sort of men on our side, I would gladly learne how it can stand with Christian charity and modesty. Sure I am, that it consorteth ful euil with that sacred rule of the Apostle:2. Tim. 2. vers. 24. The ser­uant of our Lord must not wrangle, but be milde towardes al men, apt to teach, patient, with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth. And S. Peter telleth vs, that the natural property of a true Christian is,1. Pet. 3. vers. 9. To be modest and humble, and not so much as to render euil for euil, or curse for curse: so farre off was he from en­couraging any man to reuile and raile at them, who neuer gaue him any one foule word in al their liues, yea whome he neuer saw. And he further biddeth vs to follow the example of Christ our great master, who did not reuile, when he was reuiled: but hath in expresse wordes forbid­den vs to vse any contemptuous or opprobrious speeches against our bre­theren, assuring vs before hand, that heMath. 5. vers. 23. Who shal say to his Chri­stian brother (thou foole) shal be guilty of hel fire. This and an hundred times more to the same purpose, being set downe in the diuine Scriptures against bitter and barbarous speeches; yet M. Abbot a pro­fessed Diuine, seemeth to take a special delight in them, and to esteeme them no smal ornaments of a Diuines stile: otherwise he would not so often vse them. I wote wel that the most milde and sweet pen-men, are some­times through zeale of the truth, or by the ouerthwart dealing of their ad­uersary, moued to let slip now and then a hard word or two; but ordinari­ly, or vpon euery smal occasion to fal into a fit of rayling, and to vomit vp [Page 5] most rustical and ruffianlike taunts, cannot but discouer a very corrupt and venimous stomacke. In this one discourse of M. Abbots, a dili­gent scauenger may rake together wel-neare a tumbrel ful of them. I doe intreate the gentle Reader not to be offended with me, if I doe here for ve­rification of what I say, trouble him with the view of some few of them. The Bishop of Rome is seldome called by his right name, but Antichrist, Page 118. 124 146. 150. 162. the man of sinne, that harpie of Rome, filthy harlot, filthy and vnnatural strumpet, the whoore of Babilon, and such like. Reli­gious men he tearmeth idle lossels and filthy belly-gods, swarmes of Locusts, Romish vermine, ful gorged Friers, and so foorth. My selfe and others my bretheren, False harlots, witlesse sophisters, blind Doctors, abhominable hypocrites, lewd caytifs, the seede of the Deuil, vncleane beasts, foule mouthed dogs, like vnto other swine of his fraternity, base fugitiues, false traytors, the villany of our profession, and innumerable others; which cannot but conuince and demonstrate M. Abbot to be one of them, whome the spirit of God hath liuely described, when he wrote:Rom. 3. vers. 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they deale deceitfully, the venim of serpents is vnder their lips, their mouth is ful of malediction and bitter­nesse, their feete swift to shedde bloud, destruction and infelicity is in their waies, and the way of peace they haue not knowne, there is no feare of God before their eies. And if M. Abbot scorne to be aduised by me his aduersary to forgoe this rude rhetorike of brabling and scolding women, in latin called Canina eloquentia; let him follow the graue counsel of that sage Lawier Sr. Edward Cooke, whose booke [...]e citeth, wherein is said:In the preface of his fift of reportes. That controuersies in religion are to be handled with al candor and charity, and not with bitter inve­ctiues, like men transported with fury. To end this point, if he hold [...]n that course of scurrility, he wil driue me and others to giue him ouer in the plaine field, for a foule-mouthed wrangler that deserueth no answere. Thus much by the way of the manner of his inditing.

Now to the matter of his booke, which doth principally consist in allega­tion of Authors, and applying their sentences to his purpose. How insuffi­ciently he hath behaued himselfe therein, shal be particularly discyphered [...] their proper places: I wil here only for a tast of his judgement, and sin­ [...]erity therein, giue a touch vnto some general heades thereof. First, doth [...] not euidently proue great want of judgement and discretion, to alleage [...] vpright witnesses in matters of controuersie, such authors as are knowne [Page 6] to al the world, to be professed parties of the same side? If I should cite for confirmation of the Catholike cause; Doct. Harding, Doct. San­ders, Doct. Stapleton, or any other Catholike late writer; would not the vnpassionate reader take me for very simple, if I thought that any man would the sooner beleeue me for their opinions, that were men (though most learned and right honest) yet not indifferent, because they were pro­fessed aduocates of the same cause? Euen so a man of any wit, cannot but maruaile where M. Abbots senses were, when he so commonly and confi­dently for proofe of any doubt, doth produce the authority of Bale, (a late Irish Apostata Frier, whome be sometime also calleth Balaeus, to make him seeme two worshipful authors, that is not worthy to be halfe one) Fox, Iewel, Humphrey, Holinshed, Sr. Edward Cooke, the Magde­burgenses, Kemnitius, Illyricus, Sleidan, Hospinian, and many others open and professed aduersaries of the Catholike Roman Church, and there­fore no vpright and fit witnesses against it. He without doubt may garnish his margent with variety of quotations, that blusheth not to cite so fre­quently as M. Abbot doth, such partial writers. But no man (I hope) wil be so foolish, as to giue credit vnto any thing that is no better verified, then by the verdict of such false witnesses. For to cal one of them to giue testimony is no better, then (after our English prouerbe) to hidde a man aske one of his fellowes, whether he be a theefe or no.

Againe, there is another circumstance in the citing of his late partial authors, which maketh it yet more absurd and ridiculous. For he sticketh not to produce the credit of a seely writer of this last hundred yeares, for verification of a matter done more then a thousand yeares before he was borne. For example, to proue that Pope Eleutherius acknowledged Lucius (King of our Country 1400. yeares past) to be supreame gouer­nour in causes Ecclesiastical,Page 26. M. Abbot alleageth Holinshed a Chroni­cler of our age: what a jest is this? how knew this late writer what passed so long before his owne time? was there not any one Hystoriographer more ancient then he, neither Latin nor English, that could tel any tidings of such a matter? And yet M. Abbot is so il aduised, as to perswade vs to receiue it vpon his seely poore credit. Of the like stuffe is that in another place of his booke,Page 60. to wit, that Syritius Bishop of Rome (who liued about 1200. yeares agoe) was a noueller, and that by the worshipful verdict of Polidore Virgil: who liued eleauen hundred yeares after him. What, are learned men growne so carelesse of their credit, that they dare let passe to the print such doting follies, and so grosse absurdities? this [Page 7] may serue for a note of his ouersight, in alleadging his owne pew-fellowes for vpright and indifferent vmpeers, and late moderne authors for the cer­tainety of ancient matters.

Now to his citations of the more authentike approued writers, whome he doth greatly abuse in diuers and sundry fashions. The first and most gentle is, when he doth cite their wordes truly, but doth apply them cleane contrary to their meaning. For example, in his Epistle to the Kinges Majesty be approueth his Highnesse course for the answering of Catho­like bookes, producing for it this sentence out of S. Bernard: That though thereby the Heretike arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed in her faith: M. Abbot meaning as the sequele of his speech doth import, that if thereby men of the Roman reli­gion wil not be conuerted from their errors, yet the good Protestants may be confirmed in their new faith: which is very farre wide from S. Ber­nardes expresse declaration; as else-where, so in that very place. For that deuout holy Father was so farre off from disswading any man from the Roman faith, that he wisheth al men to make their recourse vnto the See of Rome, for resolution of al doubts in faith: these be his wordes to Pope Innocentius. We must referre to your Apostleship, Epist. 190. al the scandals and perils vvhich may fal in matter of faith specially, because the defects of faith must be holpen where faith cannot faile: for to what other See was it euer said, Luc. 22. vers. 31. I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith doe not faile. See then what Church S. Bernard would confirme in her faith, not the Protestant but the Roman. Moreouer, in that very discourse out of which M. Abbot [...]icketh the former sentence,Serm. 66. S. Bernard doth in particuler describe those Heretikes, whome he perswaded to arise from their filth, to be such as held the Church not to haue beene visible for many yeares, but to haue lyen hidde in corners. Item, that vvould not beleeue, [...]hat any soules departed went to Purgatory, but either to heauen or to hel presently; and so defrauded the dead of the prayers of the liuing. Also such as vvould disswade from praying to the Saints: these and such like are those Heretikes by S. Bernardes judge­ment, whome he would haue to rise from the drosse and dregs of such erronious opinions, and returne vnto the Roman Catholike faith. Now judge with what conscience M. Abbot could cul some wordes out of the same discourse, to perswade men by the countenance of S. Ber­nard, to forsake praying to Saints, and for the dead, and the whole [Page 8] Roman religion so strongly established by that reuerend religious Father in the very same place. This may suffice for a proofe of his misapplying the Fathers sentences, wherein he offendeth as often and as grieuously (I thinke) as euer did any Christian writer, as shal be hereafter shewed.

Now to another tricke of his no lesse shameful, which is the miscon­struing of their wordes: let this serue for a paterne. Against the wor­shipping of Images he produceth the authority of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome,Page 104. Commending (as he fableth) the zeale of Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who could not endure that any thing should be worship­ped that is made with handes; and telleth him, that he should for­bidde the people the worshipping of them, &c. Here are many foule faults: for S. Gregory did not commend but reprehend the vndi­screet zeale of that Bishop, who did breake some pictures set in the Church, because some late conuerted Heathens not yet wel instructed in the Chri­stian religion, did adore them as if they had beene Gods. S. Gregory telleth him plainely, That that should not be broken, which was not set vp in the Church to be adored, but only to instruct them that were ignorant. Secondly, though S. Gregory forbidde Images to be adored as Gods, yet doth he teach them to be worshipped as representations of most holy personages: which may be seene plainely (to omit diuers other places) by his letters vnto Secundinus, L [...]v. 7. Epist. 53. ad Secūd. To whome he sent the Images of our Sauiour, of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of the holy Apo­stles S. Peter and S. Paul; telling him first, that his petition to haue those Images, did greatly please him: for (saith he) thou doest loue him with al thy hart and whole intention, whose Image thou desirest to haue before thine eies, and straight after addeth: I know that thou doest not therefore desire to haue our Sauiours Image, that thou maiest worship it as a God; but for a remembrance of the Sonne of God, that thou maiest waxe warme in his loue, whose Image thou doest behold: and we truly doe cast our selues downe before the said Image, not as before a God-head, but vve adore him whome by the Image we remember to haue beene borne, or suffered, or to sit in his throne. Can any thing be more manifest, then that S Gregory approued both the hauing of Images, which be sent to his friend; and setting them in Churches for the instruction of the vnlear­ned; and also worshipping of them, euen so farre-foorth as humbly to kneele before them? which he himselfe as wel practised in his owne person, as also taught others so to doe: which is al that we Catholikes doe defend, [Page 9] as greatly condemning (as the Protestants themselues) that any Christian should adore them as Gods, or giue any Godly honour vnto them. How wrongfully then did M. Abbot alleage S. Gregories wordes? and how shamefully hath he misconstrued them cleane besides that most holy Fa­thers meaning, with whom in faith and doctrine we doe fully agree?

But let vs yet goe one step further, more euidently to discouer, how per­fidiously M. Abbot doth deale with those ancient and most holy Doctors. He is not ashamed to cite them sometimes in confirmation of those errors, the which they doe expresly confute in the very same place: take this for an assay. Epiphanius (saith he) an Easterne Bishop, Page 62. euen in the time of Hierome, acknowledgeth for true those wordes of Socrates, that the Priests and Bishops thereof, were not forced by any law to forbeare their wiues, and that many of them whiles they were Bishops, had children borne vnto them by their lawfull married wiues: and quoteth Epiphanius against the 59. Heresie of the Cathary; where in deede he handleth that matter, but after another manner. These he his wordes: Indeede the holy preaching of God, doth not since Christs comming admit them to take holy orders, who haue mar­ried againe after their first wiues death, in respect of the excellent dignity of Priest-hood: and this doth the Church of God ob­serue sincerely, (but so doth not the Church of the Protestants: ergo, it is not the Church of God.) Then he commeth to our present purpose, and saith: The same Church of God doth not admit and receiue a man that hath a wife liuing, and that getteth children, to be a Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon; but him that either abstaineth from the company of his wife, or else liueth widdower, and that specially where the Ecclesiastical Canons be sincere and not cor­rupted. Hitherto Epiphanius, as flat contrary to M. Abbots report of him as can be: for he reported, that whiles they were Bishops they had children borne vnto them, and there was no law that forced them to for­ [...]eare their wiues. Epiphanius telleth vs otherwise: That the Canons of the Church (which are Ecclesiastical lawes) did not suffer any to be Bishop or Priest, that kept company with their wiues. And [...]hich maketh the fault the more palbable, Epiphanius addeth an obje­ction, vpon which it seemeth M. Abbot grounded his assertion: But [...]hou vvilt say that in some places, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests, doe yet get children (note by the way that in no place how cor­ [...]upt soeuer, Bishops so did, as M. Abbot reporteth:) but this (answereth [Page 10] holy Epiphanius) is not according vnto the Canon, but after the minde of men, that in tract of time fainted, and so foorth. Where he proueth abstinence from marriage, or continual continency, to be not only decent for the high and holy calling of Clergie men; but also necessa­ry for their daily praiers, and for the suddaine occasions of their sacred function: so that finally S. Epiphanius is found to confute that directly, which M. Abbot reports him to acknowledge for true. And if this be not most wilful corruption, and falsification of these learned Fathers sen­tences, I know not what may be.

Because this is a point, that toucheth euery Christian that hath care of his saluation so neare,Page 122. I wil insist more vpon it. Is not this (saith M. Abbot) a horrible impiety, that standeth written in their law, our Lord God the Pope: and then doubleth it, saying; To beleeue that our Lord God the Pope could not so decree, as he hath de­creed, should be accounted heresie. In the Canon law (which he calleth our law) is no such horrible impiety, but in his report is a double lie. The former is, to auouch that to stand in the law, which is only writ­ten in the glosse; which is no law as al men know. The second and the more shameful is, that it standeth not in the glosse neither, but he belieth both the one and the other:Extrauag. Ioan. 22. cum inter, in glossa. let any man turne to the place quoted by him­selfe, and there towardes the end, vpon the word, declaramus, he shal finde only Dominum nostrum Papam, our Lord the Pope; and the word (God) is foisted in by M. Abbot, to make vp that horrible impiety of which he speaketh. As very a lie is it, which he citeth out of the De­cretals of Pope Gregory, Page 119. that (forsooth) the Pope is not a meere man: whereas the Canon hath,De translat. Episco. cap. Quanto. Non puri hominis, sed veri Dei vicem gerit, that is, The Pope is the vicegerent or vicar, not of a meere man, but of true God: to wit of Christ, who is both God and Man. No more truth is in that assertion of his out of venerable Bede, Page 199. our very holy and most learned country-man: Then were the Scriptures in foure seueral languages, of so many seueral nations in this land; whereas he signifieth the plaine contrary: that the Scri­ptures were only in the Latin tongue among them, and that therefore many of each language learned the Latin tongue, that they might by the helpe thereof vnderstand, meditate, and study the Scriptures: these be S. Bedes wordes.Lib. 1. hyst. Aug. cap. 1. This Iland at that time, did study and confesse one and the same knowledge of truth, in fiue sundry languages, to vvit: in the English, Briton, Scottish, Picts, [Page 11] and Latin tongue, vvhich Latin by study of the Scriptures, vvas made common to al the rest. Note how for to study the holy Scriptures, men of the other foure seueral languages were faine to learne the Latin tongue; which they needed not to haue done, if the Scriptures had beene then translated into their owne mother language, as M. Abbot reporteth. Another notorious vntruth, and most ma­litious slaunder, doth be cast out in the next precedent page, against the blessed Bishop S. Augustine, our English Apostle:Page 198. That (for­sooth) because he could not gette the Britons to obey him, he therefore prouoked Ethelbert King of Kent, (a very good Chri­stian) to procure the death of two thousand Monkes of Bangor, besides many other more innocent men; whereas that holy Reli­gious Father, was dead and buried many yeares before that slaughter hapned: which was also committed, not by Ethelbert King of Kent,Beda lib. 2. hyst. cap. 2. but by Ethelfride a Pagan Prince of the North parts, and that not for any quarrel of religion neither, but to enlarge his Dominions, and to be reuenged on his enemies. Neither can M. Abbot or any other Protestant, produce one ancient and approued author, to justifie that S. Augustine was any way accessary to that wicked fact; but is glad to shroude himselfe vnder the shrubbe of an old namelesse Cronicle, (and therefore Apocryphal) cited by the Arch-lier, and late partial writer Iewel: fit witnesses for such a palbable and spiteful slander.

But if I would stand here to make a Catalogue of M. Abbots corru­ptions, falsifications, and other odde trickes, which he vseth in alleage­ing of the Fathers, and other approued authors; I should reduce the greatest part of his booke to this place, which chiefly consisteth in such paltry shifts, and vnchristianlike dealing: this that I haue here decla­red, cannot but suffice to discredit him with al indifferent men. For if he hath wittingly misreported such worthy authors, of purpose to be­guile his credulous reader, as it is most like (for he wil not be taken for a man that citeth the Fathers by heare-say, without looking in­ [...]o their workes) then he hath a most seared and corrupt conscience, vnworthy the name of a Diuine, and walking aliue is dead in conscience, and consequently in credit with al men that loue the truth:Sapient. 1. vers. 11. For the tongue that lieth, killeth the soule. But let vs suppose the most that may be said in his fauour, that he hath not wittingly and of purpose to deceiue the simple, cited the holy Fathers sentences wrong­fully, but taking them vp vpon the credit of some other of his companions, [Page 12] without looking into the Doctors owne workes, whether they were true or no, and being deceiued himselfe, doth afterwardes beguile others: this I say being of courtesie admitted, which is the best excuse that can be truly made for him; yet no meane wise man can euer hereafter trust him, that so confidently without any qualification, auerreth such false tales: for his vntruthes are so plaine and palbable, that you neede no more, but com­pare his reports with the authors wordes, and at the first sight any meane scholler shal finde his cosenage and deceit.

I come now vnto the last kinde of abuse, that M. Abbot offereth vnto the sacred senate of those most renowmed ancient Fathers, wherein he doth more ingeniously, discouer and lay open the right humour of a true Protestant: which is to deny their authority flatly, to controle and censure them as simple men, to accuse them of error and falshood; yea and finally, to preferre olde rotten Heretikes opinions before the best of them. To be­ginne with Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea a most famous Hystoriographer, that liued in the daies of Constantine the great, because he doth more mannerly reprehend him, and saith:Page 177. That we must giue him leaue, to censure Eusebius of an injuditious and presumed explication of Constantines minde and purpose. Truly I see no cause why we should giue him any such leaue: for who can be so simple, as to thinke that M. Abbot (borne 1200. yeares after Constantines death) should know more of his minde then Eusebius, who conuersed with him most familiar­ly, and was of his priuy Councel in such affaires, and a man otherwise very learned and juditious. Secondly, he taxeth the most holy and reuerend Patriarke of Constantinople S. Chrysostome, Page 175. for playing the ora­tor, and enforcing that in one place for true, which in another place he himselfe denieth: Page 176. and for reporting that of Constantines Sonne, which is much different from the certaine story. In like manner be standereth S. Augustine, Page 54. for writing against Iouinian the Heretike, whose opinions (saith M. Abbot very audatiously) S. Au­gustine knew only by heare-say, and not of any certainty. Se­condly,Page 60. Though Augustine doth not breake into those rude and vn­decent speeches against marriage, as Hierome did; yet he was de­ceiued where he said, that no Priests embraced Iouinians heresie. I wil omit, how they note S. Hierome (that most vertuous, zealous, and learned Doctor) with a blacke cole,Page 57. For writing with al indigna­tion and stomacke, for railing, and false doctrine; because I make hast to acquaint the reader with the most shamelesse pranke of al others, [Page 13] which is: that they in expresse tearmes preferre the most infamous con­demned Heretikes, euen in the very points of their errors; before the most juditious, learned, and sincere Doctors of the Church.Page 73. It it manifest (saith M. Abbot) that Hierome (one of the foure principal Doctors of the Latin Church) was deceiued, and that Vigilantius, (a loose and lewde Heretike) had just cause to say as he did. Againe, Aërius (a damned Arrian) spake against praier for the dead, Page 86. with greater reason then Epiphanius (a most ancient, learned, and holy Greeke fa­ther) hath defended it. Iouinian (a notable audatious and ignorant Heretike, as both S. Augustine, S. Hierome, Vincent. Lyr. cap. 15. do [...]. ranke Iouini­an in the nū ­ber of pestilēt Heretikes. and Vincentius Lyri­nensis doe testifie, though by reason of his later standing he was vnknowne to Epiphanius:) this Heretike I say, Did teach (as M. Abbot re­ports page 56.) the doctrine of Paul in Rome, against the super­stitious conceit of the holynesse of Virginity, before the holynesse in Marriage: which notwithstanding was maintained by S. Augustine and S. Hierome, with the whole court of Rome at those daies; as be him selfe confesseth in the same place. Doth not this (to omit much more of the same kinde) conuince and demonstrate, vnto al vnpassionate Christians of any vnderstanding, that the poore miserable Protestants be exceeding blindly bent vnto the defence of their errors, who seing them most plainly condemned by the best and most learned of the primitiue Church, and pure antiquity (to which they would sometime in great confidence seeme to appeale,) had notwithstanding rather consort themselues, and follow very base, vnlearned, and wretched Heretikes, and with them to band against the inuincible troupes of the ancient holy Fathers, and most renowmed Doctors? wil it any whit auaile them to say, that those men of condemned memory, did in their opinions better agree with the word of God, and therefore are to be preferred before the rest, though otherwise better schol­lers then they? surely nothing at al with the juditious; because this is but a scar-crow to amate the simple. For whether were more like to vnder­stand better the sacred word of God, either Augustine, Hierome, Epi­phanius, Chrysostome, and such others, who indued with excellent wits, and wel furnished with al other kinde of learning, had most dili­gently studied both the old and new Testament, as by their translations, and most learned Commentaries and explications, they haue testified to the [...]orld? or Aërius, Vigilantius, or Iouinian, who haue not left any one monument of learning, wit, or honesty behinde them? and Iouinian (re­puted of those three the most sufficient) was so insufficient and vnlettered, [Page 14] that he could not so much as indite in the Latin tongue congruously, and so as he might be vnderstood,Hieron. lib. 1. cont. Iouin. in initio. as S. Hierome proueth. To finish this point, seing that M. Abbot doth not only misapply the auncient Doctors sentences, but doth also misconster, corrupt, and falsifie them; yea, doth plainly and roundly deny their graue and sacred authority, preferring the confessed and condemned errours of notorious reproued Heretikes, before their vniforme and approued doctrine: they must needes confesse themselues to haue beene a little deceiued, who tooke him to haue beaten the Papists with their owne weapons, that is, to haue brought better testimony out of pure antiquity in fauour of the Pro­testants opinions, then the Catholikes doe for theirs; whereas in truth he handleth those sacred Fathers, euen as Caluin reporteth the Liber­tine to deale with the holy Scriptures.In instruct. aduers. Li­bert. cap. 9. These loose men (saith he) vvhen vve presse them with the Scriptures, doe not much dis­semble, that they esteeme no better of them, then of fables: not­withstanding they in the meane season doe not let to vse them, if they finde any place that they can wrest vnto their owne mea­ning; not that they themselues doe giue any credit to it, but on­ly that they may thereby trouble the vnlearned, and so daunt and stagger them, that they may at length the more easily draw them to like of their errors: thus farre Caluin. Euen so plaieth M. Abbot with the glorious Doctors of the Church, whom how little he regardeth, doth appeare by his often abusing their wordes, by his re­sisting their authority, and setting lesse by them, then by ignorant ob­scure and abject persons: yet knowing that al sober Christians doe highly esteeme, and make great account of their graue authority, as of the principal lights of Christs Church since the Apostles times, they doe greedily catch hold of any broken sentence of theirs, that doth any way sound in fauour of their heresie; not that they themselues giue a­ny credit thereunto, but to astonish and deceiue the simple reader, and thereby to perswade him to like the better of their errours. Thus much in general, of the abuses which M. Abbot offereth vnto the an­cient Fathers.

But doth be behaue himselfe more reuerently towardes the holy Scri­ptures, and sacred word of God? one example I wil giue here, by which you may take a scantling of the rest; and not to seeke farre, it shal be the very first in his booke: these be his wordes.Page 6. This is the thing that M. Bishop labours for, seeking vvith Act. 13. v. 8. Elimas the Sorcerer to [Page 15] peruert the straight vvaies of the Lord: and vvhereas his Ma­jesty hath made profession to aduance the honour of Christ, he vvould in steede thereof drawe him to aduance the Idol Dan. 11. vers. 38. 2. Mauzzin, the God of Antichrist, and to establish damna­ble heresies by him priuily brought in, vvhereby his agents and factors throughPet. 2. vers. 1. & 3.couetousnesse, with fained wordes doe make marchandize of the soules of men, speaking thinges which they ought not for filthyTit. 1. vers. 11.lucres sake. Here you see his text enriched, and his margent garnished with a gay shew of Gods word, and yet here is not one whole sentence of holy Scripture to any purpose, but diuers wordes picked out of sundry places, and by the new Euange­list M. Abbot made a new peece of vn-holy scripture; which prety deuise if it should passe for currant, any hadde matter might be graced with the glosse of Scripture: so that the first fault committed by M. Ab­bot herein, is the dismembring of Gods word, and renting of it in peeces at his pleasure, with which peeces afterwardes odly and idly patched together, he maketh vp (as it were) a poore beggers cloke, rather then any testimony of Scripture. Secondly, the wordes hang togither very vntowardly, one of them not agreing with the other: for if his Ma­jesty should be perswaded to aduance the Idol Mauzzin, the God of Antichrist, he could not establish heresies priuily brought in; for that false God wil wholy oppose himselfe against Christ, and not suffer any other God besides himselfe to be adored: so that he wil not establish heresies, which are errours defended by them which professe Christ and doe adore the true God; neither wil be priuily bring in be­ [...]esies, but openly professe Idolatry, and compel al others to doe the same. Thirdly, these wordes are most falsly and fondly applied to vs Roman Ca­tholike Priests: for first that false God of Antichrist shal not be aduan­ced by the Romans, but fought against, and foiled by them, as it is cleare in the very text.Dan. 11. vers. 30. The Gallies and Romans shal come vpon him, and he shal be strooken and turned backe.

And lastly, how il aduised was M. Abbot, to charge poore seminary Priests with couetousnesse, and speaking of thinges which they ought not for filthy lucres sake? whereas it is manifest vnto al men, women, and children almost, that they who become such Priests, are so farre off from seeking after any temporal gaine thereby, that they doe wil­lingly forgoe al hope of benefices, and al other whatsoeuer commodities and dignities in their country, which they might perhaps aswel attaine vnto [Page 16] as some others, if they would follow the current of the time: Yea, they doe also debarre themselues of landes, legacies, annuities, and al other profits and commodities whatsoeuer, which might accrew vnto them, from their parents, kinsfolkes, and friendes; being content to liue vpon Gods prouidence, and that poore pittance which the impouerished estate of some few Catholikes wil afford them. The Protestant Ministers, who by their profession are capable of fat benefices, headships of houses, Deana­ries, and such like dignities and commodities, may be truly suspected to bend their studies that way, and to maintaine heresies in hope of gaine and promotion: and they who cannot be satisfied with two or three of those great liuings joyned togither, or with one Bishoprick alone, but would haue Bishoprickes and Deanaries vnited; such men may indeede rightly be suspected, to make marchandize of mens soules for filthy lucres sake: but to impute couetousnesse vnto seminary Priests, who haue debarred them­selues of al preferment both spiritual and temporal, which their Country yeeldeth to men of their profession, and can looke for no other promotion there, then a halter at Tyburne, was no lesse shameful then witlesse im­pudency. Briefly, M. Abbot by tearing Gods wordes in peeces, and patching it vp againe with his owne wordes ful il-fauouredly, and by ap­plying it most absurdly, is found to offer as great injury to it, as he hath done vnto those holy ancient learned Fathers aforesaid; who were by the spirit of God selected to be the principal expounders of it. So that finally, whether you regard the handling of Scriptures or Fathers, you shal sel­dome light vpon any Diuine that doth performe it more insufficiently (shal I say) or more perfidiously: neuerthelesse he sets such a brasen face on the matter; speaketh so confidently; conueieth it so cunningly; and doth gild it ouer so artificially, that the credulous and vnwary reader would thinke him to be some jolly fellow, and a rare flourishing writer. But be that wil not take vaine wordes for good paiment, nor tricks and shifts for sufficient proofes; but wil weigh his arguments wel, and diligently exa­mine his testimonies: he shal quickly discouer M. Abbots weakenesse, and finde him to be one of the most shallow and beggerliest writers of these daies: for he like a mount-banke indeede (to returne his owne wordes vpon him) setteth out for fresh and new marchandize, the very rif-raf and re­fuse of other Protestant authors, and that which hath beene an hundred times answered vnto by the learned on our side. In him therefore is truly verified that witty obseruation of S. Augustine, Lib. 1 cont. Gaud. c. 39. vttered against the Donatist Gaudentius: Nihil assert praeter lassum & quassum, [Page 17] he bringeth nothing that hath not beene already (by his owne com­ [...]nions) wearied out, and (as it were) tired by ouer often vsing; and [...] our party so shaken, battered, and beaten, that it cannot be but a foule [...]sgrace among the learned to put into light, and to set to sale so base, [...]erworne, thrid-bare, and ragged stuffe.

This I hope wil suffice for a preamble, to aduertise the indifferent [...]ader what opinion he is to conceiue and carry of M. Abbots writings, [...]e rest I remit to the Treatise it selfe; desiring the juditious reader to [...]are with those manifold difficulties, which we that liue in the land haue in this time of persecution, both to compose and to print our bookes: which duly considered, he wil not greatly blame our slownesse, if our workes come not foorth so speedily, as he may wel expect, and we doe greatly desire. Al­mighty God whose glory we seeke, and for whom we labour in the conuersion and right instruction of Christian soules, vouchsafe to send his heauenly blessing on our poore trauailes, and vpon al them who with good intention shal reade them ouer.

MASTER ABBOTS EPI­STLE TO HIS MAIESTY.

AMONG the manifold benefits, which the diuine prouidence hath yeelded vnto vs, by the happy entrance of your most sacred Majesty, to the im­perial Crowne of this realme, we cannot but most especially recognize that, vvhich we take to be the pillar and vpholder of the rest, the preserua­ [...]n of true religion, and continuance of the Gospel of Christ: [...]hich albeit it be a singuler and inestimable mercy of God, yet [...]ere is found amongst vs a vipers broode, a malecontented Sama­ [...]an generation, which neuer ceasseth whining and repining there [...], accounting this blessing of God to vs, a great wrong to them, [...]hilest by a Cachexie and corrupt disposition of the stomacke, [...]ey better brooke the Onions and Garleeke of Aegipt, then the [...]anna of heauen, and bread of Angels; and haue eares more de­ [...]hted with the Mermaides notes, and inchanting musicke of the [...]oore of Babilon, then with the plaine-song of true religion, di­ [...]cted by the simplicity of the word of God. Therefore, as in the [...]ies of our late most gratious Queene, they neuer rested working, bring this land againe vnder the slauery and bondage of the [...]n of sinne: so since your Majesties comming to the Crowne, [...]ey haue beene stil plotting the same; not only by attempting [...]ur Highnesse subjects, but also labouring in their Petitions and [...]dicatory Epistles, to draw your Majesty one vvay or other, to [...]nsort with them in their damnable and accursed deuises. And [...] Mount-bankes doe set foorth base wares with magnifical and [Page 20] lofty wordes: so doe they with braue tearmes labour to grace a counterfait and bastard faith, and in their supplications haue [...]un­ted to your Majesty of a religion, and neuer rest to commend a reli­gion; which indeede in the questioned part thereof, is no other but a refined heresie, compounded of sundry ancient heresies, on­ly clarified by Schoole-tricks from the more feculent and grosse parts thereof.

THE ANSVVERE TO M. ABBOTS EPISTLE TO HIS MA­IESTY.
VVILLIAM BISHOP.

THIS Epistle consisting partly vpon vaunts of their owne new-no-religion, but more specially in a most bitter inuectiue against ours, may for the former part be easily answered; because that in al his Epistle he hath not produced one seely proofe of any parcel of it, but only auoucheth in a certaine graue Ministerial confidence, that their counterfait superstition is the plaine-song o [...] truth, directed by the simplicity of Gods word; which when he goeth about to verifie, an answere shal be giuen him. In the meane sea­son we contrariwise take their profession of faith, to be no better then a heape of ragged errors, raked out of the dunghil of old con­demned heresies, though freshly trimmed vp, and varnished ouer deceitfully, with the glosse of Gods word after their owne inter­pretation. And touching their pretended diuine seruice, vvere pute it (as worthely we may) to be a prophane mingle-mangle compounded of some of the old and some of the new, by humo­rous nouellers to please men in authority; that they might there by shoulder out their betters, and shuffle in themselues (though most vnworthy) into the highest places of dignity, and best benefices of the land. This briefly may serue for answere vnto th [...] which M. Abbot speaketh in praise of his owne religion.

Now to those grieuous and malicious slanders, which he pow­ [...]h foorth aboundantly against the poore Catholikes. The first is, [...]at they are a vipers broode, and a male contented Samaritan generation. [...]ood wordes (gentle Sir) and vntil you haue gotten the credit of [...]other S. Iohn Baptist (which wil not be this yeare) beare with vs, [...]ough we cannot brooke such foule wordes, so wrongfully cast [...]pon vs: Let it be considered, whether those tearmes doe not ra­ [...]her fit men of your owne coate and profession. Young vipers to [...]eepe into this world, doe gnaw out their dammes bellies, and to [...]et the vse of life to themselues, doe kil those that gaue them life. [...]e not the Protestants (trow you) such kinde of creatures? did [...]ey not receiue their christendome and new birth by Catholikes, [...]at were their Predecessors? and doe they not by al meanes seeke [...]e ouerthrow and destruction of them, by whom they were re­ [...]nerated and borne a-new? If the Catholikes had beene descen­ [...]d from the Protestants, and had put them downe to set vp them [...]lues, M. Abbots reproch might haue had some col our of truth: [...]t the contrary being so notorious, that the Protestants issued of [...]e Catholikes, and to hatch the vipers of their venimous errors, [...]d (as much as in them lay) procure the destruction of their An­ [...]stors faith and religion; who can doubt, but that the Protestants [...]e much more like the vipers brood, then the Catholikes be? The [...]me may be said of the Samaritan generation, vvho albeit they [...]etended to be the off-spring of Iacob, Iob. 4. and to haue the true vvor­ [...]ip of God in the mount Garazin; yet vvere indeede Idolators, [...]d by force and vsurpation held that part of the country, which [...]as the ancient right of the Israelites: And because they could [...] quietly possesse it (as they thought) vvithout they serued the [...]od of Israel also;4. Reg. 17. they got some Priests of the Israelites among [...]em at the first, to reach them their rites and ceremonies, and so [...]rued together both the God of Israel, and each people their se­ [...]ral Gods besides: Loe vvhat it is to be a Samaritan generation. [...]e not the Protestants their cosen germans, or very neare kins­ [...]en? They vaunt themselues to be lineally descended of the Apo­ [...]les, and to serue God most purely; but they can make no better [...]oofe of their pedigree and lawful succession from the Apostles, [...]hen the Samaritans could doe of their natural discent from Iacob: [...]herefore they are strangers, borne of the sinnes of the people, [Page 22] and raised out of the ashes of old rotten Heretikes, that haue no right vnto any roomes in the Catholike and Apostolike Church, no more then the Assirians had vnto the land of Israel. Againe, being entred into possession of the Church-liuinges by violence, did they not for feare of displeasing the people (that might per­haps haue hoised them out againe) joine very many rites of the old seruice, vvith their new deuises, and gotte not one only (a [...] the Samaritans did) but many of our Priests to instruct them in the old ceremonies; euen as the Samaritans for pure feare, ser­ued the God of Israel vvith their owne Idols? so that in euery re­spect, the Protestant progeny is proued to resemble to the life, a Samaritan generation. Now the Catholikes, that haue not forci­bly driuen the Protestants out of their ancient country, nor taken any of their Ministers to teach them how to serue their Lord, but succeeding lineally the Apostles, as in place, so in doctrine and religion, can with no reason be called a Samaritan generation; and consequently M. Abbot vvas fouly ouer-seene, to charge vs with the imputation of such contumelies, that doe in no sort touch vs, but doe hitte themselues home. In which, he (that would be ta­ken for a great Oratour) must needes confesse, that he much for­got the wise counsel of the prince of Oratours Cicero, who saith: Qui alterum criminis accuset, &c. He that accuseth another man of any crime, ought before-hand diligently to consider, that be himselfe be not guilty of the same: for it is a grosse and intollerable impudency, to vp­braide another with that, wherein your selfe are most faulty. But here­in (as in many such like) M. Abbot thought it more policy belike, to imitate those infamous Elders, vvho fearing to be accused tru­ly by chast Susanna of their outragious attempt, began first to bur­then her vvrongfully vvith the accusation of forged crimes: If therefore he speede no better therein then they did, let him thanke himselfe for his badde choise.

I omit here his manifold other spiteful tearmes against his Holi­nesse, and other inferiour persons, as the ordinary flowers of his rusty rhethorike: yet I cannot but note, that he doth repeate a­gaine and againe, the vvord (Religion) too too scornefully for a man that maketh account of any religion: and may not let passe that incongruity, vvhich M. Abbot (being a great Architect of wordes) hath committed in his owne art. For in the fore-front of [Page 23] his dedication, he hath placed such a number of base, rascal, & vile wordes, as must needes seeme very vnfit to present vnto so high a Majesty, as is the Monarke of great Britanny: whose most ciuil and delicate eares, may not abide the sound of such rude and harsh speeches: as be (for example) Vipers broode, whoore, bastard, slauery, damnable, accursed, inchaunting, whining, repining, onions, garleeke, feculent, cachexy, and such like: a dainty messe of wordes no doubt, and meete to be tendered vnto so juditious a Prince, for a choise breake-fast.Page 39. Ioine here vnto that which M. Philpot (as he saith) in great heate of spirit answered Doct. Chadsey: Afore God you are bare­arsed in al your religion, and many of the same sort, wherewith his vvritinges are besmeared; and then judge whether they doe not smel more rankly of some noisome tan-fat, then sauour of any ciui­lity; and whether that old Adage may not be verified in him, That which is bredde in the bone wil neuer out of the flesh: otherwise the study of Philosophy in so famous an Vniuersity, and chiefly the profession of Diuinity, vvould haue weaned him from such rusti­cal and homely tearmes, and haue taught him to vse more ciuility in his writinges, dedicated specially to so high a Majesty. Let vs proceede.

ROBERT ABBOT.

AMONGST the rest one Doctor Bishop a secular and seminary Priest, a man of special reputation among them, and chosen to be a maine stickler in the late contentions of the secular Priests against the Iesuites, hath taken vpon him to sollicite your Majesty in that behalfe, and hauing apprehended a speech or two, deliue­red from your Majesties owne mouth in the conference of Ham­pton-Court, would make you beleeue, that if you wil stand vnto what your selfe haue deliuered, you must needes admit their Ca­tacatholike tradition, to be the Catholike and true faith. Whose Epistle to your Majesty, when I had perused and examined (the answering of the vvhole booke, being by authority vnder your Majesty committed vnto me) I could not but wonder, that the au­thor of it durst offer it, being so ful of falshood and childish folly, to a Prince so learned and wel able to judge thereof; but that I considered that one vntruth must vphold another, and he that hath vndertaken a badde cause, must vse vvorse meanes for the maintaining of it. He chargeth the religion established and pro­fessed [Page 24] by your Highnesse, with heresies, impieties, blasphemies, absurdities, and what not that malice and ignorance can deuise to speake? And this is the common stile of the rest of them, vvho when they come to proue and exemplifie what they speake, they shew themselues to be but sicophants and hirelings to the Pope, for whose sake they must speake to gale and disgrace, howsoeuer there be no truth in that they speake. And if they dare thus im­pudently carry themselues in print, and to your Majesty, vvhat dare they not say in corners, to the intrapping and seducing of simple and vnlearned men? by which meanes, many of your Ma­jesties subjects are intangled in a misconscience of religion, and thereby withdrawne from the true conscience of their loyaltie to­wardes your Highnesse their Liege and soueraigne Lord, and are made but flaxe and tow for the fire of their seditious practises: who haue beene bold already to tel your Majesty, that if you wil not yeeld them vvhat they desire,Sect. 34. of D. Bishops Epistle. Aug. in psal. God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity wil force them vnto at length; therein verifying of themselues that which S. Augustine said of the Donatists their Predecessors. Where they cannot by sty and wily cosenage creepe like Aspes, there with open professed violence they rage like Lions.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THAT dissentions doe sometimes fal among the best and most perfect Christians, is not vnknowne vnto them that be con­uersant in the Scriptures. In the beginning of the Apostles go­uernement,Act. 6. ver. 1. There arose a murmuring of the Greekes against the Hebrewes, for that their widdowes were despised in the daily ministery. Againe,Act. 15. vers. 39. There arose a dissention (betweene two principal per­sons S. Paul and S. Barnabas) about the taking of Iohn surnamed Marke into their company, so that they departed the one from an­other. Such dissentions as are without the breach of vnity of faith and religion, are so incident vnto the diuersity of mens different judgements, that no aduised creature ought to be scandalized thereat. If then the Priests and Iesuites did disagree about the in­troduction of a new kinde of discipline and gouernement (which neuer lightly hapneth in any common weale or company, with­out some jarre and contention,) what just cause hath M. Abbot or his fellowes, to declaime against it? We doe not striue about the number and nature of the Sacraments, as the Lutherans and Zwin­glians [Page 25] did and doe: we doe not disagree about the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the whole frame of church-gouernment, as doe the Protestants and Puritans; or briefly, in any matter of faith or re­ligion: only the Priests found themselues grieued, because in that matter of a new forme of gouernement to be put vpon them, nei­ther their aduises were heard, nor their consent required, vvhom it did principally concerne; but al passed by the information and in­stigation of them (as it was thought) who would be wholy exem­pted from it. At this manner of proceeding, and at that which en­sued of it, they were not a little moued: yet, seing they orderly sought to their Superiors for redresse, and referred the whole mat­ter vnto their determination, the dissention vvas but, such as hath beene among the best Christians; what great matter then can they make of this? And did M. Abbot meane (trow you) by making me a special stickler for the secular Priests, to picke a thanke at my handes, for recōmending me thereby to his Majesty and the state, vvho seeme to haue the Iesuites in farre greater jealousie for dea­ling in matters of gouernement, then the seculars? It is not likely, because he foorth-with falleth to discommending me and my sim­ple vvorke, as much as may be; wondering how I durst offer it to his Majesty, being so ful of falshood and childish folly Is it not a farre greater wonder, to see so industrious and learned a Doctor, as M. Abbot vvould be reputed, to be holden one yeare and a halfe, a­bout the answering of one sheete and a halfe of such childish fol­lies? nay is it not a wonder of wonders, that he who taketh him­selfe able to furnish truth with al it strength, In his epistle to the King. should notwithstanding confesse, that he may not thinke himselfe to haue attained (in this his answere to these childish follies) vnto that that the matter doth re­quire? How hang these thinges together? if you thought it pollicy to depresse and disable my booke, as in effect containing nothing but toies, and the rublish of old walles; you should not so soone after haue declared in wordes, and by long labour about it rectified in deedes, that it required great ability and long time, to be in any reasonable sort answered.

When you say that I charge the religion professed by his Ma­jesty, with heresies, impieties, blasphemies, &c. you in the waightier part doe falsly slander me,Page 121. which I wil proue euen by your owne testimony. For I say (as it may be seene in your owne booke) that [Page 26] I wil let passe their impiety, that make God the author of al wickednesse, and say nothing of their blasphemy, who touch our Sauiour with doubting, if not with despaire of his owne saluation. In which my speeches, I taxe by the way Caluin, In the Pre­face vnto the secōd part of the reformed. Page. 124. Beza, and some other, vvhom I haue more fully proued else where, to teach plainly those points of im­piety and blasphemy. But how doth that concerne the doctrine established and professed by his Highnesse, seing that you your selfe testifie, that you in your Churches and Schooles doe deter­mine the contrary? you your selfe then are my witnesse, that I doe not charge the doctrine established by his Majesty, neither vvith impieties nor blasphemies; though Caluin and his complices stand justly chargeth therewith. And you yourselfe, though at the first you would seeme to dislike them, yet draw very neare them: for first you are not abashed to say;Page 125. That God taketh occasion to pro­uoke a man to doe wickedly. Now to prouoke, that is, to stirre vp and push a man forward to commit sinne, is so euil of it selfe, and so contrary to Gods wil and commandements, that it cannot be im­puted to God vvithout impiety; vvho as S. Iames vvitnesseth,Iacob. 1. vers. 13. Tempteth no man. Further, you say in the same section: That the burden of Gods wrath lay so beauy vpon Christ our redeemer, that it pres­sed him euen to the gates of hel; and his estate for present feeling, was as if God had abhorred his soule. Page 127. Againe, Christ according to his present feeling said; my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me: which wordes signifie, that our Sauiour both thought, said, and felt, that his heauenly father for the time had forsaken him, and did abhorre his soule; which, if it be not blasphemy, I know not what blasphe­my is. For God doth not withdraw his loue and liking from any man that he once loued, and doth not abhorre his soule, vnlesse that man doe first forsake God, and commit some offence against his diuine Majesty, as all diuines agree: but to imagine that our Sauiour committed any offence against his heauenly Father (as impious Caluin doth insinuate) is flat blasphemy against his imma­culate purity,In c. 27. Mat. and against the holy Scriptures, that doe testifieHebr. 7. vers. 26. Our high Priest to be holy, innocent, impolluted, segregated from sin­ners, higher then the heauens, &c. That had no necessity to offer for his owne sinnes. How therefore could his heauenly Father abhorre his soule? or how could he be so euil perswaded of so good a Fa­ther? God indeede to shew the rigour of his justice against our [Page 27] sinnes, for which Christ suffered, and the better to declare Christs inuincible fortitude, and most feruent loue towardes vs; was con­tent not to yeeld vnto Christs humanity vpon the crosse, so much as the ordinary inward comfort, vvhich he affordeth vnto al that suffer for his names sake: and that only did Christ in the name of his humanity expresse, where he said; My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me, and doest not afford me so much as that in­ward consolation which thou grantest to others? But he was at the very same instant most assured, that euen then God did loue him more ardently (if it were possible) then at any time in his vvhole life before; because that then he did for his sake, according to his heauenly decree, and to satisfie his vvil and pleasure, suffer the greatest sorrowes that the nature of man could sustaine, and that without any kinde of extraordinary or ordinary helpe, comfort or consolation: but of this I haue spoken more in the Preface before alleaged.

Here I am only to note how M. Abbot slandereth me in this place, with that whereof he himselfe cleareth me afterwards in his booke: Let vs goe on vvith his reproches. He saith; That we be but sicophants, and hirelings to the Pope, for whose sake we must gale and disgrace, howsoeuer there be no truth in that we speake. How proueth he this? is it not the part of a notable sicophant indeede, to vp­braide a vvhole order of men vvith so great crimes, vvithout any proofe at al? How many learned Catholike writers be there in the world, that neuer receiued one peny from the Popes holynesse, no nor neuer so much as saw him, or had any particular dealings with him? what they doe out of their duty towardes God, and of zeale to his sacred truth, that M. Abbot vvould haue seely soules to be­leeue, to be done only of constraint and feare, or for some hope of worldly gaine. Perge mentiri; goe on Sir with your tale: By which meanes (saith he) many of your subjects are intangled in a misconscience of religion, and thereby drawne from their true loialty, and prepared for seditious practises: so saith he both simply and falsly, without any colour of proofe. But we say, that by the Catholike doctrine, al subjects consciences are rightly informed in the waies of God, and thereby instructed to be true and faithful to their Princes, and to hate al such practises, as tend to the perturbation of the vveale publike. Yea, vve doe more forcibly and effectually by the Ca­tholike [Page 28] doctrine moue al subjects vnto dutiful obedience, then the Protestants doe:Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. ca. 10. num. 5. Perkins re­formed catho­like, pag. 157. for they hold, that Christian liberty alloweth al men the free vse of al thinges indifferent, and that such thinges may not be made necessary in conscience; so that if the Prince goe about to restraine his subjects of that liberty, they are not bound to obey him: vvhereas we al maintaine, that al men are bound in conscience to obey al such just lawes of Princes, as are not directly against the law of God: our doctrine therefore, doth farre excel the Protestants, in the matter of true loialty.

And to answere here by the vvay, to that odious argument of theirs; That the Papists (forsooth) are but halfe subjects, because in matters of religion they are not ruled by their King and his lawes, but doe depend vpon the Pope: I say, that if al they, who in matters of faith and saluation, doe not take their temporal Prince to be their su­preme gouernour, should be esteemed but halfe subjects: then the mighty Monarkes of France and Spaine, and al other Catholike Kings or Princes of the vvorld, haue not any one whole subject; for none of their people acknowledge them for chiefe cōmanders in Ecclesiastical causes: then also for a thousand yeares together, our former Kinges were wholy destitute of true and loial subjects; for they depended no lesse then we doe vpon the Bishop of Rome, for declaration and decision of spiritual affaires, as it is very parti­cularly demonstrated, in that learned answere vnto Sr. Edward Cookes fift booke of reportes. Briefly, if this their reason vvere good, the Apostles and al the first and best Christians vvere but halfe subjects: for in matters of faith not one of them vvould be ruled by the Roman Emperors, or other their temporal Princes; but did al acknowledge and confesse some other supreme gouer­nour in those spiritual cases: wherefore, they must either allow vs to be perfect loial subjects, notwithstanding our dependance vp­on the Popes holynesse in causes Ecclesiastical, or else condemne as disloial, al the best Christian subjects that euer vvere euen since Christes owne daies. And thus much may serue for this place, to shew that they are to be reputed vvhole subjects, and that of the best marke, who doe giue vntoMath. 22. vers. 21. Caesar, that which is Caesars, re­seruing neuerthelesse vnto God and his Vicar, that vvhich to him appertaineth.

I returne to M. Abbots accusations: They haue beene bold already [Page 29] (saith he) to tel your Majesty, that if you wil not yeeld them what they desire, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity, wil driue them to at length, meaning (as he expoundeth it) that if we could not get vvhat vve desire by vviles like Aspes, we would like raging Lions seeke it by open violence. These wordes of M. Abbots maketh me remember that worthy saying of a graue wise author.Sr. Thomas Moore. Take away lying and railing from Heretikes, and you shal leaue them little or no­thing. This one little sentence of mine, whereon he makes a whole discourse a part, and doth glance and girde at it very often else­where, (thinking to haue gotten thereby a great aduantage against al Catholikes) he could not propose to his Majesty without a lease of lies. The first is, that he auoucheth my only feare and conje­cture, to be the constant opinion of al Catholikes; they haue beene bold saith he, vvhen he citeth my only vvordes vvriting in mine owne name: wherefore he doeth open wrong to others, to impute that to them whereunto they were not accessary; if there be any ouersight committed in it, it is mine alone, and not any other bo­dies. M. Abbots second vntruth, is couched in these wordes: If your Majesty wil not yeeld them what they desire, which are farre wide from that which I wrote: for I said not, if vve may not haue what we desire (vvhich vvere not only a tolleration, but a perfect resti­tution of the Catholike faith) but if poore innocent Catholikes, should for their conscience sake only be stripped of al their goods, depriued of their liberty, and liue alwaies in deepe disgrace, and eminent danger of their liues, without any hope of amendment; that then at length God knoweth what necessity may driue them vnto: this you see is farre different, from that which M. Abbot relateth.

Now to the third and most spiteful lie of al the rest: that if they may not obtaine what they desire by faire meanes, then they wil with fire and sworde enforce it; which I neither said nor thought, as God the searcher of al harts doth best know: I only signified a farre off, and that vnder these doubtful tearmes (God knowes,) that it vvas not vnlike (considering the frailty of mans corrupt nature) but that such extreame vsage, might perhaps prouoke and stirre vp some impatient and fiery spirits, to vndergoe some certaine attempt a­gainst some of them, whom they tooke to be the principal procu­rers of their misery; which other good Catholikes would be right sorry to see, and might peraduenture greatly rue. This being the [Page 30] vttermost of my meaning, and my wordes in reasonable constru­ction not importing any thing more, vvas it not the part of a veni­mous spider, to suck so pestilent poison out of it? That vulgar pro­uerbe to vvhich I alluded: Durum telum necessitas, or as it is in En­glish, Necessity hath no law, is approued of al men: and the prudent Polititian hath obserued, that Patientia laesa vertitur in furorem; Pa­tience to much pressed doth turne into fury. Out of which and the like Axiomes of the wise, and ouer frequent putting them in practise by the vnwise; a man of smal prouidence might, if not easily fore­see, yet greatly suspect and feare, least such vrgent extreamitie vvithout any hope of redresse, vvould make some euil mortified men, forget their duty to both God and man, and runne head-long into some mischief. On the other side, al men that doe treate of the methode of perswasion, doe instruct him that is to deale in that kinde, to propose aswel the inconueniences that may ensue, if that be not done vvhich he exhorteth vnto, as the commodities that wil arise of the doing of it; and vvhen this is performed in decent tearmes and dutiful manner, none but wrangling cauillers can take any exception against it: Now, further to rack and vvrest it into so odious a sense, as M. Abbot doth, must needes conuince him to be a very virulent calumniator. Let vs put the case, that those sage Counsellors, vvho aduised King Roboam to deale more gratiously with his people, then his Father had done before him, should af­ter they had vsed other reasons to perswade him thereunto, haue added this to moue him the sooner to condescend to his subjects sute: That if he did then refuse to grant that their earnest request, God knoweth what they might thereupon be moued to doe; had they beene vvorthy to be stiled false traitors for their labour, if out of their feare of future mishaps, they had put their Prince in mind of them beforehand, that he might being so warned the better preuent and auoide them? Sure I am, that the holy Ghost doth cōmend them for vvise and faithful Counsellours, and preferreth them farre be­fore those other, who encouraged the King to deale more hardly with his people, then euer his Predecessour had done before him: yet their wordes recorded in the sacred Text, seeme not so respe­ctiue as mine are; for they willed their Soueraigne,3. Reg. 12. vers. 7. To obey the voice of his subjects, and to serue them, and then they would serue him; signifying A contrario sensu, that if he did not yeeld vnto their sute, [Page 31] they vvould serue him no longer: so that the ordinary methode of perswasion approued by al the learned, fenced also and fortified vvith the president of so worthy wise men, commended in holy Scripture, wil serue (I hope) for this time, to shelter me from the tempestuous tongue of M. Abbot. I vvil hereafter in the proper place, make answere particularly to al his exaggerations, outcries, and inferences thereupon; because he almost in euery part of his discourse, is twanging vpon this string: If I had ouer-reached in any point of duty, I may be wel assured, that I should haue most often heard of it; he tosseth and tumbleth those few temperate wordes of mine so busily and spitefully; which if they be compa­red vnto the plaine and round speeches, which the pillars of their Gospel doe chaunt and sound out in that kinde, are not so much as flea-bitings. Heare some of their sentences and then judge.

Their ring-leader Luther defineth in expresse tearmes:Luther. ad E­lect. Saxon. & Lantgra. tom. 6. fol. 602. That it is the duty of a subject, to rise in armes against his Soueraigne in defence of their religion: Yea, That they doe grieuously offend, and tempt God, if in that his cause, they vse not their weapons when they may: and this to haue beene the resolute opinion of other learned Lutherans, their owne Hystoriographer Iohn Sleidan hath recorded.Sleidan. l. 22. hyst. fol. 345. Li. 4. Episto­larū Zwing. & Oecolamp. pag 868. & 869. With Luther in that point agreeth Zwinglius, another of their great Rabbines, affirming; That if the Emperor or any other Prince oppresse the Go­spel, the people ought to resist them: which if they doe not, but suffer the Prince to foile the Gospel, they thereby become as guilty of that hainous crime, as the oppressors themselues. Iohn Caluin surpasseth the rest: for he declareth,Caluin. in cap. 6. Dan. v. 22. & 25. Al Kings that goe about to suppresse the Gospel, to rebel and rise against God, and thereby to depriue themselues of al Kingly authority; Yea, to be vnworthy the name of men: and that their subjects ought rather to spit in their faces, then to obey them. I let passe for bre­uities sake, vvhat Goodman and the English bretheren at Geneua decreed, concerning rebelling against our Queene Mary of happy memory: and what Knoxe and Buchanan, preached, taught, and practised against another blessed Queene Mary of Scotland. But M. Iewels opinion in this case, is vvorthy to be chronicled; who liuing vnder a Prince of his owne religion, yet to make it euident to the world what the Protestants constant opinion thereof is, doth deliuer;In the first part of his de­fence, pa. 16. & 17. That subjects indeede are bound to obey their Princes, how be it not in al thinges, but so farre as Gods glory is not touched: wherefore, [Page 32] the Noble men of Scotland (that vvere then vp in armes against his Majesties mother) had learned of S. Peter, that it is better to obey God then man. Further, the Queene of Scotland was obeied of her subjects, as farre as it is conuenient for Gods people to obey their Prince: vvhich was by force of armes for the Gospel to cast her into prison, and to depriue her of her Princely crowne and dignity. These then being both the common doctrine and practise of Protestants, (which M. Abbot could not be ignorant off) with what face could he keepe such adoe about those few wordes of mine, that doe nei­ther teach, commend, nor allow of any violence offered to their Prince, no not in defence of mens owne goodes, liberties, and liues; but only to preuent al danger, doe put his Majesty in minde of the old prouerbe: Durum telum necessitas, and referre it vnto his Majesties prouident wisdome, to consider what may follow there of? and thus much of that matter, the sentence of S. Augustine shal be examined hereafter.

ROBERT ABBOT.

SOME effect whereof your Majesty hath seene, in that barba­rous and Scithian-like attempt, lately made for the destruction of your Highnesse person and bloud, and perpetual subuersion and ouerthrow of the whole realme: which as it differeth from the practise of al ancient Christians, and Christian Churches (vvhich vndoubtedly vvere of God) so it plainly declareth, that that do­ctrine which professeth not a lawfulnesse only, but a merit in such attempts, is vndoubtedly of the Deuil and not of God. The bro­chers of vvhich monstrous and vnnatural villanies, as they haue long time liued in exercise of that malice; so stil wil make it to ap­peare, that they are not yet disgorged of the poison of it. Where­of sith they haue giuen so great an argument, and assurance, by abusing your Majesties lenity and patience towardes them, when lawes might more seuerely haue proceeded against them; our praier to God is, that your Majesty may from hence-foorth, take these thinges so farre to hart, as shal be needful for the safety of your Roial person, your posterity and realme. And as for vs, true it is, that our jelousie ouer the soules of your subjects, and griefe to see them so seduced and beguiled, hath long made vs say out of the Apostles affection, as he did of the false Apostles:Galat. 5. vers. 12. Would to God they were euen cut off that trouble you; being wel assured, that [Page 33] their aduantages gotten by your Majesties patience tovvardes [...]hem, vvould in the end be a disaduantage to your selfe. But yet we could not but subscribe, to your Majesties most religious and Princely care, first to giue them instruction and satisfaction, to try whither receiuing answere to those thinges which to your Majesty they haue alleaged, they vvould be reclaimed from that head-strong presumption, vvhich hitherto hath so mightily possessed them: wherein if they by their intollerable trecheries, haue alte­red your Majesties intent of fauour vnto them, and the state con­ceiue just cause, with al seuerity and rigour to proceed immediate­ly against them; the guilt lieth vpon themselues, and they must confesse, that they themselues haue drawne the sworde, to be im­brued in their owne bloud.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

TOVCHING that detestable enterprise, projected by some few greene heades, who at their death made profession of the Catholike religion (though the chiefest of them as I verily thinke, had not liued Catholikes three yeares before they entred into this conspiracy, but conuersed among Protestants, of vvhom they might haue learned that vvicked lesson:) I doe humbly and ear­nestly request al discreet Protestants (as they feare Christes just judgements) not to suffer themselues to be further estranged from other Catholikes, that were altogether innocent of it, then Chri­stian charity, and humane equity wil giue them good leaue. First, then touching our religion (which M. Abbot most vnjustly would haue to stand charged with this most vnchristian plot; for God be thanked it neuer proceeded to the hurt of any mans little fin­ger,) it doth more roundly and absolutely condemne such bloudy conspiracies, then the Protestants Gospel doth by an hundred de­grees; for their chiefe Doctors doe seeme not much to dislike of it, as you haue heard before: but we doe detest and abhorre it, as both highly offensiue to God, and very hateful to man. But the conspiratours vvith their complices, hauing suffered for it most painful and shameful death, and losse of al their landes and goodes: what reason or conscience is it, that the guilt and obloquy thereof, should be extended and cast vpon others, vvho are wholy guilt­lesse and free from al priuity or approuing of it? the holy Ghost saith:Eccles. 27. vers. 3. Conteritur cum delinquente delictum; the offence is vviped [Page 34] away and extinguished, vvhen the offendour is put to death and consumed. Againe;Ezech. 18. vers. 20. Anima que peccauerit, &c. The man who hath offended shal die: The Sonne shal not carry the iniquity of his Fa­ther, nor the Father of the Sonne, but the justice of a just man shal be to himselfe, and the impiety of the vngodly shal be vpon him selfe, and not lie vpon another. This being the decree of God, vvith what counte­nance can they that take vpon them to be Gods Ministers, impute the crime of those delinquents vnto al men of the same religion, without any further proofe of their fault therein? That holy Patri­arke Abraham, when he heard that God purposed to destroyGenes. 18. vers. 24. So­dome and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone, for their stincking and abhominable sinnes, thought it yet a duty of humanity, to in­treate for creatures of his owne kinde, though they were neuer so badde, and out of natural compassion, beganne to sue for their pardon; obtaining at length, that if there had beene but tenne just and innocent men in fiue cities and great townes, al the rest should for their sakes haue beene pardoned. Doe not they then shewe themselues no kinde children of Abraham (the Father of al true be­leeuers,) nor to haue any Christian compassion or good nature in them, who are so farre off from suing out the offendours pardon, for the sakes of many harmelesse persons, that they would cleane contrary, haue thousands of innocents destroied for the trespasse of some dozen of delinquents? and if this wil not serue to purge and cleanse their festred stomackes, of that euil affection vvith which their preachers haue infected them, I then doe most hartily request them, to suppose for a season, the case to be their owne; and then to tel me, whether they would thinke it reason, that they should be taken for accessary to al treasons committed by men of their owne religion. And to omit al other rebellions raised at home and abroade by Protestants (which are exceeding many,) would they haue our Soueraigne Lord KING IAMES, repute and esteeme al Ministers and their disciples to be disloial vnto him and traitors,Dangerous positions. because the Ministers in Scotland with their followers re­belled against him, and by force of armes compelled him to yeeld vnto their willes; or because that the Earle Gowry with his brother and family (almost earnest Gospellers) did actually attempt, trai­terously to haue murthered his Majesties most sacred person, that therefore he should hate al men of the same religion, and repute [Page 35] them for traitors? I am wel assured they wil say no, and plead that [...]it were no reason nor justice, to punish them that neuer meant his Majesty any harme, for the fault of others; and that in al religions there be some badde, for whose wickednesse the good of the same religion ought not to be oppressed: if they would thus pleade, if the case vvere their owne, they should in Christian equity admit the like plea for vs. But the simple people are (by their preachers and others) made to beleeue, that al Papists vvere priuy to that conspiracy, or at least would haue beene glad of it, if it had succee­ded and taken place: they are very simple indeed, that suffer them selues to be so perswaded.

For answere vnto the later surmise: If it had taken effect, it had blowne vp aswel Catholikes as Protestants, and that in great num­bers; vvho the first day of the Parliament, are wont to presse into that place to heare his Majesties speech: wherefore, Catholikes could not haue beene glad of that, vvhich should haue deuoured so many of their owne profession. Againe, suppose al the Parlia­ment had beene blowne vp (vvhich God of his great goodnesse preuēted) how much the nearer had the Catholikes beene to haue obtained the establishmēt of their religion, the body of the realme being against them, and would for that bloudy and barbarous act, haue hated them much more then euer before it did? so that it hath no probability, that the wiser sort of Catholikes would haue beene glad, that that should haue beene brought to passe, which would haue proued so hurtful to so many of them, without any certainty to haue benefited the rest. This therefore is only a malitious and odious surmise, put vpon them by their backe-friends at pleasure. To the other point vvhich is of very great moment (if is were any way probable) I answere; that al the circumstances of the matter, doe fully cleere and acquite al other Catholikes of that crime: for first the vvhole processe of the offendors, is set out in print by his Highnesse authority, where twelue or thirteene persons only, are proued to haue beene priuy, consenting, and accessary to it; who were al and euery one of them, bound by oath and Sacrament not to communicate or vtter the same to any other: so that al others being kept from so much as the knowledge of it, how could they be consenting to that they knew not? Secondly, his Majesty both by publike speech in the Parliament, and by proclamation in the [Page 36] country did declare; that there were many Catholikes innocent of this treason, yea some of them as forwardly to discouer and appre­hend the offenders, as any other subjects: these be his Highnes one speeches, which are very memorable in a Proclamation of the 7. of Nouemb. 1603. Although we are by good experience, so wel perswaded of the loialty of diuers of our subjects (though not professing true religion) that they doe as much abhorre this detestable conspiracy, as our selues; and wilbe ready to doe their best endeauours (though with exspence of their bloud) to suppresse al attempts against our safty, &c. vvhere also his Majesty out of his Princely equity commanded, that the innocent should not be wrongfully vexed about it. Thirdly, that most vi­gilant and prudent Counsellour, the right Honorable Earle of Sa­lisbury now Lord Treasurer, (who was like to looke as farre into this plot as any other) in his eloquent discourse printed, doth not only free other Catholikes from that conspiracy; but also yeel­deth a very probable argument therefore, to wit: That the conspi­rators rising in a country where many of their religion are thought to dwel none (excepting some few of their owne seruants and kinsmen) would aide or assist them; Yea, many sent their men and armour to pursue and apprehend them, which was a manifest proof that they abhorred from that practise: for in any ordinary quarrel, the mea­nest of half a dozen of them might quickly haue found many more to haue taken his part, then al they could get together to assist them in that hateful enterprise. This might be yet further fortified if neede were, by the testimony of Sr. Edward Cooke (now chiefe Iu­stice of the common pleas, then Atturney general) who in his plea against the delinquents, deliuereth the very same obseruation; That none of their religion would take part with them therein. Al which, proceeding from such principal persons; who were, as of best in­telligence in those affaires, so nothing partial in fauouring that re­ligion: how then can any man of meane vnderstanding be yet hol­den in that grosse error, that al Catholikes were consenting, or any way priuy to that powder-treason? And if al Protestants that con­ceiue so vncharitable an opinion of their poore afflicted country­men, be to blame; how much more are those preachers to be con­demned, who (notwithstanding the publike notice thereof giuen out in print, of which they could not be ignorant) haue euer since, and doe not yet ceasse, to cry out, infame, and slander al Catho­likes [Page 37] with that hainous crime? If they vvere Gods true seruants, they vvould rather perswade to mercy, th [...]n to justice; because God doth exalt mercy aboue justice: but to cry out against harmelesse subjects, that they may be cruelly handled for other mens faults, hath no colour of either mercy or justice, but doth conuince them of inuincible malice, the peculiar property of the euil spirit and his Ministers.

Now to M. Abbot, one of their principal proctors for bloud as it seemeth. He forsooth (Out of the Apostles affection) wisheth, that his Majesty would giue order, that Catholike Priests at the least might be euen cut in peeces: assuring his Majesty and the state, that if they with al rigour and seuerity proceede immediately against them, the guilt shal ly vpon themselues; because they haue drawne the sworde to be imbrued in their owne bloud. What a bloud-thirsty Minister haue vve here? what? because some rash vnaduised Catholikes, (who were for the greater part, much decaied in their estates) haue deserued the sworde, may al of the same religion how innocent soeuer of that fact, be therefore cut in peece? make yee no difference betweene the just and the vnjust? must not the sworde of justice be put vp into the scabberd, vvhen the vnjust and trespassers are punished? No saith M. Abbot, it must not so be; for being once justly drawne, he that draweth it may lawfully lay about him, and strike as wel on the left hand as on the right, it maketh no matter whom he kil and slay, so he be of the same religion: for the guilt of al shal be laid vpon them, that first caused the sworde to be drawne, and not vpon him that strikes. Did euer any Christian man heare such a wicked sentence? can any thing be more vnjust, cruel, and barbarous? what greater indignity could he haue offered vnto that charitable vessel of ele­ction S. Paul, then to make him patron of this his most detestable doctrine? who was so farre off, from desiring any euil mans death, that rather he wished to die himselfe for his greatest enemies, then to haue any of them killed:Rom. 9. vers. 3. Optabam anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis; and these wordes of his cited by M. Abbot, are farre from that sence, that he would wrest and wring out of them. In­deede the Manichaean Heretike Faustus, did take them euen as M. Abbot doth, that you may know how wel one Heretike consorteth with another; to whom S. Augustine answered 1200.Lib. 10. cont. Faustū. c. 22. yeares agoe thus: The Apostle seemeth to haue wished il vnto the Iewes, that went [Page 38] about to perswade the Galathians to circumcision, when he said; I would they were euen cut off that trouble you; but if thou didest wel consider the person that wrote it, thou wouldest vnderstand that he rather wisht them wel, by a most elegant ambiguity of the word (abscissi) cut off or gelded: for there be Eunuches, who haue cut and gelded themselues for the King­dome of heauen; which (saith that learned Doctor) Faustus would haue perceiued and tasted, if vnto the word of God he had brought a Godly pal [...]te or taste: so that the true meaning of S. Paules wordes are, that he would haue them that perswaded the faithful to be circumci­sed, not only to be circumcised themselues, but also to be abscided, that is, to be gelded; and that not carnally neither, as S. Augustine there expoundeth it, but spiritually, that is, to liue continently al their life time, the better to serue in the ministery; of the Gospel If M. Abbot out of his Apostolical affection doe vvish that to Ca­tholike Priests, he hath his desire; for they doe professe perpetual chastity, the more conueniently to serue God in that calling: but if he meane thereby to incense his Majesty, to imbrue his sworde in their bloud, as the course of his wordes doe too plainly import, he vvas as farre vvide from the right meaning of S. Paules holy wordes, as he differeth from him in spirit and affection: And there fore too too presumptuously doth he ranke himselfe in affection with that most zealous Apostle S. Paul. What doe you speake out of the Apostles affection? bate me an ace I pray you modest Sir; the best man that liueth at this day, yea that euer liued since the Apo­stles time, vvould haue beene fouly ashamed to haue compared himselfe with S. Paul in zeale and affection. But our gracelesse Ministers, that haue no sparke of true zeale in them, blush not to equal themselues herein, with the most zealous of Christs peerlesse Apostles; which must needes moue al discreet Christians, to de­base and humble them as much as may be, if not vpon conscience for loue of the truth, yet to fulfil that decree of our Sauiour Christ:Luc. 18. vers. 14. He that exalteth himselfe shal be humbled. Now to the last part of this Epistle.

ROBERT ABBOT.

YET the course by your Highnesse intended, hath stil most ne­cessary vse for the discouering of the impudency of these pe­titioners, for the gaining of such as may be gained to the acknow­ledgment of Gods truth: And that asBernard in Cant. S. Bernard saith, though the [Page 39] Heretike arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confir­med in the faith. To a part of which businesse, since it hath plea­sed them to whom your Majesty hath committed the care thereof, to cal me the meanest of many other, albeit by reason of some in­firmity in my eies, I haue not yet beene able to performe the whole that vvas assigned vnto me; yet for the time, to giue some part of satisfaction to many of your Majesties subjects, vvhom it hath much moued to see the state of our Church with calumnious libels so traduced and slandered, I haue published this answere to Doct. Bishops Epistle, therein carrying my selfe faithfully and vprightly, as to God and my Prince, though my ability be not such, as that I may thinke my selfe to haue attained to that, that the matter doth require. But that vvhich my smal talent wil yeelde, in al humble duty I tender to your Majesties most gratious and Princely fauour, hoping that your Highnesse acceptation of these indeauours, shal stirre vp those that are of greater gifts, to yeelde greater helps, for the vpholding and further building of the Church of Christ. The Lord preserue your most excellent Majestie, and as he hath hitherto done, so continue stil to discouer and bring to naught, the deuises and counsels of them that imagine euil against you: and as of his infinite mercy he hath implanted in your Majesty the know­ledge and loue of his true religion; so goe forward with his good vvorke, to vvater that vvhich he hath planted, that it may bring foorth plentiful fruit to the publike aduancement of the glory of God, and the priuate comfort of your owne soule at the day of Iesus Christ.

Your Majesties most loyal and dutiful subject. ROBERT ABBOT.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THAT his most excellent Majesty, desireth to haue al his liege people fully satisfied in these waighty matters of their eternal saluation, he is therefore highly to be honoured, reuerenced, and beloued: but that there is no better order taken for the due execu­tion of it, then to imploy the pennes of such railing vvriters, we are right hartily sorry. Our vehement desire and most humble sute, hath beene and is vnto his gratious Hihgnesse, that a publike conference vpon equal conditions might be granted vs; vvhere [Page 40] men being brought face to face wil be made to blush if they speake not directly and soundly to the purpose, and vvhere they shal not be suffered to shift off matters, as they doe absent by writing. In the meane season we wish very greatly, and earnestly request them to vvhom his Majesty hath committed this care for answering our bookes, that they would vouchsafe to match vs somewhat more e­uenly, and not to appoint a great cracking sower of vvordes, to cope with them that seeke to cut off al superfl [...]ity and ornaments of vvordes, and to furnish their worke only with arguments. In deede, if there were nothing in my writinges but childish toies, as M. Abbot reports; then he without doubt was a fit man to giue it the answere: but if there lie more marrow and pith hidden in it then one at the first sight vvould perhaps suppose, then surely it doth require a man of more substance then he, though of lesser shew.

I haue in my Preface declared, how much these few vvordes of S. Bernard (cited by M. Abbot) be abused. That blessed de­uout Father, wished al Protestants and their like (whom he in that very discourse defineth to be Heretikes) to rise from the filth of their owne errours and euil life, and to returne to the Catholike Roman Church; the faith whereof he in al his life-time imbraced, and by al meanes possible confirmed. I reserued to this place for the affinity of proper applying, the other two sentences taken out of S. Augustine; the former is set in the fore-front of his booke, and is rehearsed againe in the latter end: Eorum dicta contraria, &c. If I would refel their sayings against vs, so often as they impudently re­solue not to care what they say, so that they speake (in what sort soeuer) against our positions, it would grow vnto an infinite peece of worke. This sentence of S. Augustine is pronounced against Infidels, who did not beleeue at al in Christ, nor professe the Christian faith; as ap­peareth both by the general scope of those bookes of the citty of God,Lib. 2. de ci­ [...]itat. cap. 2. vvhich are written against the Heathens, and more particu­larly by the third chapter of the same second booke by him cited. Now with what countenance and congruity, could M. Abbot cite that against vs Christians, vvhich he knew right vvel not to con­cerne them any thing at al, at least in S. Augustines meaning? M. Abbot thought (belike) to vvinne no smal reputation of great rea­ding, and good remembrance of the ancient Doctors workes: but [Page 41] alleaging them as he commonly doth, cleane besides the holy Fa­thers intention, he shal (I weene) picke very smal thankes of any juditious reader for his labour, but be esteemed rather for one that is somewhat pretily ouer-seene, then any vvhit vvel seene in their learned writinges.

Now to the other sentence of S. Augustine, which he pronoun­ceth against the Donatists (our Predecessours, if al be true that M. Abbot saith:) where they cannot by fly and wily cosenage creepe like Aspes, In psalm. there with open professed violence they rage like Lions. Note that M. Abbot cited this place euen as that of S. Bernard, in general, not quoting particularly where, there being aboue 200. discourses of S. Augustines vpon the Psalmes: the cause was, that he knew vvel that it did make nothing for his purpose. The Donatists were di­uided among themselues into three principal sects, called Dona­tists, Rogatists, and Maximianists: Now, the Donatists being the strongest part, and the head of the others, vvould in a certaine citty thrust out their younger bretheren the Maximianists: and not knowing how otherwise to compasse it, because of the tempo­ral Magistrate who fauoured neither party greatly, but was rather Catholike; the Donatists finally resolued to pleade, that the Ma­ximianists vvere Heretikes, and therefore by the Imperial lawes then and there in force, not to enjoy any spiritual liuinges; vsing this crafty tricke of cosenage against their neare kinsmen the Ma­ximianists, for which S. Augustine resembleth them to Aspes. Now against the Catholikes in their coasts, they did rore and rage like Lions. Then doth that holy Father shew, How the Lions teeth were to be broken in their owne mouthes: for if (saith he) the Maximianists because they were Heretikes, were not capable of any Church liuinges; much lesse were the Donatists who were the greater Heretikes of the two, and against whom more specially the Imperial lawes were enacted. Hence it is easie to be seene, how this sentence might be applied vnto the Lutherans, that in some places of Germany, hoise out their youn­ger bretheren the Caluinists as Heretikes: and also to the Prote­stants in England, vvho deale in l [...]ke manner vvith the Puritans; carrying themselues like Aspes more wilely towardes them, pre­tending only to censure and chastise them, vnder colour of Eccle­siastical vniformity among themselues: but proceeding against the Catholikes Lion-like, with open professed violence. But how [Page 42] this may be cast vpon the Catholikes, no man can see (I trow) vn­lesse it be M. Abbot with his spiteful soare eies: so that finally, few men can be found to match M. Abbot, in the vntoward and il fauou­red applying of the Fathers sentences, which hath beene also be­fore declared. And because he both here and often afterward cal­leth vs Donatists, and the Donatists our Predecessours, I wil here once for al, shew who be true natural Donatists, and that out of S. Augustine and Optatus; both very renowmed Bishops, both most learned and sincere vvitnesses, that liued also in the middest of the Donatists when they most flourished.

August. ad Quod-vult.These then were the Donatists chiefest heresies: First, That the true Church of Christ was perished al the world ouer, sauing in some coasts of Africke, where their doctrine was currant. Secondly, They rebapti­sed Catholikes that fel into their sect. Thirdly, They held not the faith of the blessed Trinity intire and whole, but some of them taught like Ar­rians, the Sonne to be lesse then the Father: but as S. Augustine noteth, this was not marked of their followers. Fourthly, They were soone deuided among themselues into three principal sects, Donatists, Rogatists, and Maximianists. There vvere also amongst them many frantike furious fellowes called Circumcelliones;August. Epi­stola. 50. who rouing vp and downe in troupes, committed many outrages, set fire on Catholike Churches, tor­mented Priests, abused most impiously the blessed Sacrament of Christs bo­dy reserued in the Churches, Optat. lib. 2. cōt. Parmeni. Aug. Epist, 119. cap. 18. cast the boxes of holy Oiles out of the Church windowes, that they might be broken, and the holy Oiles trodden vnder feete. Finally, The Donatists deuised a new kinde of Psalmes, to be songe before their diuine seruice and sermons. These be the special points of the Donatists errours, and erroneous practises, as they witnesse who best knew them, and were least like of any men to belie them, S. Augustine I say, and Optaetus Bishop of Mileuitane; both very sound authours, of singuler same and credit. Now let any man of wit judge, whether the Catholikes or Protestants doe most resem­ble them; yea, who can deny, but that the Protestants doe almost in euery point follow them at the heeles? For first, the Protestants teach euen as they did, that Christes visible Church was perished (for the inuisible Church the Donatists held, could not perish as S. Augustine witnesseth) for 900.Aug. in psal. 101. cap. 2. yeares at the least al the vvorld ouer, and is euen now wholy decaied in al other parts of the world, sauing where their doctrine is embraced: and this was the maine [Page 43] point of the Donatists heresie. Secondly, though al the Prote­stants doe not rebaptise, yet one part of them (to wit the Anaba­ptists) doe vse it. For the Protestants be deuided into Lutherans, Sacramentaries, and Anabaptists, (to omit Trinitarians and Ar­rians,) euen as the Donatists were into Donatists, Rogatists, and Maximianists. Thirdly, diuers of their principal teachers, as Me­lancthon, Caluin, and many others, doe corrupt the sound doctrine of the most sacred Trinity, as I haue shewed in the Preface of the second part of the Reformation of a deformed Catholike; though the common sort of them, doe not greatly obserue it. Fourthly, for plucking downe of Churches, abusing the most blessed Sacra­ment, holy Oiles, and al holy ornaments that belonged to the Ca­tholikes Churches, the Protestants are not behinde, but goe farre beyond the Donatists. Lastly, they haue also compounded and fra­med a new kinde of Psalmes, called Geneua Psalmes, to be songe before their sermons. See M. Abbot how jointly the Donatists and Protestants walke as it were hand in hand together: shew not your selfe therefore, so vndutiful a childe to your natural parents, as not to acknowledge them for such; for you are euen as like vnto them in the face and whole feature of both doctrine and manners, as if you had beene spit out of their mouthes. Doe not for very shame hit vs in the teeth any more vvith the Donatists, before you haue by as sound vvitnesses, proued vs to participate with them in the proper qualities of their profession. To be wily like Aspes, and to rage like Lions, are not the peculiar recognizances and badges of their sect; but may agree vnto many others, and perhaps to few other more truly then to Protestants: who when they be vnder, as they haue beene in England, and are now in the greatest King­domes of Europe, they are as wily as Foxes, the greatest commen­ders of clemency that may be; no man is then to be punished for his conscience, specially they that seeke after nothing but refor­mation of mens manners, and the purity of the Gospel: but vvhen they are gotten vp, and sit at the sterne of gouernement, the case is cleane altered, they become then as fierce as Lions. Our Fathers were beguiled by their vvilinesse, vve feele their open professed violence; and were it not for the moderation of the chiefe Pilot, and some others in authority, I feare the vvorld should quickly perceiue, how Lion-like they would rage: thus much by the way, [Page 44] to discouer how impertinently and vntruly, M. Abbot doth cite the ancient Doctors sentences. If he thought their vvordes pro­per for his purpose, though they vsed them not in the same sence as he doth, he might wel haue vsed the like wordes; but he ought in no case to adde the Fathers authority, when they meant no such matter as he citeth their wordes for. But what wil you? necessity hath no law: either he must haue omitted their authority, and so haue put foorth a leane, barren, and penurious peece of worke, not worth the looking on; or else so vse and abuse their wordes, as he doth. For in their true meaning, they vvil afford neither him nor any Protestant any fauour or defence at al.

To draw now to the conclusion of his Epistle: I haue not vvith any calumnious libel, traduced and slandered the Protestants do­ctrine, but haue out of my duty towardes Gods truth, and loue of my deare country-mens saluation, very truly, and in as faire sort as I could, set downe the errours of their deuises; that the wel minded amongst them, may by the helpe of Gods grace the better perceiue them, beware of them, and fly from them in time, least they draw them along with them, into euerlasting damnation. Which my dutiful endeauours, if the enemies of truth doe calumniate, and loade with opprobrious lies and slanders, I must take it patiently, and comfort my selfe with these sacred wordes of our sweet Saui­our:Math. 5. v. 11. & 12. Blessed be you when they shal reuile you, and persecute you, and speake al that is naught against you, vntruly for my sake; be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heauen: for so they persecu­ted the Prophets that were before you. Now whereas M. Abbot saith in his owne commendation, that he carrieth himselfe in this worke of his, faithfully and vprightly as to God and his Prince: I am sorry to see him make so slender reckoning both of his faith to God, and fealty to his Prince; for by this that hath beene already said, and much more by that which followeth shal it appeare, that he ma­keth no conscience to dally vvith Gods vvord, and to mangle it most pitifully; to abuse the holy Fathers sentences by al manner of meanes, that any gracelesse creature can doe; to cast most wrongfully al kinde of contumelies, taunts, and slanders vpon Ca­tholikes, that he could deuise; and finally to incense his most ex­cellent Majesty, to bathe his sworde in the bloud of innocents: This may be peraduenture, to behaue himselfe like a true Minister [Page 45] of the new Gospel. But if he cal this faithful and vpright carriage, as to God and his Prince; as I am sure he can looke for no reward of God for such leude behauiour, who cannot be deceiued: so I doubt not, but if his Majesties leasure would permit him to peruse M. Abbots railing and vnlearned writinges, pestred with innume­rable of palpable vntruthes, he should thereby picke smal thankes at his Highnesse handes. Thus vvishing (no lesse then any Prote­stant whosoeuer) perfect knowledge of Gods truth vnto his Ma­jesty, and grace from heauen to embrace, maintaine, and defend it, vvith al happinesse vnto his Highnesse raigne ouer vs: I end my answere vnto M. Abbots Epistle dedicatory.

MASTER ABBOTS PREFACE TO THE READER.

LET it be no offence to thee good Christian Reader, that for the present I giue an answere to a Dedicatory Epistle, in steede of an answere to a whole booke: it was now in Ia­nuary last past, a ful yeare since Doct. Bishops booke was sent vnto me, by the most reuerend Father in God the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, my very good Lord, with direction to vse the best expedition that I could for the answere of it; it found me at that time vnder the Surgeons handes, of a grieuous infirmity in mine eies, by meanes whereof for some good space, and indeede longer then I expected, I was hindered from ablenesse to intend in any conuenient sort, to any such important worke. But taking the soonest and best oportunity that I could, after that I had gone ouer some good part of the booke, to furnish my selfe with such matter as should serue for confutation of it; at length about the beginning of Iuly, being desirous to bring somewhat to effect, I addressed my selfe with al instant endeauour, to giue answere to the Epistle Dedica­tory to the Kings most excellent Majesty: which as I accounted the princi­pal matter in the booke; so I held it my duty, to vse very special care for the repulsing of those calumnies and slanders, which the author hath gathered [Page 46] and contriued into it: which being finished at Michaelmasse, hath beene since thought fit to be published for the time, til the rest of the worke (wherein as time hath serued, I haue hitherto further proceeded) may fully be performed.

THE ANSWERE TO M. ABBOTS PRE­FACE TO THE READER.
VVILLIAM BISHOP.

COVRTEOVS Reader, I would haue let passe this nar­ration as impertinent, had it beene somewhat more pro­bable: but because it discouereth and setteth foorth the humour of the man, it is worth the noting. I beare with that incōgruity; It was now in Ianuary last past: if it were now which designeth the time present, how was it in Ianuary then past? but I take his meaning, that it vvas in Ianuary past before he had seene my booke; vvhich though he say not directly, but that my booke was then sent to him, yet he would haue his reader take it so, that he might thereby and by that vvhich followeth, gather vvhat ex­pedition he had vsed in the answering of it; wherein he giueth him vvrong to vnderstand. For two monethes before that, the booke vvas common to be had, and great communication about the an­swering of it, in the place of his abode: and either he or one of his name, had in short marginal notes assaied to giue answere vnto ma­ny points of the same epistle, by that very Ianuary. But admit that he saw not the booke before, why did he not then goe in hand with it, hauing receiued straight commandement from so high a perso­nage, to vse al expedition for the answering of it? Forsooth the Barber-surgeon hauing his soare eies in cure, would not giue him leaue to doe it. Is it likely that the L. Archbishop was so euil in­formed of his estate, that he would require him to make a speedy answere to a booke, before he knew that he was in case to reade it? But his Lordships letters perhaps, found M. Abbot (according vn­to the season of the yeare) frozen, and could not as then vvorke in him any great resolution to answere: but the spring following, be­ganne [Page 47] to reuiue his drowsie spirits, and in Iuly vvhen the heate of Sommer had throughly warmed him, then [...]e, his affection to an­swere was so feruent, and his disposition so fiery, that he bestirred himselfe beyond al measure; dispatching within three moneths, not only this booke of thirty sheetes of paper, but preparing also woofe and warpe (as he speaketh) for three hundreth more. Sure­ly this vvere vvonderful celerity, if we might be so bold as to be­leeue him; but vntil he make better proofe of his fidelity, he must pardon vs if in hast we giue not credit vnto him. For vvho can perswade himselfe, that M. Abbot being injoined to vse such ex­pedition in answering, would haue staied one yeare and a halfe be­fore he published his answere vnto one sheete and halfe of paper, (for my Epistle containeth no more) if he could haue sooner com­passed it? and who knowes not that a dedicatory Epistle (vvhere matters are summarily touched only) is none of the hardest partes of the booke to be answered? But the man meaning in this Preface to commend himselfe aboue the skies, saw that it was necessary to remoue this stumbling-block out of the vvay, and before hand to excuse his extreame slownesse; that it might not seeme strange, how so admirable quicke a pen-man, should be holden occupied so long time about so little.

I may not omit to note that, vvhich now three times M. Abbot hath repeated, to wit: That the answering of my booke was committed [...]o him from great authority; vvherein he seemeth (by his often rei­ [...]erating of it) to take no smal pride, that such a charge should be [...]ssigned him from so high a personage. But good Sir, if my booke be nothing else but A fardle of baggage, and rotten stuffe (as you [...]earme it,) it must needes redound rather to your shame, to be [...]hought a fit man to giue it answere. For as euery man knoweth, [...] bald beggarly scholler is the meetest match to deale with a fardle of baggage. But if there be more in my booke, then you some­times would haue people to beleeue; they that haue a good opi­nion of it may hap to thinke, that those graue wise-men in high au­thority, fore-saw that it would hardly be answered, by laying na­kedly testimony of Scripture and Fathers, to testimony, and rea­son to reason: vvherefore, they thought it best pollicy, to make choise of some jolly smooth-tongued discourser, that might with a [...]ufling multitude of faire pleasing wordes, carry his reader quite [Page 48] from the matter, and then blinding him vvith some colourable shew of learning, l [...]de him into errour. Proceede.

ROBERT ABBOT.

NOw the Treatise against which M. Bishop writeth, is commonly knowne and entituled A reformed Catholike, &c. written by one M. Perkins (since deceassed) a man of very commendable quality, and wel deseruing for his great trauaile and paines for the furtherance of true religion, and edifying of the Church. Against this booke M. Bishop so bendeth himselfe in his dedicatory Epistle, as that with al he traduceth the whole doctrine of our Church, and with such motiues and reasons as a badde cause wil afford him, plaieth the part of Symmachus the Pagan, Labouring vnder the name of antiquity, Symmach. re­lat. ad Imp. Ambr. episto­larum, lib. 5. to bring in Idolatry, and to perswade his Majesty, that that is Catholike religion, which indeede is nothing else but errour and superstition. In the due examination whereof, waighing wel the sundry and slippery foundations wherevpon he buildeth, I presume (gentle reader) that thou wilt be of my minde, that he did not thinke hereby to preuaile any whit with his most excellent Majesty, but only vsed the pretence of this dedication, to credit his booke with them, who he knew would take al that he said hand ouer head, vpon his owne bare word. Surely if he had not presumed of very wel-willing and friendly rea­ders, he would neuer haue dreamed to gaine any credit by writing in this sort. What his Epistle is, thou maist here see: concerning the rest as yet I wil not say much, only I aduertise thee, and doe assure thee, that if thou diddest like of M. Perkins booke before, thou hast no cause by M. Bishop to dislike of it now. Thou shalt see it assaulted with ignorance, with im­pudency, with vntruth, and falshood, with grosse and palpable heresie: and that which he commendeth, to be the marrow and pith of many large volumes, thou shalt finde to be nothing else, but a fardle of baggage and rotten stuffe. For some tast thereof, let me intreate thee to take wel in worth for the time, this answere to his Epistle: for the rest to haue me excused as yet, both in respect of that weakenesse whereby I haue beene so long with­holden from the following of this worke, as also for the care I haue, as wel to giue thee ful satisfaction in the questions here discussed, as to stoppe the aduersaries mouth, that he may haue nothing further to reply. I haue pro­pounded to my selfe the rule of Tertullian, in such businesses alwaies to be obserued: Decet veritatem totis vti viribus, non vt laborantem; truth is to vse it whole strength, and not to fare as if it had much a doe to defend it selfe. I am loth therefore to come hastily into the field, [Page 49] and with mine owne sworde only to make an vncertaine fight, but to take conuenient time to leuy such troupes and bandes [...]as that I may not neede to doubt of the victory: and it may appeare vnto thee, that notwithstanding the crakes and brags of these Romish sicophants, yet the truth is,2. Reg. 6. vers. 16. That they that are with vs, are more then they that are against vs.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THIS Section comprehends a praise of M. Perkins, a dispraise of me, and a commendation of himselfe. In praising of M. Perkins he is short and modest; let it therefore passe, that I may come to answere for my selfe. First he saith against me, that I would perswade his Majesty, that that religio [...] is Catholike, which in deede is nothing else but errors. Is not this to speake idly and vaine­ly, so to say vvithout any proofe? vnlesse we must take that for a proofe which followeth (vvhich is a most euident falshood, euen by his owne confession,) these be his wordes here: I presume gentle reader, that thou wilt be of my minde, that he did not thinke hereby to preuaile any whit with his Majesty, but only vsed this dedication to cre­dit his booke withal. How knoweth M. Abbot vvhat I thought? S. Paul saith,1. Cor. 2. vers. 11. What man knowes the secret thinges of a man, but the spirit of a man that is within him? God only is the searcher of mens harts: but M. Abbot (perhaps) by some diuine reuelation, or by the spirit of prophecy diued into the depth of my secret thoughts, and by a very rare light of his pearcing wit, espied that which was not there. If it had beene so, he should at least haue kept better his owne counsaile, and not like a blabbe and lying Prophet, haue af­terwardes vttered and proued the flat contrary, as he doth in these wordes: And that he thought so indeede, Page 4. viz. by offering his booke to his Majesty, to performe some great exploit with him, appeareth by his owne wordes, &c. where he declareth, that he was of opinion then, and that moued thereunto by good reason, that I thought to pre­uaile much with his Majesty, by dedicating my booke vnto him: and yet he doth here beare his reader in hand, that I my selfe had no hope at al, of any good to be done thereby: so that if the reader wil be of his minde, he must thinke here one thing, there another; now this, then that; and finally he knoweth not what. Is there a­ny credit to be giuen to a man that telleth such contrary tales? he that fighteth so fondly against himselfe, is he like to doe another man any great harme? surely no, vnlesse it be with some ignorant [Page 50] or credulous people, that either marke not what he saith, or lacke judgement to discerne how il he agreeth with himselfe, and how weakely he proueth that which he saith against his aduersary.

M. Abbot goeth on, deeply dispraising my poore labours, pre­tending them to be nothing else but a fardle of baggage and rotten stuffe. God be thanked his vvord is no Gospel, nor his mouth any just measure of truth; and I take it for no disparagement to my worke, to be reprehended without any disproofe, by so badde a tongued worke-man. But good Sir, how could so smal a fardle of baggage and rotten stuffe, hold you (that would be reputed so quiuer, nim­ble, and quicke in inditing) occupied two or three yeares? let any man of vnderstanding judge how handsomly these thinges hang together.

Wel let vs come to the third point, vvhich consisteth in the praises of his owne ability: he taketh good respite to answere (he saith) because he wil both giue the reader ful satisfaction in the questions here discussed, and also stoppe the aduersaries mouth, that he may haue nothing to reply. A strong faith of himselfe doth wel; but O cra­king impudency, and impudent craking! Doe you thinke your selfe able to giue your reader so ful satisfaction? that requireth perdy not only ful knowledge of those questions, and most exqui­site explication of them: but also wonderful good lucke to meete vvith such a ready and tractable reader, as vvil be fully satisfied thereby. But be it so, that you may chance to giue some sleepy seely ouer-wel-willing reader, ful satisfaction: with what counte­nance can you say, that you wil so stoppe your aduersaries mouth, that he may haue nothing further to reply? did euer any man of the best gifts write so absolutely, that he left not some one occasi­on or another vnto his aduersary, to take exceptions against him? But M. Abbot (by the verdict of the wise-man himselfe) wil sur­passe al that euer set pen to paper, since Christes time; and proue so prouident and powerful a composer, that he wil not leaue any man one vvord further to reply vpon him: vvhereas in truth the most that he produceth, is indeede such baggage stuffe, and hath beene already confuted both in Latin and English, so often ouer and ouer, that if any modesty were in him, he would haue beene ashamed to make so great crakes of such refuse, ouerworne, and forlorne ware.

But bragge on, and seing you haue begunne to play the mount-banke, hold on hardly. Haue you propo [...]nded Tertullians rule to your selfe, and doe you meane duly to obserue it? shal the truth be set out by you with it whole strength? yes marry shal it, what else? then surely doe you not only match the Apostle S. Paul in affecti­on, but doe also goe farre beyond him in skil and knowledge. He saith of himselfe and other Apostles:1. Cor. 13. Ex parte cognoscimus, &c. We haue not ful and perfect knowledge whiles we liue on earth, but know thinges in part. And if the principal peeres of the Church, confes­sed themselues not to haue the ful knowledge of the truth, how dares this pigmee (and dwarfe in diuinity, if he be compared to them) auouch that the truth by his meanes shal be furnished with it whole strength? If it be an vnciuil part, for any man to com­mend himselfe without vrgent necessity; and intollerable arro­gancy for a Christian (whose greatest jewel is humility) to ranke himselfe vvith the best learned in antiquity: then surely so brag­gingly to vndertake that, which the Apostle teacheth not to ly in the power of the most sufficient among Christians, must needes be vnspeakable impudency. The Heathen Orator Cicero (who was vaine-glorious enough) could yet see by the light of nature, that it was a shameful part for any man to bragge of himselfe, specially in that which is false, and by imitating the vaine-glorious souldier, to make himselfe a mocking-stock to al hearers. That M. Abbot might put vs in minde, of that craking captaine Thraso (whom he meant to imitate) he saith further; that he wil leuy such troupes and handes, as that he need not to doubt of the victory. Now to vphold him in his humour, one should say: Euen so was wont to doe, that most va­liant and politike warrior Pirrhus, the renowmed King of the Epirots. But I am no flatterer either by profession or natural inclination, and he seemeth to take it for a grace to be shamelesse: vvherefore, it booteth not to goe about to make him blush, or else I could ad­uertise him, that these bragges of his doe not only exceede al mea­sure, but doe also expresly repugne against his owne confession, in his Epistle to his Majesty; for there he acknowledgeth his abili­ty not to be such, as that he might thinke himselfe to haue attained to that, that the matter doth require: which (considering what he saith here) seemeth to haue beene spoken only for manners sake to his Maje­sty. For here he vaunteth (as you see) that he wil furnish truth with [Page 52] it whole strength, and giue so ful satisfaction, that the aduersary shal not haue a word further to reply. Good Sir, if you can boast of your owne doings so exceedingly without blushing, yet in discretion you should haue beene more wary, then to haue lied so grosly, that euery child almost may conuince you of it, euen by your owne te­st [...]mony. You had forgotten belike the prouerbe, Mendacem opor­tet esse memorem, A liar had need of a good memory; or else you would neuer haue let such contrary tales slippe out of your pen.

Wel, to stay the credulous readers, that they be not ouer hasty in giuing credit to such vnreasonable and vaine vaunts, I wil put them in mind of this worthy obseruation of the most prudēt King Salomon: Prouerb. 26. vers. 12. Hast thou seene a man wise in his owne conceit, a foole shal haue greater hope then he: that is, owne that taketh himselfe for ve­ry simple, shal be able to performe much more, then he that estee­meth himself to be so highly wise. The waters be not there deepest where the streame runneth with greatest noise; and as our English prouerbe is, The greatest barkers be not the soarest biters: Euen so a­mong many Protestant vvriters, I haue seldome seene any that promiseth more or performeth lesse, then M. Abbot. He floateth inflanting wordes, but he is one of the shallowest for substance of matter, that euer I read. He alleageth diuers ancient Authours I grant, but for the most part very impertinently; many also of them most corruptly and falsly: so that nothing is more absurd and no­toriously false, then this his conclusion; More of the ancient wri­ters be for vs then against vs. For not only the Romish sicophants (as of his accustomed modesty he tearmeth vs) but the most learned of their owne side, both domestical and forraigne, doe confesse (compelled by euident force of truth) that the auncient Fathers for most points in controuersie, doe teach the very same doctrine that vve now doe.T [...]act. 1. Sect. 3. See the Protestant Apollogy of the Roman Church, where this is particularly verified: yet M. Abbot that sticketh at nothing, would faine beare the vnlearned in hand, that the old Doctors fauour much their new learning; but til he doe produce their testimonies more sincerely, and to better purpose then he yet hath done, few but fooles can beleeue him: for hither­to (as hath beene already shewed) he hath not cited any one sen­tence, either of ancient Father, or of holy Scripture, that vvas to the purpose. Wherefore, the discreet reader hath just cause (not­withstanding [Page 53] his vaine bragges) to thinke no better of the rest of his booke, vntil he shal see the contrary wel verified: for in deede he shal finde them to be but counterfaite, dismembred, and misap­plied sentences, vsed as men doe scar-crowes in a field of corne, to amate and fright the vnskilful.

That which followeth consisting of the like crakes of their va­lour and our weakenesse, needes no further refutation: They haue beene hitherto so farre off from driuing vs out of the field as he craketh, that we hauing by al manner of meanes, endeauoured to bring them once out into the field to a publike disputation, as it vvere to a ranged battel to try the matter, could neuer obtaine it; they vsing al the shifts that they could possibly deuise, to hold vs from it. And vvhereas he finally presumeth, that he shal be no longer in giuing answere to my booke, then the booke was in ma­king; his presumption is very vaine and friuolous: for that booke was made in halfe a yeare, as God he knoweth, and many honest men can witnesse, if time serued to produce them: and the booke being of fiue and twenty sheetes, he vvas holden occupied one yeare and a halfe, with answering vnto the first sheete and halfe of it; and since, another yeare and halfe is past before his so vvorthy vvebbe be perfited. The malignant humour that before trou­bled this jolly vvebsters eies, is since (belike) fallen downe into his legges, so that he cannot bestirre him­selfe so speedily, as in the heate of his spirit he presumed; yet before this could be printed, his whole worke came forth.

Robert Abbot. A view of M. Bishops Epistle dedicatory to the Kinges most excellent Majesty.

VIVAT REX
Anno 1608
¶ Laus Deo, Pax viuis, Requies defunctis.

[Page 55]

GOD SAVE THE KING.

William Bishop. TO THE MOST PVI­SANT, PRVDENT, AND RENOWMED PRINCE, IAMES THE FIRST, BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF ENGLAND, SCOT­land, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc.

* DIEV ET MON DROIT.

MOST gratious and dread Soueraigne. Albeit my slender skil cannot afford any discourse wor­thy the view of your excellency, neither my deadded and daily interrupted and persecuted and persecuted studies, wil giue me leaue to accomplish that little, which otherwise I might vndertake and performe: yet being emboldned both by your high clemency, and gratious fauour euer shewed to al good litterature, specially concerning Di­uinity, and also vrged by mine owne bounden duty, and particular affection, I presume to present vnto your Highnesse this short ensuing Treatise. For your exceeding clemency, mildnesse, and rare modesty, in the most eminent estate of so mighty a Monarke; as it cannot but winne vnto you great loue, [Page 56] in the harts of al considerate subjects: so on the other side doth it encourage them, confidently to open their mindes, and in dutiful manner to vnfold themselues vnto their so louing and affable a Soueraigne. And whereas (to the no vulgar praise of your Majesties piety) you haue made open and often profession of your vigilancy, and care to aduance the diuine honour of our Sauiour Christ, and his most sacred religion; what faithful Christian should stagger, or feare to lay open and deliuer publikely, that which he assureth himselfe to be very expedient, necessary, and agreable towardes the furnishing of so heauenly a worke? Moreouer, if I your Majesties poore subject, haue by study at home, and trauaile abroade, attained vnto any smal talent of learning and knowledge: to whom is the vse and fruit thereof more due, then vnto my gratious and withal so learned a Liege? Finally, for a proofe of my sincerity, affection, and dutiful loue towardes your Majesty, this may I justly say, that in time of vncertaine fortune (when friendes are most certainly tried) I both suffered disgrace and hin­derance for it, being stiled in print A Scotist in faction; therein further employing my pen in a two-fold discourse (which I hope hath beene pre­sented to the view of your Majesty:) the one containing a defence of your Highnesse honour; the other of your Title and interest of the Crowne of England. And if then my zeale and loue of truth, and obligation to your Majesty, drewme out of the compasse of mine owne profession, to treate of law causes: I trust your benigne grace wil now licence me, out of the same fountaine of feruency and like zeale vnto Gods truth, no lesse respe­cting your Majesties eternal honour and heauenly inheritance, some thing to say in matters of Diuinity; hauing beene the best part of my study for more then thrice seauen yeares.

ROBERT ABBOT.

IT vvere a thing vvorthy to be knowne, vvhat was the drift of M. Bishop, and the marke vvhereat he aimed in the dedication of this his booke to the Kings Highnesse. When I looke to those goodly insinuations, whereby he seemeth desirous to winde him­selfe into the good opinion of his Majesty, and consider the mo­tiues and reasons which he pleadeth meerely for himselfe, and the rest of his faction and conspiracy; me thinkes his intent should be according to his pretence, to gaine some fauour at his Majesties handes for tolleration of the Romish Idolatry and superstition, that vvithout contradiction of lawes they may freely, if not ex­ercise, yet professe and follow the same. But vvhen on the other [Page 57] side, I consider his exceptions & allegations against his Majesties proceedinges, and against the Gospel of Christ and his true reli­gion embraced by his Majesty, and by lawes publikely establish­ed among vs, I grow to another conceit: that surely he propoun­ded some other matter to himselfe, then the obtaining of that which he seemeth so earnestly to contend for. For hauing to doe with a juditious and learned Prince, who is wel able (God be than­ked) rightly to censure what he writeth; without doubt, if he had made this his project to compasse the obtaining of his request, he vvould haue dealt sincerely, and faithfully; he vvould haue for­borne our church; al vnjust and slanderous imputations; he would not haue sought, by apparant vntruth and falshood, to justifie his badde cause; he vvould haue had care so to carry himselfe, that his Majesty seing nothing but true and plaine dealing, might con­ceiue vvhat is amisse, to haue proceeded only from simplicity of errour, not from any obstinate and wilful malice against the truth. But he hath taken a farre other course, and seeketh very leudly, by lies and tales to abuse the Kinges most excellent Majesty; by pre­tending antiquity for those thinges which by antiquity were con­demned; by fathering their owne bastards vpon the fathers; by vvresting and forcing their sayinges to that vvhich they neuer thought; yea, when sometimes in the very places which he allea­geth, they haue taught the contrary, by deprauing our religion with odious consequences, of heresies, impieties, blasphemies, whereof notwithstanding I make no doubt, but he himselfe in his owne conscience doth acquite vs. Whereby it may seeme, that howsoeuer he were willing to put his request to the aduenture, yet being himselfe without al hope or opinion of successe in it, his spe­cial respect was, to lengthen the expectation of his Catacatholike followers, that they might not vtterly despaire of that, vvith the hope vvhereof they haue so long deluded them: to settle them in those heresies and irreligions, whereunto they haue so long inured them; to continue them prest and ready to those intents and pur­poses, vvhereto they thinke they may hereafter haue occasion to vse them; to prouide by these meanes with Demetrius, that his and his fellowes craft and occupation might be maintained, vvhich vvas now in jeopardy to grow vtterly to decay; and lastly, to adde some grace to his booke, the better to serue al turnes, vvhiles it [Page 58] should carry the name to be dedicated to the King: no man imagi­ning (the case standing as it doth) that he vvould presume to offer it to his Majesty, but that doubtlesse he thought some exploit to be performed by him therein, and that he thought so indeede, ap­peareth by his owne wordes in the Preface to the reader, &c.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THIS preamble of M. Abbot, puts me in minde of that worthy obseruation of the most juditious Doctor S. Augustine, vvho speaking of such like companions,Cōt. Parmen. lib. 2. cap. 3. saith: They doe grope like blinde men euen at noone-day, as if it were at mid-night; which is the property of Heretikes, who cannot see that which is most cleare, and set before the eies of al men. What could be more plainly set downe, then that which I did humbly request of his Majesty? and the reasons that induced me to present my booke vnto his Highnesse, are there also deliuered so distinctly, and vvith such perspicuity, that no man (excepting them whom that prudent father noteth for very blind, or most vvilfully bent to cauil) could choose but see them: yea, M. Abbot himselfe cannot but confesse, that when he considered of them, he was moued to thinke that I intended thereby to gaine some fauour at his Majesties handes for our party. Notwithstan­ding that al men may perceiue how he delighteth in wrangling, he wil needs argue against that, which is as cleare as the light at noone day; and beare his credulous reader in hand, that he must not be­leeue that which he seeth set before his eies to behold, but imagine with him some other hidden matter: this is a farre more grieuous malady of the eies, then that whereof he complaineth in his Pre­face. Phisitions tel vs of a perillous eie-soare called in Latin Fasci­natio, Englished the Eie-biting: it appeareth most, vvhen from a cancred stomacke boiling with malice, certaine venimous vapours ascend into the eies, and flowing from them doe infect young and tender thinges, whereof the Poët speaketh: Nescio quis teneros ocu­lus mihi fascinat agnos; I wote not what biting eie hath blasted my tender lambes. This contagious eie-malady, is to our purpose described more properly in the booke of Wisdome: Fascinatio malignitatis obscurat bona; The eie-biting of a malignant and enuious man doth obscure and depraue good thinges, causing simple soules through his subtile conueiance, to take them farre otherwise then they vvere meant: this loe is the true disease of M. Abbots eies, which he discouereth [Page 59] al his booke ouer. Here he doth peruert my plaine meaning, by his counterfait imaginations; and vvith his false surmises, endea­uoureth so to dazel his readers vnderstanding, that he should euen doubt of that which he beholdeth with his eies.

The manifold causes that moued me to tender my booke to his Majesty, are clearely set downe in my Epistle; there any man that wil may see them. The reasons that gaue me hope of doing some good thereby, may be gathered also thence: as his Majesties wi­sdome, that could not but fore-see that by a tolleration, great con­tentment would grow to many, and be a strong band to encrease their dutiful affection, vnto al other his Majesties proceedinges; his clemency and most forward natural disposition to pleasure al men, not delighting in the oppression and vndoing of his subjects; the good deserts of Catholikes, both towardes his most blessed Mother of sacred memory, and towardes his owne just Title; the constant fame that was blowne farre and neare, of his future mode­ration in matters of religion; the expectation of forraine Princes his deare Allies: these I say, and diuers other important motiues, could not but giue great hope of some better course to be taken in those matters of religion, then had beene in former time. And great reason it vvas that I, who had beene to my smal power a fa­uourer of his rightful claime to the crowne, should be as forward to doe vvhat in me lay, to vvinne his Majesty to deale fauourably with them, that so willingly honoured, loued, and followed him. Al this notwithstanding, M. Abbot (if his aime faile him not) vvil perswade his reader, that I had no hope of preuailing: First, Be­cause of my allegations against the Gospel of Christ, and his true religion embraced by his Majesty. Which reason of his is not worth a rush: for the former part of my Epistle is, to perswade his Majesty to embrace the true, ancient, Catholike Roman religion, which al his most roial progenitours did loue and maintaine. Now to performe that, I must needes speake against the new and false exposition of the Gospel, broached by the runnegate Frier Martin Luther; and also further say what was fitting, in commendation of the old reli­gion: that his Highnesse considering more maturely of that high and graue matter, comparing the antiquity, piety, and purity of the Catholike, with the nouelty, corruption, and vngodlinesse of the Protestant, might the sooner be induced to embrace the Ca­tholike. [Page 60] Besides, knowing that the harts of Princes are in Gods handes, to be dispose [...] off at his good pleasure, vve may neuer be out of hope of any man so long as he liueth: so that my allegations against the religion embraced of his Majesty, and established with lawes, vvas no sufficient reason, to moue any man to thinke that I was out of al hope of preuailing with his Majesty. Did not sundry of the ancient Christian Doctors, present vnto some of the Roman Emperors (then Heathens) Apollogies and Defences, euen of that religion vvhich they then greatly persecuted? Did not S. Hillary that glorious light of the French nation, (to omit al others) dedi­cate his booke vvritten against the Arrians, euen vnto Constantius the Emperor, who was a most earnest defendor of the Arrian here­sie? and were they trow you, out of al hope of doing any good, be­cause of their exceptions and allegations against those Emperors proceedings, and the religion established by their imperial lawes? nothing lesse. Nay they vvere therefore much respected of the same Emperors, and had great fauour shewed them, for those their zealous indeauours: vvherefore this reason of M. Abbot is of no moment.

And lesse worth be his lies that follow; That I deale not sincerely and faithfully, but seeke to abuse his Majesty. The good-man if he vvere so vvise as he should be, vvould forbeare such injurious wordes, vnles he did withal shew some particulars, wherein I com­mit some such faults as he speaketh off; otherwise he must be con­tent to be accounted rather a slanderous brabler, then a discreete disputer. He saith also, that we father our bastards vpon the Fathers, and powreth forth after his rude māner, many lauish foule wordes vpon vs: but because he goeth not about to proue any one of them to be true, he needeth no other confutation then a bare de­nial. I wish very hartily good Sir, that you could and vvould ob­taine of his Majesty, that we both might freely appeare in person before his Highnesse, there to justifie whether of vs hath sought by lies to abuse his Majesty, and by pretending antiquity for those thinges, which by antiquity were condemned.

Now, vvhat other answere shal I make vnto this audatious as­sertion of his that followeth; (That I in my owne conscience acquite their religion of heresie, impiety, and blasphemy) then that of the Roman Oratour, which fitteth wel such brasen fore-heades? He that hath [Page 61] once passed the bounds of modesty, careth not to become exceeding im­pudent. For vvho hath made M. Abbot so priuy to the secrets of my conscience? If their religion be not acquited and cleered of those imputations, before I in my conscience purge it of them, no doubt but it must alwaies stand justly charged with them: see the Preface vnto the second part of the reformed Catholike, wherein I haue deliuered mine opinion of their religion concerning those points.

M. Abbot hauing (as he thinkes) soundly proued, that howsoe­uer I vvas vvilling to put my request to aduenture, yet I my selfe vvas vvithout al hope of successe: he then diuineth and deuiseth, what I respected in that my dedication. The first thing (saith he) was to lengthen the exspectation of Catholikes. If he meane, that I en­deauoured to encourage them to perseuer constant in their religi­ous courses, he is not deceiued: for though the Epistle were prin­cipally meant and directed to his Majesties good; yet consequent­ly it may redound vnto the benefit of others. Marry if he thinke, that Catholikes doe continue firme in their faith vpon hope only of the Princes fauour, he is fouly deceiued; for they haue learned this lesson of S. Peter:Act 5. v. 29.That we must obey God rather then men: and that of Dauid;Psal. 117. vers. 8.That it is better to trust in God then in Princes. God (we know) of his inestimable mercy and goodnesse, and by his al­mighty power, can when he please, restore the Catholike religion in our country: in the meane season we are content to beare Christs crosse patiently, and to follow him rather then to depend vpon the pleasure of mortal men. As for other practises, which he faineth to haue beene my second respect, besides the diligent & deuout exercise of Gods true religion, vve allow of none; much lesse doe we pre­pare any mans minde thereto. Thirdly, touching mine and my fel­lowes craft and occupation, by which he meaneth the holy exercise of Priestly functions, it was not at any time (since they beganne to persecute our religion) in lesse jeopardy to grow to decay, then at that time; for in that first yeare of his Majesties raigne (when my booke was compiled) more were conuerted to our religion, then in any other yeare since I can remember: which also was so noto­rious to al Protestants, and so much spoken off throughout al En­gland, that M. Abbot must needes confesse himselfe to be either of simple intelligence, or rather of so scared and corrupt a conscience, [Page 62] that he passeth not how palpably he fableth. Lastly, vvhat grace could the dedication of my booke to his Majesty giue it, if it be such a foolish bable as you make it? wherefore, your surmises ab­out my drift of addressing my booke vnto the Kinges Highnesse, are vaine and false.

But what is that that followeth? it seemeth very strange, and to haue leaped out of his pen vnaduisedly: Doubtlesse (saith M. Abbot) he thought some exploite to be performed by him, by offering his booke to his Majesty; and that we may be sure, that M. Abbot speaketh not this in other mens names without his owne consent thereunto, he addeth: And that he thought so indeede, appeareth by his owne wordes in the Preface. What Sir, did I thinke in deede to performe some exploite with his Majesty, by dedicating my booke to him? then are you a very cosoner, to goe about to perswade your reader to the contrary: might not you haue better spared this silly and sence­lesse discourse, of my being out of al hope to preuaile ought with his Ma­jesty, then after you haue made it, to ouerthrow it your selfe in the very same side of a leafe? durst you in so short a space, set downe propositions so contrary the one to the other, as these be? First, He himselfe was without al hope or opinion of successe, in his request to his Majesty: And againe, He thought in deede to performe some exploit, (that is, to preuaile maruailous much with his Majesty) by it. If any man had a jade, that did enterfeere and cut his pasternes so pitti­fully, as this man crosseth himselfe in his owne assertions, I am sure he vvould quickly cast him off, for feare of a foule fal: so I hope euery aduised reader wil take heed how he beleeue him, that doth not beleeue himselfe, or else doth luculently belie himselfe; for if he had beleeued himselfe when he said, that I indeed thought to doe much good vvith his Majesty, by dedicating my booke to him, he vvould neuer so idly haue gone about, to proue that I my selfe had no hope of successe in it: But let vs yet heare more of his vvorthy tale.

ROBERT ABBOT.

AND that he thought so indeed, appeareth by his owne wordes in the Preface to the reader, commending this Treatise vnto him, in these tearmes; He shal finde herein, the marrow and pith of ma­ny large volumes, contracted and drawne into a narrow roome. By his owne conceite therefore, he hath sent vs the strength of their [Page 63] strength, the choise of their learning, the flower of their argumēts: so that this booke is (as it were) a Goliath, out of the host of the Philistines, sent to defie the host of Israel, and to require a comba­tant, at one fight to try the matter; presuming that in al Israel is not a man to be found, that dare vndertake to answere the challēge. Whereby appeareth, that it is but for fashion sake, that he speaketh so modestly in the beginning of his Epistle, excusing his slender skil, and complaining that his dead and daily interrupted and per­secuted studies, vvil not giue him leaue to accomplish that little, which otherwise he might vndertake and performe: surely he nei­ther vvanted skil nor leasure as it seemeth, that could thus gather the marrow and pith of so many large volumes. As for his studies, if he vvil confesse the truth he must acknowledge, that they haue beene more interrupted by their contentions vvith the Iesuites, then persecuted by vs: albeit great reason it is, that he and his fel­lowes should be persecuted (if he vvil so tearme it) by restraint of body, that abuse their liberty when they are abroade, to the per­secuting and destroying of other mens soules, with-drawing them from the seruice of Iesus Christ, & by their illusions, and enchant­ments, bewitching them to dote vpon Antichrist, extinguishing in them the true conscience of alleageance to their Prince, and pre­paring them to the execution of their seditious and traiterous de­signements, as hath in some part appeared to his Majesty already, and I doubt not, but some further experience vvil make it further to appeare.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Was bold in my Preface (according to the common custome of writers) to commend my booke to the reader, that he might the more vvillingly reade it ouer with diligence; and I shewed before vvhat I meant when I said: That he should there finde the marrow and pith of many volumes, drawne into a narrow roome. For whereas di­uers men, haue set out vvhole volumes of one only controuersie, some of the supremacy, others of the blessed Sacrament, diuers men of sundry questions; in my booke should be treated of many great controuersies, and the principal arguments of those matters comprised in them: for on the Protestants side, M. Perkins (as I there said) had collected their choise arguments, vvhich al were related in my booke, besides their answeres; and some of the best [Page 64] (according to my slender choise and skil) proposed in defence and fauour of the Catholike party. Wherefore, I did not much ex­ceede vvhen I said; that the summe and substance of many large bookes, should be contracted into that smal one of mine, meaning aswel of the Protestant authors as of the Catholike: vvherefore M. Abbots amplification of it, is both idle and false; for I sent them as wel the creame of their owne arguments, as the flower of ours. Neither did I challenge any man as he fableth, much lesse did I like Goliath defie the host of Israel: but doe only giue answere to an Ismaelite, who counterfaiting the Israelite, doth take vpon him to reforme them that are better informed then himselfe. There be­ing then no just cause, why M. Abbot should vse these superfluous wordes, wil you giue me leaue to aime at this vaine-glorious mans meaning? In this resembling of his aduersary to Goliath, vvould he not thereby (thinke you) haue his reader imagine, that he as an­other Dauid was chosen out of the host of Israel, to encounter with this great Goliath? And what maruaile, though he that durst equal himselfe to S. Paul for zeale and affection, and for al sufficiency in knowledge, doth exalt himselfe aboue al men? taking also vpon him not to be ignorant of mens secret intentions, nor of vvhat shal happen hereafter, might moreouer desire to be reputed another Dauid, chosen to defend the people of God against the Philistines. M. Abbots stile and title then, in true Herauldry may be this: ano­ther Dauid for valour and resolution; a second Paul for feruour in deuotion; a Peerlesse disputer, that wil not leaue his aduersary one word to reply; a Prophet, that can diue into the depth of another mans breast, and fore-tel what is to come; in a vvord a vaine cra­king jangler, and a notorious lier: vvitnesse euery leafe, and al­most euery line in his booke.

Is not that which followeth a strange tale? That my studies haue beene more interrupted by contention with the Iesuites, then persecuted by the Protestants, vvhereas they haue beene rather furthered, then hindred by those disputes betweene the Iesuites and vs, about the gouernement of the Church; vvhich gaue vs great occasion, to looke better into that noble knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Hier­archy, then euer we did before. And as in times past we had vvil­lingly reaped no smal commodity, both in their vvel ordered schooles, and out of their very learned vvriters: euen so now vpon [Page 65] this new occasion, vve vvere by them almost compelled to take a deeper insight of the Canons of the Church, and to be farre better acquainted with the managing of those spiritual matters. Where­fore the Iesuites did rather aduance our studies, then any way per­secute them: whereas on the other side, the Protestants vvil suffer vs to rest in no place, vvhere we may study, and further doe seeke by al the waies that the wit of man can deuise, how to depriue vs of al meanes to maintaine our studies: with what face then could this man say, that our studies vvere more interrupted by the Iesuites, then by them? He addeth, that they wel deserue persecution, that de­stroy mens soules, extinguish the true conscience of alleageance, &c. vvhich is true, but concerneth themselues more then vs: for rather Protestants then Catholikes be such, as I haue heretofore in sundry places proued; and therefore doe not stand vpon it here, vvhere he only affirmeth it after his manner without any proofe.

ROBERT ABBOT.

NOw it is wel in the meane time, that he acknowledgeth in his Majesty, exceeding clemency, mildnesse, modesty, lo­uing and affable disposition, singuler ornaments of a Prince, and wherein is a special token of a King whom the Lord hath chosen: but his threatning wordes towardes the end of his Epistle doe pre­sage, that hereafter they wil alter this stile, and cry out as they did in the daies of our Queene deceassed, of cruelty, tiranny, extremity of persecution, and martirdomes, when by their disloial and sedi­ [...]ious courses, they haue drawne from his Majesty greater seuerity, and sharpnesse of executions, then his Princely nature is of it selfe inclined vnto: then shal this acknowledgment of his be an vpbrai­ding of them, that they themselues haue made the rodde, vvhere­with they are scourged; that his Majesty hath beene kinde and lo­ [...]ing to them, but they haue beene vnkind and cruel to themselues.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

WE are most vvilling to acknowledge al Gods gifts in his Majesty and to extol them to the vttermost of our power, that his Highnesse may thereby both see our dutiful affection to­vvardes him, and be the oftner moued to thanke and serue God therefore,Iacob. 1. vers. 16. From whom descend al good and perfect gifts. We doe (notwithstanding the great seuerity of his lawes against vs) con­tinue stil in the same minde, that his Majesty is of his owne natural [Page 66] disposition, very milde and clement; yet by following ouer much other mens bitter and violent counsailes, is too too much drawne from the goodnesse of his owne nature and disposition. And al­though it be a maruailous pretious ornament in a Prince, to be so humane and clement, yet many haue beene excellent therein, vvhom the Lord did not choose for his. The Emperours Traian, Marcus Aurelius, and Antoninus Pius, were of a most courteous, milde, and moderate disposition; yet being Heathens, and follow­ing the course of their Predecessors lawes, were not altogether free from the spilling of some innocent bloud of the Christians. But let vs allow clemency to be one of the richest jewels in a Princes Dia­deme: vvho then is to be accounted a more true harted and loial subject, either I that endeuoured earnestly to perswade my Prince, to keepe, cherish, and encrease that pretious gift of clemency in him, vvhich doth so highly adorne his roial Majesty; or he that emploieth his whole wit, art, and skil, to depriue his Highnesse of the glory of those gratious giftes, and to incense him to al rigour and seuerity? If any men of our religion, by seditious and disloial behauiour shal deserue seuerity, let them be seuerely punished: and if any be found so vnreasonable as to cry out against it, vpbraide them hardly vvith that their folly. But if for our religion only, without any other offence to his Majesty, or to the state, we be ex­treame rigorously dealt vvithal, or that innocent Catholikes be vnjustly oppressed for the faults of others; then they must giue vs leaue to cal thinges by their right names, and so to speake of them as they shal deserue: for the Prophet doth hold them accursed, that doe cal light, darkenesse; and good, euil: al thinges by men of truth are to be called by their true names. If his Majesty vvould follow M. Abbots gentle aduise, and embrue his sword in the harme­lesse bloud of Catholikes, he were like to get a good name, and to purchase to himselfe a great renowme al the vvorld ouer in short space. Now that which followes in M. Abbot is such a proper peece of stuffe, that with the alteration of a few wordes, it may be turned more truly against themselues, then he hath spoken it against vs: thus then it goeth with a very smal exchange of some wordes.

R. ABBOT and W. BISHOP.

BVT his clemency and kindnesse, albeit it be an encouragment to good and faithful subjects in dutiful manner to vnfold vnto [Page 67] his Majesty their just grieuances and requests; yet ought it not to embolden euil affected persons, vvith calumnious libels to inter­rupt the peaceable course of his Majesties gouernement, (as M. Abbot doth by egging him on to the spilling of innocent bloud) and to seeke according to their dronken humours and fancies, the altera­tion of the estate, and the admittance of those thinges, the building vvhereof they themselues know not how to settle vpon any sure ground. And this is the thing that (M. Bishop M. Abbot) laboureth for, see­king with Elimas the sorcerer,Act. 13. vers. 10. To peruert the straight waies of the Lord. And whereas his Majesty hath made open and often profes­sion, of his vigilancy and care to aduance the diuine honour of our Sauiour Christ, and his most sacred religion: he vvould in steede thereof, draw him (to aduance to prepare the way to) the IdolDan. 11. Mazzin, the God of Antichrist, and to establish damnable heresies (by his Mini­sters first) priuily brought in, (and now openly defended by him;) whereby they his agents and factours,2. Pet. 2. vers. 1. & 3. Through couetousnesse, with fained wordes doe make marchandise of the soules of men, speaking thinges which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake: And this he doth, vnder colour of deliuering what he assureth himselfe to be expedient, towardes the furnishing and setting forward of so heauenly a worke. But it is not enough that he assureth himselfe so, vnlesse he could by good ground assure his Majesty also of that which he laboureth to perswade, which he hath not done nor in deed can doe; and there­fore as touching his furnishing and setting forward of this vvorke, we answere him as the Princes and Fathers of Iuda and Beniamin, answered their vndermining aduersaries:1. Esdr. 4, 3. It is not for you, but for vs to build the house vnto our God. You Samaritans (you Papists you Protestants) are mungrels, taking vpon you to serue the Lord, and with al doe serue the Idols (2. Reg. 17. of your owne braines,) neglecting the ordinances and cōmandements of the Lord, by which this house is to be buil­ded; (yea teaching them to be impossible to be kept,) and doting vpon (a new imputatiue justice,) & so afteryour old custome the old custome (of al Heretikes) seeke after strife and diuision: V. 34. & 40. And therefore haue no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Hierusalem (which is the city of peace,) nor in this hea­uenly worke and seruice of Iesus Christ. Hitherto M. Abbots owne wordes with a very litle alteration as may be seene in the margent: these therefore must needes presse his aduersary very sore, when they may so easily and truly be turned against himselfe.

W. BISHOP.

Touching his mangling and peruerting those texts of scripture, vvhich he so clowterly botcheth together in the former place of this passage, I haue already spoken in the Preface: now to them of the later connexion. Because M. Abbot is not yet allowed for an Euangelist, let vs take away his owne vvordes, and then vve shal presently see how handsomly the vvordes of holy Scripture hang together: these they be. It is not for you, but for vs to build the house to our God, Esdra. 4. Feare the Lord, seruing Idols also, 2. Reg. 17. v. 34. old custome Ibid. 40. Hauing no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Hie­rusalem, Nehemi. 2. vers. 20. Is not this trimme stuffe? what reue­lation hath he, to joine together wordes that be by the holy Ghost set so farre asunder? wel, let vs giue him leaue to abuse Gods word at his pleasure, or else he wil take it whether we wil or wil not: but with what face can a Protestant say to the Catholikes, that it is not for you Papists, but for vs Protestants to build vp houses vnto God? vvhereas most of the Churches through al Christendome, built to serue God in, vvere erected by the Catholikes; and the Protestants haue rather pulled downe an hundred, then built vp one for Gods seruice: is not this sentence then properly applied by him? That they also are rather like the Samaritans then vve, I haue proued in my Preface.

Now to the last wordes that are most of al abused: for old custome in that place of the second of the Kinges, is not taken for ancient traditions of either doctrine or ceremony, as M. Abbot would haue it to sound; but for an inueterate euil custome of bad life, and trans­gressing of Gods commandements, for which the Israelites being often rebuked by the Prophets, vvould not amend: so that those wordes are taken cleane besides the right sence. But there follow­eth such a consequence, that it would procure a vomit to a weake stomacke: It is (forsooth) that because the Israelites would not leaue their old custome of euil liuing, therefore the Horomites, Ammatites, and Arabians (meere strangers to them, and of other countries) should haue no place, nor right, nor memorial in Hierusalem; for to men of those countries, were these wordes of Nehemias spoken by the Isra­elites themselues, and that aboue seauenty yeares after the other of old custome. Did you euer see so miserable renting of Gods word in sunder, and such paltry patching of it together againe, without any time or reason, without any likely resemblance or good cohe­rence? [Page 69] Doth not this argue the man to be vvel seene in the Bible, or rather desperately audatious, that dares [...]o offer such violence vnto the vnuiolable word of God? On Sir.

ROBERT ABBOT.

INDEEDE it is true that he saith, that vvhatsoeuer talent of lear­ning he hath attained vnto, the vse and fruite thereof is due to his Majesty; but the greater is his sinne to vvithdraw it from him to whom it is due, being so farre engaged to the Pope, as that his Majesty cannot presume of any true and faithful vse thereof. As for the proofe that he alleageth, of his sincere and dutiful affection, it is vnsound. For to this purpose I may wel demand, as did Con­stantius the Emperour father to the great Constantine: Euseb. de vi­ta Constant. lib. 1. cap. 11. How should they be deemed faithful vnto their Prince, who are found to be perfidious and vnfaithful towardes God? It appeareth by that secret which he vttereth in his Epistle towardes the end, that his loue is according to the rule of Bias, if at least it were his: Sic ama, tanquam aliquando osurus; Loue so, as being perhaps in time to hate. Certaine it is what­soeuer he pretendeth, that neither he nor his euer meant his Maje­sty any good, vnlesse they could gaine him to be what they would haue him to be.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Am so farre from vvithdrawing the vse and fruite of my poore talent from his Majesty, and the seruice of my country (though for the obtaining of my smal talent of diuinity, I haue not beene much beholding to either of them) that I doe daily imploy it there­in, to the vttermost of my power; by praying for them, and see­king to instruct and confirme them in the true faith of Christ. The vse of my talent is due vnto his Majesty I confesse, being now my natural Prince and lawful Soueraigne; yet so, as almighty God (vvho bestowed it on me) be principally serued thereby: Neither am I so engaged vnto the Popes Holinesse, but that I may as fully and faithfully serue his Majesty, as euer any true subject did his lawful Soueraigne. Our Sauiour made no doubt, but that a true Israelite might giue to Caesar that which belonged to Caesar, and to God that which was his. Neither did S. Peter or S. Paul make any questi­on, but that good Christians might perfectly obey their Princes, and yet wholy discent from them in matter of religion, and there­in take their whole direction from strangers. And euen those Chri­stians, [Page 70] that Constantius the Emperour did so commend and loue for their constancy in religion, were as farre engaged to the Bishop of Rome then, as vve be now, and did no more follow the same Emperour Constantius in matter of faith, then vve Catholikes doe our Liege Lord King Iames; yea vvere somewhat further of him, he being a Heathen and no Christian, as our King is: so fit and pro­per commonly be M. Abbots sentences taken out of the ancient fa­thers, that they serue much more naturally for our purpose, euen as this doth thus applied.Euseb. de vi­ta Constant. lib. 1. cap. 11. Like as that renowmed Emperour Constan­tius, did highly esteeme of those Christians, that would not for any world­ly losse or disgrace, no not to winne their owne Princes loue or fauour, deny their religion, or falter in the confession of it; yea further was of opini­on, That they who were so fast and faithful to their God, would also proue most trusty to their Prince, though of a farre different profession from them: Euen so his Majesty, after the example of so worthy and wise an Emperour, finding his Catholike subjects so firme in their religion, that no temporal discredit or incommodity how great or grieuous soeuer, can remoue them from the due confession of it, should thereupon perswade himself, that they who are so constant and true seruants vnto God, must needes also proue most loial and dutiful vnto their King, albeit of another religion. And it may in this manner also very aptly be returned vpon M. Abbot himselfe, whom I haue before proued to abuse Gods word very miserably, to alleage the ancient Fathers sentences most perfidiously, and so to pester and infect the world with lies: That no man (I weene) can deeme him to proue faithful to his Prince, that is found to deale so perfi­diously both with God and man.

Now to that rule of Bias, which being vvel vnderstood cannot be much misliked. For such is the vncertainty and mutability of our corrupt and fraile nature, that he whom this yeare we loue most intirely, may the next yeare deserue to be misliked of vs as ex­tremely; for of a most excellent and vertuous man, he may become bad without measure: but of his Majesty I haue alwaies had a farre better opinion, and doe daily pray to God to preserue him from al such extremities. And howsoeuer it shal happen, I acknowledge my selfe bound, and stedfastly purpose (God willing) to beare to­wardes his Highnesse the loial hart of a true subject, and the chari­table affection of a louing Christian: neither is there any thing in [Page 71] the end of my booke to the contrary. That which he so often gra­ceth vpon, is already cleered, and shal be more fully handled in due place.

Now to that which M. Abbot here deliuereth for very certaine, to wit: That neither I nor any of my minde, meant his Majesty any good, vnlesse we could gaine him to our religion; vvhich not only to be very vncertaine but also false, I may vvithout more adoe proue, euen by his owne confession in the next passage, vvhere he saith: That the secular Priests vnder an vncertaine hope of his Majesties fauour, ac­knowledged and maintained his just title to the crowne of England, and would haue offered him their helpe at the Queenes deceasse; therefore by his owne verdict, vve vvished and meant his Majesty much good (no lesse then the crowne of England) before we had gained him to be as vve vvould haue had him: for being vnder an vncertaine hope of his fauour, (as he vvriteth) vve vvished that inestimable treasure to his Majesty. Now, vvhen his owne sayings wil serue to confute himselfe, I may spare my further labour: I hope that his Majesty hath found (contrary to this mans fond assertion) ma­ny good offices, of both loial subjects and affectionate seruants, performed to his Highnesse by men of our religion. Sure I am, that other mighty Monarks, doe employ in places of great charge, men contrary to themselues and the state in religion, and haue thereby giuen great contentment to others, and reaped no smal profit to themselues: Now to M. Abbots disproofe of my reason.

ROBERT ABBOT.

BVT vvhat is the proofe of that his sincerity, which he allea­geth? forsooth, in time of vncertaine fortune (vvhen assured friendes are most certainly tried,) he both suffered disgrace and hinderance for his loue towardes his Majesty, being stiled in print A Scotist in faction; vvhere vve see that a false marchant needes no broker: how cunningly he gloseth the matter, to make shew of great loue where none vvas. What? vvas it for his Majesties cause that those hard fortunes, that disgrace and hinderance did befal you? nothing lesse: the Iesuites (forsooth) and the secular Priests, whilest each seeke superiority ouer other, fal together by the eares. The Iesuites procure an Arch-priest, one that should be at their de­uotion, to be set ouer the Seculars: the Seculars refuse to yeeld him subjection, and by appeale referre the matter to the Pope; for the [Page 72] prosecuting of which appeale, M. Bishop with another in his com­pany, are sent to Rome: there by procurement of Parsons, both [...]e and his fellow vvere clapt vp in prison, and continuing there for many weekes, were at length by the sentence of their Protectour banished England, and the one of them confined to Lorraine, the other to France. This is now the maine tragedy of M. Bishops misfortunes, not concerning the cause of the Kinges Majesty any whit at al: only in the managing of these matters, it came to passe according to the prouerbe, that vvhen theeues fal out, true men come by their goodes; for vvhilest euery part sought, to prouide the better for themselues here in England for the time to come, the Iesuites for their aduancement, laboured to intitle the Lady Infanta of Spaine, to the succession of the crowne of England: but the Se­culars presuming, that if the Infanta were set vp they must certain­ly goe downe, and choosing rather to aduenture themselues vpon vncertaine hope, then to giue way to certaine despaire, shrowded themselues vnder the acknowledgment of his Majesties just title: not for any loue to his Majesty, but for hatred to the Iesuites, and for the preferment of themselues. For imagining that thinges (vpon the death of Queene Elizabeth) would grow troublesome, and intending to make offer to his Majesty of their help (forsooth) for the obtaining of the crowne; they thought by capitulations and conditions (his Majesty preuailing) to make al sure for their part, thinking that the Iesuites by their traiterous practises, had set a sufficient barre against themselues, and should be no let vnto them. Hereupon they fal a vvriting one against another, and M. Bishop is stiled A Scotist in faction, and to picke a thanke with his Majesty, writeth his twofold discourse, One for the defence of his Highnesse honour, the other for his title to the crowne of England; a vvorke of supererogation for his part: for his Majesty needed no such Proctours as he, neither vvas the wrangling of a company of base fugitiues, sufficient to question either his Majesties honour or his title to the crowne.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE is such a tedious tale, so impertinent, so improbable, that I could scarce endure the vvriting of it out; yet that he should not complaine that any thing is omitted, I haue put it al downe. That part of it concerning M. Archpriests ordination, is [Page 73] wholy besides the purpose, and therefore I omit it wholy, though it be mixed with many vntruths, which would giue me aduantage against him, if I were disposed to stand about them.

To the other of titles M. Abbot acknowledgeth, that we secular Priests stoode in defence of his Majesties just title, against the pre­tensions made in behalfe of the Lady Infanta: And therefore any man of meane intelligence of the state of those Catholike countries vvhere we then liued, may easily conceiue, that we could not but suffer disgrace and hinderance, by standing for a Prince that was not Catholike; especially when we wanted not others to amplifie, vrge, and enforce the matter against vs. But our kinde friend M. Abbot saith; we stood for his Majesty not for any loue to him, but for ha­tred of the Iesuites, and for our owne preferment. I answere, that in true Christianity when good offices be performed, they must be inter­preted wel, vnlesse there be apparant proofe to the contrary, as al good men doe agree: from which general rule the Ministers per­haps are to be excepted, and so they may (vvhen al other reasons faile them) aime at the secret intentions of men, and judging them after their owne inward dispositions say; though they did neuer so vvel, yet they meant not wel. For vvhat other meanes hath he to be priuy to our inward thoughts and meaninges, vnlesse it be by reuelation from heauen? of vvhich vvhen he can resolue me I wil thinke him vvorthy of a further answere: In the meane season, he must be sencelesse, that wil beleeue the secular Priests to haue bin so simple, that they expected greater preferment vnder his Maje­sty, professing and maintaining the new religion, then they could looke for vnder the Infanta, that would haue set vp the old. For albeit the secular Priests, had not beene aduanced vnto any of the greater liuings and dignities; yet it could not be, but that the mea­nest amongst them should haue had twenty times more, the state being Catholike, then being as it now is. And if M. Abbot could not see this, I should take him rather to be starke blinde, then trou­bled with soare eies: but if he saw this wel enough, and yet to blind his reader would auouch the contrary, then is he a shamelesse man, and vvithout any care of his owne credit and honesty. If it be de­manded, how we Catholike Priests could perswade our selues, so much to respect and loue a Prince, that was like to doe so little for vs, and to employ our pennes and paines for him, that might per­haps [Page 74] little esteeme of it. I answere, that he being by lawful succes­sion to be our King, our duty obliged vs to affect him. Againe, for his most blessed Mothers sake, who liued and died so vertuously, we could not but loue and honour him whom shee loued most ten­derly. Thirdly, the Princely endowments which God had large­ly powred vpon his Majesty, and specially his rare literature, did draw the harts of al men that fancied learning, to fauour him. Fourthly, we did euen then fore-see, vvhat bloudy warres and in­testine garboils were like to haue consumed our whole country, if such opposition should haue beene made against him; and there­fore thought it better to seeke his Princely fauour towardes our re­ligion, and some moderate tolleration by faire dutiful meanes, then to hazard any such forcible attempt. Adde hereunto, what a con­stant report vvas spread al the vvorld ouer, (which was hearkned vnto by the greatest personages) that his Majesty vvould take no exceptions against any man for his religion, but vvould suffer his subjects to liue quietly to their conscience, and not so much as de­barre any Catholike (that should be found worthy) from any place of preferment vnder him. We hauing these and many other mo­tiues of loue, let any reasonable man judge, whether we might not wel euen from our harts affect his Majesty, and be prest and ready to doe him al the seruice we could.

M. Abbot hauing nothing else to except against my dutiful en­deauours, saith; That it was a worke of supererogation in me, for that his Majesty needed no such Proctour as I was: I must needes take it kindly at his handes, that he at length agniseth, that I out of the a­boundance of my affection towardes his Majesties honour and ad­uancement, did doe my good wil; howbeit there was no neede of my helpe. I also vvillingly confesse, that his Majesty might haue had many other, who could haue performed that matter much bet­ter then my selfe, yet that I vvas forwardly in his seruice, when o­thers vvere content to be silent, I hope vvas no token of a hollow harted or backward subject. And vvhereas he signifieth, that his Majesties title vvas then questioned only amongst some base fugi­tiues, (so he vnciuilly tearmeth his betters by many degrees) he shewes himself a meere stranger in domestical affaires; for at those daies (as al England can witnesse) his Majesties title lay buried in obliuion, and few men durst speake of it, and not a few doubted of [Page 75] it: a pamphet was printed directly against it; an oath of assotiati­on, and an act of Parliament seemed to haue beene made directly in prejudice of it. There vvas further a most infamous libel pu­blished against his Majesties most sacred Mother, and very exor­bitant railing speeches powred out against her, euen out of the pul­pits: the Ministers and others, through her innocent sides vvoun­ding also her off-spring, and for hatred of her religion, obscuring and blemishing much his Majesties interest to our crowne. Where vvas then this valiant muster-master, this powerable pen-man? vvhy did not he then, vvhen there was so great neede of defence, make a sally forth, and shew his valour and skil in the defence and fauour of his future Prince? the time was nor propitious, his affe­ction was frozen, he chose then rather with his fellow-Ministers to raile lustily at the mother, then with the poore fugitiue Papists, to write or speake in defence of their honour or title. If you be such a seruer of times, and flatterer of men in authority; yet be not an­gry I pray you with those, nor seeke to traduce their dutiful endea­uours, who in doubtful fortune and in times of disgrace, shewed farre more true harts, and forward affection vnto his Majesty. Can you not be content, quietly to reape the haruest of other mens tra­uailes, vnlesse you doe also calumniate them, vvho tooke so much paines for you? can you not be satisfied to enjoy his Majesties fa­uour, for vvhom you would neuer speake a vvord, til it was for an aduantage, vnlesse you seeke to incense him against them, vvho vvere more feruent and affectionate in his seruice? God send you more grace and better charity, and to his Majesty more mature consideration of his faithful subjects deserts.

ROBERT ABBOT.

AND how little hold there was in these his defences, may ap­peare by the example of his fellowes Watson and Clarke, who tooke part with him in this action, and the one of them wrote as much in the Kinges defence, as M. Bishop did; and yet when they saw vpon his Majesties entrance, that thinges were likely to goe o­therwise then liked them, immediately they fal to conspiring and plotting against him: the case is altered, they vvere not now the men that they were before; the like is M. Bishops fidelity and loue. And he himselfe afterward plainly giueth his Majesty to vnder­stand, that he may hope no otherwise of him, then he hath already [Page 76] found in them: yet here he presumeth, That sith his zeale and loue to his Majesty, hath heretofore drawne him, without the compasse of his profession, to treate of law courses; therefore his grace wil licence him, out of the like zeale vnto Gods truth, to say some-thing in matters of diuinity. But surely, if he by his law courses defended his Maje­sties cause no better, then by diuinity he hath defended his owne; he might very wel haue spared the labour, and left it to them that were fit to doe it. But this is the malapartnesse and sawcinesse of these base rascals and runnegates, both Iesuites and Seculars, to thrust themselues into matters that belong not to their profession or condition: they are tampering with causes of Kingdomes and states: they wil determine of Titles and Inheritances, of Crownes and Scepters. This is their arrogancy and presumption, assuming to themselues as if they were able for al thinges; al their Geese be Swannes: not an Asse amongst them, but is vvorthy to stand with the Kings Horses: not one of them (I warrant you) but is sufficient to be a Counsellour to a Prince:He liuely de­scribeth him­selfe. they are the only high spirited men, of great conceit, of deepe reach, of noble resolution, of most special and secret intelligence, of braue discourse, that can tel great tales of Bombomachides Clunnistaridi sarchides, the great Gurgustio­nian Emperor; euen like Narcissus, so farre in loue with themselues, that they are drownd in their owne pride. But we know them wel enough, vve see their foolery and laugh at it: vvhen they come to trial, they are for the most part but empty barrels; al this great noise, proueth in a manner nothing but meere winde. Only vve are sorry, for that as the Heretikes of old, by strange deuised words and names, stupefied and amazed simple and ignorant people, and by that meanes gathered to themselues great admiration, drew ma­ny to their heresies: so these seducers, vvith bold faces and bigge lookes, and brauadoes of prating and cogging, doe make silly soules, vnstable fooles, but specially women to admire them, and grow in loue with them, so to be carried by them blind-folded to their owne destruction. But here we are much to obserue, that by l [...]w courses only, M. Bishop defended his Majesties title to the crowne; by diuinity he could say nothing: for his Master Bellar­mine had taught him, that it is but De jure humano, quod hunc aut illum babeamus Regem; It is but by the law of man, that we haue this or that man to be our King: and therefore he argueth, because the law of [Page 77] God is to be preferred before the law of man he that by the law of man is to be King, vnlesse he wil be a maintainer of Popish religi­on, a vassal and slaue to the Pope, by the law of God he must be no King. This is M. Bishops diuinity, and by this diuinity his Majesty must haue beene ordered, if (for our judgement) God had suffered him to fal into their handes. As touching his diuinity otherwise, vvhich he saith hath beene the best part of his study more then thrise seauen yeares, how wel he hath profited therein, we shal see by examining the particulars of this booke.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

IF any firme or sound proofe may be drawne from examples, I say then, that his Majesty may better collect my fidelity by the example of more then two hundred Priests, that haue alwaies car­ried themselues faithful towards his Highnesse; then by the faults of two that did otherwise: but it is M. Abbots custome to reason so loosly, and out of one or two particulars to conclude an vniuer­sal, which in moral matters argueth yet farre greater spite and ma­lice; for vvho can abide to heare, that for one or two men offen­ding, al men of the same profession should be condemned, rather then for the fidelity of hundreds, to thinke wel of al the rest? Whe­ther I gaue any occasion of suspition, by those my vvordes vpon which he so often warbleth, hath beene already touched, and shal be more hereafter. Those idle, foolish, and false vvordes of his that follow, vvhere he affirmeth vvithout any shadow of proofe; that there is not one Seminary Priest, that doth not thinke himselfe able to be a Counsellour to a King, are so farre from al truth and honesty, (as al they can best witnesse that know them) that I need not stand about the disproofe of them. Only I note, that vvhiles he vvil needes out of his accustomed ciuility tearme vs Asses, he by craft calleth himselfe and his fellow Ministers the Kinges Horses: for vvith vvhom should Priests be compared, but vvith men of the like profession? saying then, that there is not an Asse among the Priests (as he speaketh) but is worthy to stand with the Kinges Horses, he must in due proportion be vnderstood to signifie thereby, that there is not a Priest so simple, but taketh himselfe worthy to stand cheeke by jole vvith the jollier sort of Ministers, vvhom by Peryphrasis he describes and discries to be the Kings Horses, and that not with­out some shew of reason: for they are ready to be ridden whether [Page 78] his Majesty pleaseth, [...]nd seeme to make the temporal Princes pro­ceedings their north-pole, by which they direct the whole course of their liues and learning But are they not made also (trow you) like to silly Asses, pressed to carry such vvaighty burthens impo­sed vpon their benefices, as it shal please their good Patrons to lay and loade vpon them? and yet neuerthelesse, they wil not sticke to sweare very formally, that they come frankly and freely to them. Albeit they be so quiet and commodious cattle to their good Pa­trons and Benefactors, neuerthelesse towardes others (specially towardes vs Catholikes) many of them be not vnlike those horses described by S. Iohn: Apocal. 9. v. 17. & 18. And the heades of the Horses, were as it were the heades of Lions, and from their mouthes proceeded fire, and smoke, and brimstone: so fierce and fiery they be against poore innocent Catholikes, incensing the King and state to seeke their vtter sub­uersion; and yet are they much more fatal to their owne followers: ¶For their tailes (as it is also in the said text) be like to serpents, ha­uing heades, and in these they hurt, poisoning by their venimous do­ctrine and lende conuersation, the soules of al men that beleeue and follow them. Thus much by occasion of M. Abbots noble compa­rison of Asses and Horses.

That vvhich he speaketh of strange long-footed wordes, inuented to stupefie the simple, is a riddle to me; our religion vseth none such. As for nouelty of wordes, bold faces, bigge lookes, brauadoes, and such like, they are the proper badges of the new Gospel, and M. Abbot doth himselfe and his fellow Preachers great vvrong, to impart their peculiar titles to others that deserue them not, nor like any vvhit of them.

But let vs leaue these trifles, and come to his worthy obseruati­on and argument thereupon: It is, That M. Bishop (forsooth) by law courses only defended his Majesties title to the crowne, by diuinity he could say nothing for it. Had not M. Abbots spiteful soare eies helped him to an odde insight of my writings, he could neuer haue spied that there, which was not to be seene in them: for though I passed out of the limits of diuinity, into some points of law; yet diuinity was my ground, vvhich teacheth that vve must yeeld to euery one his right, and to lawful lineal successours, the liuely-hoodes, landes, and possessions of their predecessours: his obseruation then vvas false, that I could say nothing out of diuinity for his Majesties title [Page 79] to the crowne. But he wil proue out of Bellarmine that most lear­ned Cardinal, (who indeede was my master, and master also vnto many my betters some six and twenty yeares agoe) that I could say nothing out of diuinity for his Majesties title: For it is but by the law of man, that we haue this or that man to be our King, but by the law of God no man is to be made King, that doth not truly serue God; then the law of God being to be preferred before the law of man, it followeth, that whosoeuer wil not truly serue God, is not to be made King. M. Abbot should haue done wel to haue solued this argument (vvhich is not vnworthy the maker, and taken as he meant it insoluble) and may happen to trouble many of his readers: but he loueth not this fight at the short sword, but to range a loofe off, and to defend his part vvith foule vvordes, rather then vvith any sound reasons. I vvil helpe him out of the briars this once and say, that in case of free e­lection of a King, that argument of Cardinal Bellarmines is most sound; for no good Christian ought to make choise of him for a King, or to yeeld their consent to him, whom he knoweth vnlikely euer to serue Iesus Christ the Soueraigne King of heauen & earth: Marry, vvhen the Kingdome goeth not by free choise and electi­on, but by ordinary succession; then the subjects must accept of him whom it pleaseth God to giue them. For our diuinity teach­eth vs, that God sometimes giueth Kinges in his wrath, and not al­waies such as wil serue him as they ought to doe, vvhich are (not­withstanding their vndutifulnesse to God) to be receiued and obei­ed of their subjects dutifully in al ciuil causes. And although God at the first left it to the free liberty of euery country, to make choise of vvhat kinde of ciuil gouernement they liked best (vvhereof it proceedeth, that it is by the law of man, that vve haue this or that man to be our King) yet when such a succession is once established by the law of man, and confirmed by long custome; then the law of God doth binde al men to the keeping of that just and good law of man. Thus much briefly to shew how I could very wel, by the rules of our diuinity defend his Majesties title to the crowne, and to certifie them that are in greater jealousie of our obedience, then they haue just cause; that vve take our selues bound aswel by the lawes of God as of man, to obey his Majesty, and dutifully to serue him in al temporal affaires: howbeit, we take the religion profes­sed by his Majesty, and his proceedings therein, not to be accor­ding [Page 80] to the good wil and pleasure of God; and therefore doe dai­ly pray vnto the diuine Majesty, to send him grace to see and a­mend it, and to giue vs perfect patience in the meane season to en­dure vvhatsoeuer shal be laid vpon vs, for the constant profession of his only true and sincere religion. As for my skil either in this point, or in any other part of diuinity, I know it to be very meane in comparison of thousands among the Catholikes, and am very wel content that it be put to the proofe. Only I require an indif­ferent reader, and one that wil not take vaine wordes for good pai­ment, but waigh diligently our arguments together, and try out by seing the places, who citeth his testimony, both of holy Scri­ptures and ancient Fathers, more truly and pertinently.

SECT. 2. W. BISHOP.

WHEREVNTO I may conueniently enter with that golden sen­tence, with which your Majesty beganne the conference, &c. A loue principium: conformable to this in holy writ.Apocal. 1. vers. 8. I am Alpha and Omega: the beginning and end, saith our Lord; and applying it to Princes, I may be bold to say, that nothing is more expedient and neces­sary for Kinges, nothing more honourable and of better assurance for their estate, then that in the very beginning of their raigne, they take special or­der, that the supreame and most puisant Monarke of heauen and earth, be purely & vprightly serued, as wel in their owne examplar liues, as through their Dominions: for of almighty God his meere bounty and great grace, they receiue and hold their Diademes and Princely Scepters; and cannot possesse and enjoy them (their mighty forces and prudent counsailes not­withstanding) one day longer, then during his diuine wil and pleasure. Which the wisest King witnesseth, speaking also in the person of Gods wisdome,Prouer. 8, 15. Per me Reges regnant: By me Kinges doe raigne: andDan. 4. Nabuchodonoser sometime King of Babilon, was turned out to grase with beastes for seauen yeares, and made to know and confesse, that the highest doth command ouer the Kingdomes of men, and disposeth of them as pleaseth his diuine wisdome, but I neede not stand vpon this point, it be­ing so wel knowne and acknowledged by your Majesty.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PLVTARCH reporteth, that the Nobles of Lacedemon appro­uing a speech that vvas deliuered by a man of euil behauiour,De auditione. caused the same to be vttered by another of honest life and conuer­sation, that it might carry the greater waight, vvhen it proceeded [Page 81] from a man whose doings were answerable to his wordes. M. Bi­shop hath vttered a goodly speech, but it soundeth not effectually from his mouth or pen; it vvere fit that some other man of other profession and comportment, should be the writer and speaker of this matter: for he denieth to his Majesty, that supreme gouerne­ment in causes Ecclesiastical, whereby he should take vpon him, to doe that that he perswadeth him; and being sworne to the Pope, he cannot but maintaine those lawes of his,Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. vvhereby he inhibiteth Kinges and Princes to meddle with matters of religion, and of the Church, and reserueth the same wholy to be decreed by himselfe and his Prelates; and as for Princes, they must receiue and pra­ctise the same according to his order.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE commeth to my memory, that vvorthy obseruation of the diuine Preacher:Eccles. 13. vers. 28. The rich man spake, and al men held their peace, and did extol his wordes vp to the skies; but when a poore man spake they said, who is this? It becommeth not a Diuine (saith our new gospeller) to discourse of matters of diuinity, but Princes doe them brauely. To M. Abbot I answere first, that his prophane story is besides the purpose, for the Lacedemonians tooke exception a­gainst that persons speech, because his life vvas not answerable: but he cauilleth at my discourse, not for default of my manners, but for other points of doctrine. Belike he thought it not expe­dient, (notwithstanding his example of the Lacedemonians did leade him thereunto) to put mens doctrine to be tried by their life and conuersation, least their new Gospel, should by that rule be condemned and rejected, because their Preachers and Ministers liues, be not conformable to the precepts of Christes Gospel. Be­sides, the disproportion of this example, that is also very false which he inferreth against me: That I doe deny his Majesty to haue authority to doe that, which I perswade him to doe, to wit; to take special order, that God almighty be truly and sincerely serued: for Kinges may and ought to doe that, though they be not supreme gouernours in causes Ecclesiastical. For albeit it belong not to them, to declare the true sence of al questioned places of holy Scriptures; nor to determine al doubts rising in diuinity; nor briefly, to performe such other functions as are proper to the supreme Gouernour of Christes Church: yet his Majesty might haue called together the [Page 82] most learned of his subjects of al sides, and haue heard vvhich of them could best haue proued their doctrine, to haue beene most conformable to the sacred word of God, to Apostolical traditions, to most ancient general Councels, to the vniforme consent of the most holy and best learned Doctors of the primitiue Church; and accordingly to haue embraced the same himselfe, and by his Princely authority to haue established the same throughout al his Dominions: It remaineth then euident, That his Majesty might haue taken special order, for the true seruice of God, notwithstāding he haue not supreme authority in Ecclesiastical causes. And most false is this assertion of M. Abbots, that any law of the Pope doth inhibite him to deale so farre-forth in matters of religion: that Canon which he ci­teth doth only forbidde lay-Magistrates, Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. to meddle with the ordering and judging of Priests and Clarkes, and such other Ecclesiastical officers, as doe properly belong to Bishops. But that Kinges ought to meddle in matters of religion, and how farre-forth they ought, S. Leo the first a most famous Pope, doth in these memorable vvordes declare: You must (ô Emperour) without doubt know, Epist. 75. ad Leo. August. that Kingly power is giuen to you, not only for the rule of the world, but is principally bestowed vpon you, for the defence and aide of the Church; that by suppressing wicked attempts, you may both defend that which is established, and also pacifie those thinges which are troubled. But of this point I shal haue occa­sion presently to speake more at large. It followeth.

ROBERT ABBOT.

AS touching the reason also vvhich he alleageth, why Princes should take special order that God be rightly serued, Because of his meere bounty and grace, they receiue and hold their Diademes and Princely Scepters: The Pope denieth that they hold the same imme­diately from God, but are to receiue them by his mediation and approbation, and no longer to hold them, then they conforme themselues to his lawes;Bulla Pij 5. Ecce nos constituti sumus super gentes & re­gna, &c. Behold (saith the Pope) we are set ouer nations and kingdomes, to build vp and to plant, to pul vp and to destroy, &c. And therefore what the wisdome of God saith (as M. Bishop alleageth) by me Kings raigne, the same the Pope blasphemously applieth to himselfe;Prouerb. 8. vers. 15. Per me R [...]ges regnant, By me Kings doe raigne: thus the Pope would haue Princes as very beasts as Nabuchodonoser was, not to know of whom they hold their crownes and kingdomes, but to thinke that [Page 83] al dependeth vpon him. But M. Bishop acknowledgeth here the truth, that of God they hold the same, and therefore should make it their special care, that the same God be honoured accordingly. And here vna­wares he justifieth our doctrine, as touching the Princes supreme authority for the gouernement of our Church, the effect whereof we teach to be this; to prouide by lawes and to take special order, that God be purely and vprightly serued; that Idolatry and super­stition be remoued; that the vvord of God be truly and sincerely taught; that the sacraments be duly administred, and the Bishops and Pastors diligently performe the seruice and duty that doth ap­pertaine vnto them; that the commandements of God be not pub­likely and scandalously broken: for these things we acknowledge the King to be vnder Christ, the supreme gouernour of the church within his Dominions, and this duty M. Bishop confesseth to ap­pertaine vnto him. And thus did the good Kinges of Iudah, Da­uid, Ezechias, Iosias, &c. thus haue Christian Emperours and Princes done; thus and no otherwise did Queene Elizabeth; and yet for the doing hereof, shee was proscribed by the Pope, and so much as in him lay, depriued of her Crowne and Scepter, but the hand of God was with her, and shee prospered thereby, and died in peace, &c.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Doe many times much muse, how men of any sort and fashion, specially how professors of Gods truth (such as M. Abbot would be esteemed) dare put into light such odde paltry shifts, and poure out together such heapes of grosse lies. A lie it was, that I denied to his Majesty such authority, as would serue for the taking order, how God might be rightly serued in his realme. Another lie it is, that the Popes lawes doe inbibite Kinges to meddle with matters of religion. A third, that I affirmed Kinges to hold their crownes immediately from God; vvhich though it be true in that sence he taketh it; yet is it false that I so said in that place: for I meddle not with those tearmes of immediately, or mediately. The fourth is, that the Pope denieth Princes to hold their Diademes and Princely authority immediately from God, but are to receiue them by his mediation; for euen in the very Ca­non cited last before by himselfe, the Pope acknowledgeth,Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. That Emperours and Kinges receiue from God the prerogatiue of their power: vvhereupon the Glosse plainly noteth, that they did not receiue their [Page 84] soueraigne authority from the Pope. Which was also obserued in the Canon next before,Eadē distīct. out of Pope Gelasius wordes. And it is further, the common opinion of al our Diuines: vvherefore vnlesse this counterfait Diuine, did meane here to lie for the whetstone, I know not what he meant to huddle vp lies so thicke together, euery one lowder then the other. But (saith he) Pius Quintus writeth, Eccenos constituti sumus super gentes & regna; Behold (saith the Pope) we are set ouer nations and kingdomes, to build and to plant, to plucke downe and to destroy, &c. therefore they apply to themselues, that which the wisdome of God giueth to Kinges, By me Kinges doe raigne. This is the fift lie that he makes within the compasse of lesse then halfe a side; for albeit the Pope vse the wordes spoken to the Prophet Hieremy: Ecce nos constituti sumus, &c. yet doth he not those by King Salomon, vtte­red in the person of Gods vvisdome, vvhich M. Abbot deceitfully shuffleth in the place of the other. Now the authority committed to the Prophet Hieremy, did not make the King of Iuda to hold his crowne of him, as al Diuines both Catholikes and Protestants doe grant: wherefore though the same be yet remaining in the Church of God, (as it is not only granted by al Catholike Doctors, but e­uen by the verdict of Caluin himselfe,In cap. 10. Cor. vers. 6. who to proue it doth cite e­uen the very same vvordes out of Hieremy. And so 1200 yeares before him, that famous Father S. Chrysostome did alleage the like, out of the same chapter of the Prophet, to the same purpose: say­ing.Homil. 55. in Mathaeum. The Father said to Hieremy, I haue put thee as a pillar of yron and wal of brasse, &c.) yet the Father placed him but ouer one nation (to vvit, that of the Iewes) but Christ hath placed Peter ouer the vniuersal world. Briefly, we granting the like power to be in the Bishop of Rome, that was in Hieremy the Prophet (whose wordes he vseth) it can be no more deduced thence, that Kings hold their Princely diademes of him, then that the King of Iuda did his of Hieremy; vvhich was neither mediately nor immediately: for only a certaine spiritual pow­er to roote out Idolatry, errour, and iniquity, and to plant religion and vertue, vvas by those vvordes giuen to men of the Church. Which, if it doe in some certaine case, extend to the deposition of a Prince (as I reade it hath beene practised by most juditious, lear­ned, and holy Personages, though I doe not reade vvhere it is by the Church defined to be any article of our faith;) yet no man is so simple, as not to deeme it more holsome and expedient for the [Page 85] vniforme and peacible estate of Christendome, that such super­eminent power should rather rest in the supreme Pastor of Christs Church, then be left vnto the discretion of the Ministers and Cler­gie of euery country, according to the Protestants opinion and practise: It being (I say) granted, that the Bishop of Rome, may in some case depose any temporal Magistrate; yet can it not there hence be gathered, that Kinges doe hold their Kingdomes of the Popes Holinesse. For vvhen one King vvil not let his neighbour Prince liue in peace by him, but doth extremely wast his Domini­ons, kil his subjects, and make hauocke of his country; the Prince so molested (if he cannot otherwise haue remedy) may most law­fully by force of armes, proceede euen to the deposition of that in­jurious King: And yet the inuader did not hold his Kingdome of the other, any more then the other did depend vpon him, but was an absolute King himselfe as the other vvas, notwithstanding by his intollerable outrages offered to his neighbour Prince, he made himselfe punishable, and subject to the other, against whom he so grieuously trespassed. In like manner, if a Prince by most extreme persecution of Christs flocke, doe become subject to the correcti­on of the chiefe Pastor thereof; yet thence it followeth not, that that Pastor had power to dispose of his Kingdome at his pleasure, or that the King did hold his Diademe of him, either mediately or immediately; howbeit the Prince through his owne exorbitant and otherwise remedilesse fault, doe justly fal into the Pastors handes to be punished.

Here I doe by the way, most humbly craue of them to whom it doth appertaine, that it may without passion be duly considered: whether we Catholikes doe not his Majesty more faithful seruice, and shew our selues much more careful of the quiet continuance of his glorious & happy estate, when by al humble and faire meanes we doe labour most diligently to entreat his most excellent Maje­sty, to deale more gratiously and mildly with his poore Catholike subjects; then those hot-spurre Ministers, vvho labour tooth and naile, to cast their louing Soueraigne into such a brake of briars by incensing his Highnesse to hold so extreme a course against them. For if his Majesty may be vvonne to follow the gentle and sweet inclination of his owne nature, and to qualifie the rigour of the lawes against recusants in such temperate manner, that the said re­cusant [Page 86] Catholikes may not be oppressed thereby; the Popes ho­linesse without al doubt, wil neuer goe about to depriue his Maje­sty of his regal dignity, how forward soeuer he be otherwise to imbrace and aduance his owne religion: for not so much for fa­uouring the Protestants, as for extreame persecution of the Catho­likes (as the former example of neighbour Kinges doth shew) that most seuere censure of the supreme Pastor of the Church is infli­cted. Wherefore, vvhen it shal please his Highnesse to conde­scend gratiously vnto our humble and daily supplication, for more moderation and mercy; then shal his Majesty vvithout al doubt (as euery man may easily perceiue) take away al jealousie of those buzzes, which seeme so greatly to disquiet the whole state.

Now to that point wherein the Kinges supremacy lieth, accor­ding to M. Abbots declaration. If it were only by lawes to prouide and to take special order, that God be wel serued, his word truly taught, his Sacraments duly administred, and that al Bishops and Pastors per­forme their duties; then I should thinke him a badde Christian, that would not acknowledge that his supremacy: And I most willingly admit, that the good Kinges of Israel did so; but the man is so shallow, shuttle-witted, and vncertaine, that there is no trust to be giuen to his declaration. M. Perkins goeth more substantially to worke, and affirmeth the Supremacy to consist, not in the points aboue mentioned;Reformed Catholike page 285. but in authority to declare, which bookes of Scri­pture be Canonical, which not; and to determine finally of al controuer­sies, and doubtes rising thereupon; to cal general Councels, and to ratifie their decrees; to make Ecclesiastical lawes that binde al the Church, and to excommunicate whosoeuer shal obstinately resist or breake them; to con­secrate and institute Patriarkes & Metropolitanes, and many such like: vvhich when M. Abbot shal proue to appertaine justly to Kinges and Princes, whether they be men, women, or children; then we vvil allow the supreme temporal Magistrate, to be also supreme gouernour in causes Ecclesiastical: In the meane season we vvil pray that God wil vouchsafe to make them good and dutiful chil­dren, of the one, holy, Cacholike, and Apostolike Church, and that they may humbly learne those high misteries of religion, vvhereof most Princes (as al the world seeth) vvould be very vn­meete judges and also very euil dispensours. What variety of re­ligions hath growne by that kinde of supremacy, what dissolution [Page 87] of Church discipline, vvhat corruption of ciuil justice, vvhat ini­quity and deceit in contracts and bargaines, vvhat oppression of the poore, and generally what loosenesse and leudnesse of conuer­sation, euery true Christian man doth see and lament, and daily pray to almighty God our most merciful Father for amendment.

That vvorldly peace and temporal prosperity be no assured markes of Gods fauour, nor of his true religion, King Dauid is a suf­ficient witnesse,Psal. 72. Whose feete (as he writeth) were almost moued, and beganne to slippe through his zeale against the wicked, because he saw them suffered to liue in such prosperity and to die in so great peace. And our Sauiour in expresse tearmes teacheth,Math. 5. vers. 45. That our Father in heauen maketh his Sunne to rise vpon good and hadde, and rai­neth vpon just and vnjust: that is, bestoweth out of his owne bounty many temporal commodities vpon them that doe ful litle deserue them at his handes. Wherefore M. Abbot was ouer-seene to bring in the Princes prosperity for proofe of the goodnesse of their reli­gion. Let vs proceede.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

BVT sithence there be in this our miserable age, great diuersities of re­ligions, and yet but one only wherewith God is wel pleased, and truly serued, (as saith the Apostle)Ephes. 4. One body, one spirit, as you are cal­led into one hope of your vocation, one Lord, one faith, one ba­ptisme: my most humble sute and supplication to your high Majesty is, that to your eternal good, you wil embrace, maintaine, and set forth, that only true Catholike and Apostolike faith, wherein your most roial Progeni­tours liued and died; or if you cannot be wonne so soone to alter that reli­gion, in which it hath beene your Highnesse misfortune, to haue beene bredde and brought vp; that then in the meane season, of your tender goodnesse you would not suffer the sincere Professours of the other, to be so heauily persecuted.

R. ABBOT. SECT. 3. Page 14.

HERE M. Bishop propoundeth briefly to his Majesty, the summe of his petition, the foundation whereof, he laieth in a principle which we acknowledge to be a truth, that whereas there be diuersities of religions in the world, there is but one only where vvith God is truly serued. Hereupon he frameth his humble sute, that his Majesty wil embrace and maintaine that only true Catho­like and Apostolike faith: but that needeth no sute of his, for his [Page 88] Majesty already doth that. For what is the Catholike faith, but the faith of the Catholike Church? and which then shal we take to be the Catholike Church? surely the Catholike Church by the very signification of the word, is the vniuersal Church, so called; Quia per totum est, August. de vnit. Eccles. Athanas. Q 81. Because it is ouer al, or through al the world, and is not tied to any country, place, person, or condition of men: not this Church, or that Church (as S. Augustine speaketh)August in psal. 56. But the Church dispersed throughout the world; and not that which consisteth i [...] men now presently liuing, but so as there belong to it, both those that haue beene before vs, and that shal be after vs to the worldes end: whereby we see, how absurdly the Church of Rome taketh vnto it the name of the Catholike Church, and how absurdly the Papists take vn­to them the name of Catholikes. The Catholike Church is the v­niuersal Church, the Church of Rome a particular Church: there fore to say the Catholike Roman Church, is al one, as to say the vniuersal particular Church. To speake by their rule, the Ro­man Church is the head, and al other Churches are members to it; but the Catholike Church comprehendeth al: therefore to say the Roman Church is the Catholike Church, is as much to say, the head is the vvhole body. Neither doth it helpe them, that of old, particular Churches vvere called by the name of Catholike Church, it being no otherwise done, but as in toto similari, in a body vvhere al the parts are of the same nature, vvhere euery part hath the name of the vvhole, and no one part can challenge the same more then another: as in the elements, euery part of the fire, is fire; euery part of the vvater, vvater; and so of the like: for so euery Church where true faith was taught,August. cōt. Epist. Fund. cap. 4. was called (to distinguish it from heretical assemblies) the Catholike Church; and euery Bishop of such a Church, vvas called a Bishop of the Catholike Church, and no one Church more then another, assu­med vnto it any prerogatiue of that title. Therefore they called the Catholike faith, the faith that vvas receiued by the Church throughout the vvorld: and the true Christians vvere called Ca­tholikes,August. E­pist. 48. Ex communicatione totius orbis; by hauing communion and fellowship of faith vvith the Church of the whole world: it is therefore a meere vsurpation, whereby the Papists cal the Roman Church the Catholike Church.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT is now at length come from his extrauagant ro­ [...]ing narrations, vnto some kinde of argumentation. Here he wil giue a proofe of his valour: here we shal soone try whether he come so wel furnished into the field, that he neede not to doubt of the victory, as in the beginning he vaunted of himselfe; or vvhether his special skil and force, doe not rather lie in railing at vs, and in cosening of his reader, then in any sound kinde of reaso­ning. That doctrine vvhich he learned out of S. Augustine, con­cerning the signification of the vvord Catholike, vve vvillingly admit off, to wit: That religion is Catholike, that faith is Catholike, which is spread ouer al the world, and hath beene alwaies imbraced and practised, euen from the Apostles time to our daies; and such is the re­ligion, vvhich I vvould haue perswaded his Majesty to receiue in to his Princely protection. To this vvhat saith M. Abbot? marry, that his Majesty hath already receiued it. How doth he proue that? not by any one plaine and round argument directly to the pur­pose, but from the Catholike religion, falleth to the Catholike Church, and so spendeth the time in most friuolous arguing a­gainst the Roman Church, of vvhich I made no mention at al. Doth he not deserue a lawrel garland, for the vvorshipful ranging of his battle? and is he not like to fight it out valiantly, that thus in the beginning flieth from the point of the question? Proue (good Sir) that his Majesty embraceth and maintaineth that religion, vvhich is spread ouer al the vvorld, and that hath continued euer since the Apostles time; and then you may justly say, that he vp­holdeth the Catholike religion, according to your owne explica­tion out of the ancient Fathers. But because M. Abbot saw this to be impossible, he gaue it the slippe, and turneth himselfe to proue the Roman religion not to be the Catholike, and perceiuing that also as hard to performe as the other, he shuffles from the religion and faith, of vvhich the question vvas, vnto the Roman Church, that is, from the faith professed at Rome, to the persons inhabiting the citty of Rome, whom he wil proue not to be Catholikes, and the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church. Doe you marke vvhat winding and turning, and what doubling this simple Minister is driuen vnto, ere he can come to make any shew of a silly argument?

But let vs giue him leaue to vvander vvhither his fancy leadeth him, that vve may at length heare vvhat he would say: It is for­sooth, That the Church of Rome doth absurdly cal her selfe the Catholike Church, and that Papists doe absurdly take to themselues the name of Ca­tholikes, because the Catholike Church is the vniuersal Church, but the Church of Rome is a particular Church; therefore to say the Roman Ca­tholike Church, is al one to say the vniuersal particular Church: here is a vvel shapen argument, and worthy the maker; it consists of al particular propositions, which euery smatterer in logicke knowes to be most vitious: besides, not one of them is good, but al are so­phistical and ful of deceit. First, concerning the forme, if it were currant one might proue by it, that no one Church in the vvorld vvere Catholike; take (for example) the English congregation (vvhich they hold to be most Catholike) and apply M. Abbots ar­gument to it thus: The Catholike Church is the vniuersal Church, but the Church of England is a particular Church; wherefore to say the En­glish Church is Catholike, is to say a particular Church is an vniuersal. His first fault then is in the very forme of reasoning, which alone is sufficient to argue him to be a sophister, and one that meaneth to beguile them that vvil trust him: now to the particulars. His first proposition (the Catholike Church is the vniuersal Church) is both ab­surd, because the same thing is affirmed of himselfe (for vniuersal is no distinct thing, but the very interpretation of the vvord Ca­tholike,) and also captious, as hauing a double signification. For the Catholike Church doth signifie both the vvhole body of the Church, compacted of al the particular members vnited and joy­ned together, in one; in which sence no one particular Church can be called the Catholike Church, because it is not the vvhole body spread ouer al the world; for it is totum integrale (to vse the schoole tearmes) and not totum vniuersale, quod dicitur de multis. Secondly, the Catholike Church doth also designe and note very properly, euery particular Church that embraceth the same true Christian faith, which hath continued euer since Christs time, and beene re­ceiued in al countries, not only because it is totum similare (as M. Ab­bot speaketh,) vvherefore euery true member of the Catholike Church may be called Catholike; but also because each of the said particular Churches hath the same Faith, the same Sacraments, and the same order of gouernement (al vvhich are as it vvere the soule [Page 91] and forme of the Catholike Church,) vvhich M. Abbot acknow­ledgeth: and further also confesseth out of S. Augustine, that Chri­stians were called Catholikes, Ex communicatione totius orbis, Epistola. 48. By hauing communion of faith with the whole world. If then by his owne confession, euery particular Church, yea euery particular Christi­an, that embraceth and professeth that faith which is dilated al the vvorld ouer, be truly called Catholike; how fondly then did he goe about to proue the Church of Rome not to be Catholike, and Papists not to be Catholikes, because forsooth they were particu­lars? Yet that he may be thought not to doate outright, but rather to dreame, he addeth: That at least the Church of Rome, hath no rea­son to assume to her selfe the prerogatiue of that title, because that euery Church where the true faith is taught, is truly called Catholike, and no one more then another. I note first, that this man is as constant and stable, as the weather-cocke on the toppe of a steeple: before he proued stoutly (as you haue heard) that no particular Church could be called Catholike; now he wil haue euery particular Church, that receiueth the true faith, to be called Catholike. Neither doe vve say that any one Orthodoxe Church, is more Catholike then an­other, if the word Catholike be taken precisely; though we hold, that among al the particular Catholikes, the Roman holdeth the greatest priuiledges, both of superiority in gouernement, and of continuance and stability in the same true Catholike faith, which is deduced out of the word of God; because that ChurchMath. 16. vers. 18. Is the Rocke (according to the exposition of the ancient Fathers) vpon which the whole Church was built, and against which the gates of hel should neuer preuaile. Againe, the Bishop of Rome succeedeth li­neally vnto S. Peter, Luc. 22. vers. 23. Whose faith (through the vertue of Christs praier) shal neuer faile; wherefore S. Ireneus, a most learned Arch­bishop of Lions in France, and a glorious Martir of great antiqui­ty, saith: That al Churches ought to agree with the Church of Rome, Lib. 3. cap. 3. for her more mighty principality. S. Cyprian Archbishop of Carthage in Africke, affirmeth:Li. 1. epist. 3. That perfidiousnesse and falshood in matters of faith, can haue no accesse vnto the See of Rome. S. Ambrose taketh it to be al one, to say the Catholike and the Roman Church, in these vvordes: If he shal agree with the Catholike, that is, De ob. Satyri. Hieron. in A­polog. 1. cont. Ruffi. cap. 1. with the Roman Church. So doth S. Hierome when he saith of Ruffinus: What faith doth he say his to be? if the Roman faith, we are then Catholikes: affir­ming [Page 92] men to become Catholikes by holding the Roman faith.De Prae­script. Tertullian, Epiphan. Haeres. 27. Epiphanius, Lib. 2. cōt. Parmeni. Optatus, August. E­pist. 165. S. Augustine, doe proue their Churches to be Catholike, and themselues to be Catholikes, by declaring that they doe communicate vvith the Church of Rome in society of faith: and doe condemne their aduersaries to be Schi­smatikes and Heretikes, because they did not communicate vvith the same Roman Church. And vvhich is greatly to be noted, no general Councel of sound authority, vvherein the Christian truth hath beene expounded and determined, but is confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: And on the other side, no heresie or errour in faith, hath sprong vp since the Apostles daies, that did not oppose it selfe against the Roman See, and was not by the same finally o­uerthrowne. Whereupon S. Augustine had good reason to say: That that chaire obtained the toppe of authority, De vtil. cred. cap. 17. Heretikes in vaine bar­king round about it. This little (I hope) vvil suffice for this place to declare, that there is great cause, vvhy vve should attribute much more to the Roman Church, then to any other particular Church whatsoeuer; and yeeld to it the prerogatiue of al singular titles, in a more excellent manner.

Here comes in M. Abbots second proposition, (but the Church of Rome is a particular Church) in which is as great doubling and deceit as in the former: for albeit the Church of Rome, doe in rigour of speech only, comprehend the Christians dwelling in Rome; yet is it vsually taken by men of both parties, to signifie al Churches of vvhatsoeuer other Country, that doe agree vvith the Church of Rome in faith, and confesse the Pastour thereof, to be the chiefe Pastour vnder Christ of the whole Church. Like as in times past, the Roman Empire did signifie, not the territory of Rome alone, or dominion of Italy; but also any nation that vvas subject to the Roman Emperour: Euen so the whole Catholike Church, or any true member thereof, may be called the Roman Church, à parte principaliore; because the Bishop of Rome is the supreme head of their Church. Wherevpon, if you demand of a French Catholike of what Church he is, his answere wil be, that he is of the Catho­like Roman Church; where he addeth Roman to distinguish him­selfe from al Sectaries, vvho doe cal themselues somtimes Catho­likes, (though most absurdly) and to specifie that he is such a Ca­tholike, as doth wholy joine with the Roman Church in faith and [Page 93] religion. Euen as the vvord Catholike was linked at first vvith Christian, to distinguish a true Christian beleeuer from an Here­tike, according to that of Pacianus an ancient Authour;Epistola. ad Simphorian. Christian is my name, Catholike is my surname: so now a daies the Epitheton Roman is added vnto Catholike, to separate those Catholikes that joine with the Church of Rome in faith, from other sectaries; who doe sometimes cal themselues also Catholikes, though very ridi­culously, because they be diuided in faith, from the greatest part of the vniuersal world. Out of the premises may be gathered, that the Roman Church may wel signifie any Church, that holdeth and maintaineth the same faith which the Roman doth: whence it fol­loweth, that M. Abbot either dealt doubly, vvhen he said the Ro­man Church to be a particular Church; or else he must confesse himselfe to be one of those Doctors vvhom the Apostle noteth,1. Tim. 1. vers. 7. For not vnderstanding what they speake, nor of what they affirme.

Now to this his second sophistication, The Roman Church (by our rule) is the head, and al other Churches are members to it, but the Catho­like comprehendeth al: ergo, to say the Roman Church is the Catholike, is to say the head is the whole body. Here is first a mishapen argument, by vvhich one may proue or disproue any thing; for example I wil proue by the like, that the Church of England is not Catho­like, thus: The Church of England by their crooked rule, is a member of the Catholike Church; but the Catholike Church comprehendeth al: where fore to say the English Church is the Catholike Church, is to say, a mem­ber is the whole body. Besides the counterfait fashion of the argu­ment, there is a great fallacy in it: for to omit,Fallacia ac­cidentis. that vve say not the Church of Rome, but the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church, it is a foule fault in arguing (as al Logitians doe vnder­stand) when one thing is said to be another by a metaphore, to at­tribute al the properties of the metaphore to the other thing. For example, Christ our Sauiour is metaphorically said to be a Lion,Apocal. 5. vers. 5. Vicit Leo de tribu Iuda: now if there hence any man would inferre, that a Lion hath foure legges, and is no reasonable creature, ergo. Christ hath as many, or is not indued with reason; he might him­selfe therefore be wel taken for an vnreasonable and blasphemous creature: Euen so must M. Abbot be, vvho shifteth from that pro­priety of the metaphore, bead, which was to purpose, vnto others that are cleane besides the purpose. For as Christ vvas called a [Page 94] Lion, for his inuincible fortitude; so the Bishop of Rome is called the head of the Church, for his authority to direct and gouerne the same: but to take any other propriety of either Lion or Head, when they be vsed metaphorically, and to argue out of that, is plainly to play the sophister. Wherefore, to conclude this passage, M. Abbot hath greatly discouered his insufficiency in arguing, by propoun­ding argumēts that offend and be very vitious, both in matter and forme; and that so palpably, that if young Logitians should stand vpon such in the paruies, they would be hissed out of the schooles: it must needes be then an exceeding great shame, for a Diuine to vse them, to deceiue good Christian people in matter of saluation. And if after so great vaunts, of giuing ful satisfaction to the reader, and of stopping his aduersaries mouth, that he should not haue a word to reply, he be not ashamed to put such bables as these into print; he cannot choose but make himselfe a mocking-stocke to the world: surely his writinges are more meete to stoppe mustard-pots, (if I mistake not much) then like to stoppe any meane schollers mouth.

ROBERT ABBOT.

IT is therefore a meere vsurpation, whereby the Papists cal the Roman Church the Catholike, and the very same that the Do­natists of old did vse.Aug. Ep. 48. They held the Catholike Church to beat Cartenna in Africa; and the Papists hold it to be at Rome in Italy: they would haue the Church to be called Catholike,Ibid. & breu. collat. 2. cap. dici. 3. not by reason of the communion, and society thereof through the whole world, but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and sacraments, which they falsly challenged to themselues; & the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe, and wil therefore be called the Catholike Church.Cōt. Crescon. grammat. lib. 2. cap. 37. Epist. 48. From Cartenna the Donatists ordained Bi­shops to other countries, euen to Rome it selfe: And from Rome by the Papists order, must Bishops be authorised to al other churches. They vvould be taken to be Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Cartenna: and so the Papists vvil be counted Catholikes, for keeping communion with the Church of Rome. They held,Ibidem. that howsoeuer a man beleeued, he could not be saued, vnlesse he did communicate with the Church of Cartenna: And the Papists hold, that there is no saluation likewise but in commu­nicating vvith the Church of Rome. The Donatists vvere not so absurd in the one, but the Papists are as absurd and ridiculous in the other.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

IN the former passage M. Abbot bestowed an argument or two, raked out of the rotten rubbish of those walles, (to vse some of his owne wordes) vvhich vvere before broken downe by men of our side: Now he commeth to his owne fresh inuention, as I take it; for it is a fardle of such beggarly base stuffe, and so ful of falshood and childish follies, that any other man (I vveene) vvould not for very shame haue let it passe to the print. It consisteth in a comparison and great resemblance that is betweene the old doating Donatists, and the new presumptuous Papists, if M. Abbot dreame not. The Donatists (saith he) held the Catholike Church to be at Cartenna, and the Papists doe hold it to be at Rome in Italy. False on both sides, because we doe not hold it to be so at Rome, as they did at Cartenna: for we hold it to be so at Rome, as it is besides also dispersed al the world ouer; they, that it vvas wholy included vvithin the straight boundes of Cartenna in Mauritania, and her confines: so that whosoeuer was conuerted in any other country, must goe thither to be purged from their sinnes, as S. Augustine testifieth in expresse tearmes,Epistola. 48. in the very place by M. Abbot alleaged. False also in the principal point, that the Donatists held the Catholike Church to be at Car­tenna: for there dwelt only the Rogatists, who were (as S. Augu­stine there speaketh,) Breuissimum frustrum, de frustro maiore, A most smal gobbet or fragment, broken out of a greater peece; that is to say, a few schismatical fellowes fallen from the Donatists, as the Puri­tans are from the Protestants, or the Anabaptists from the Sacra­mentaries: so that although men of that sect held the Catholike Church to be at Cartenna, yet the maine body of the Donatists maintained it not to be there at al, but held that congregation of Cartenna to be vvholy schismatical, and no true member of the Catholike Church. This first part then of the comparison, is most vgly and monstrously false.

The second is not vnlike: The Donatists would haue the Church to be called Catholike, not by reason of the communion and society thereof through the whole world, but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and sa­craments, which they falsly challenged to themselues; the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to her selfe. Here are many faults: the first is a grosse lie in the chiefe branch; for the Donatists did not cal the Church Catholike, for the perfection of doctrine and [Page 96] sacraments: see S. Augustine in both places, who expresly deliue­reth,Breui collat. cap. 2. diei 3. Epist. 48. that it was for the fulnesse of sacraments, Ex plenitudine sacra­mentorum; or for the obseruation of al Gods commandements, Ex obseruatione omnium diuinorum praeceptorum: of perfection of doctrine they said not one word, they were more sharpe-vvitted (as S. Augustine obserueth) then to goe about to proue vniuersality by perfection, which is not vniuersal. But seing wel that they could not defend their congregation to be Catholike, (that is vniuersal) but by some kinde of vniuersality; they defended it to be so called, for the vniuersality & fulnesse of sacraments and cōmandements, that is: because their Church retained al the sacraments that the Catholikes did, and professed to keepe al Gods commandements as fully as they. M. Abbots former fault then in this second point of resemblance (and that a foule one) is, in that he belieth the Do­natists. And more palpably should he haue belied the Roman Church, if he had justly brought in the resemblance, to wit: if he had said as due proportion required, that vve hold our Church to be Catholike as the Donatists did theirs, for the perfection of doctrine and sacraments: vvhich is so manifestly vntrue, and so cleerely a­gainst the doctrine of al Catholike writers, that he (that was wont to blush at nothing) seemeth yet ashamed to auouch it openly, and yet doth at last traile it in deceitfully. As for perfection of doctrine and sacraments, though it be only in the Catholike Church; yet it is so farre wide from the signification and vse of the vvord Catho­like, that none (except such wise men as M. Abbot is) doe thinke any thing to be Catholike, because it is perfect.

The third particle of the resemblance is, That from Cartennathe the Donatists ordained Bishops to other countries, euen to Rome it selfe. And from Rome by the Papists order, Bishops be authorised to al other Churches. I am not so copious, as to afford to euery leasing of M. Abbot a new phrase; vvherefore the reader (I hope) wil beare with my rude­nesse, if I cal sometimes a lie by the name of a lie. It is an vntrue tale, that the Donatists ordained Bishops from Cartenna; for they could not abide that place, but esteemed it to be Schismatical, as you haue heard before. He doth misreport S. Augustine, vvho saith:Lib. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 37 Quò ex Africa ordinare paucis vestris soletis Episcopum, you Donatists are wont to order and send a Bishop thither to your few companions out of Africa, not from Cartenna in Mauritania. [Page 97] Neither doth the Catholike Church appoint, that euery Bishop should goe to Rome to take holy orders, and from thence to be sent to other Catholike countries; but in euery other region where be three Catholike Bishops, they may be lawfully consecrated: albe­it for vnities sake, and to preserue due order, they be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, the supreme head vnder Christ of the Ca­tholike Church.

The fourth point of the comparison is most absurd; for the Donatists were so farre from thinking them Catholikes, that kept communion with the Church of Cartenna, that they detested and abhorred their company as Schismatikes. Neither doe we cal any men Catholikes for keeping cōmunion with the Church of Rome, if it be taken for that particular Church which is contained within the vvalles of Rome; but because that communicating with that Church in faith and religion, they doe communicate with al other of the same faith, which are spread al the world ouer.

Finally, the fift is as false as the fourth, and in the same sort to be confuted. True it is, that the Donatists thought that none could be saued out of their congregation, which is almost a common po­sition of euery sect and heresie; but most sure it is, that there is no saluation out of the true Church of Christ, no more then was out of the Arke of Noë in the general deluge: vvherefore, whosoeuer doth not communicate with the Church of Rome, (vvhich is the chiefe member thereof) in society of faith and sacraments, is out of the state of grace and saluation; according to that of S. Hierome to Pope Damasus: I following no chiefe but Christ, Epistola. 7. tit. 2. joine my selfe to the communion of Peters chaire, vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built, whosoeuer doth eate the Paschal lambe out of this house, he is pro­phane; he that is not found within the Arke of Noë shal perish, &c. vvhere there is much more to this purpose.

To conclude this passage, seing that M. Abbot went about, to proue the Church of Rome to be like that of the Donatists, by no one sound argument but by meere fabling & lying; he must looke (vnlesse he repent)Apocal. 21. vers. 8. to haue his part with al liars in the poole burning with fire and brimstone. And if it please the reader, to heare at what great square the Donatists vvere vvith the Church of Rome, to which M. Abbot doth so often resemble them, I wil briefly shew it out of the best records of that time. S. Augustine speaketh thus to [Page 98] the Donatist Petilian:Lib. 2. cont. Petili. c. 51. What hath the Church or See of Rome done to thee, in which Peter did sit, and now sitteth Anastatius? why doest thou cal the Apostolical chaire, the chaire of pestilence? See how friendly the Donatists saluted the Church of Rome, stiling it the chaire of pestilence.Lib. 2. cont. Parmeni. Optatus Bishop of Mileuitan saith thus: Whence is it that you Donatists contend to vsurp vnto you the keies of the Kingdome? and that you wage battaile against the chaire of Peter, presumptuously and with sacril [...]gious audacity? If they vvaged battaile against the Church of Rome so cruelly, surely there was no agreement be­tweene them. Wherefore, as the Catholikes of Africa then, so they that were taken into the communion of the Church of Rome, cared little for the Donatists, as witnesseth S. Augustine, saying of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage:August. E­pistola. 162. He neede not to care for the multitude of his conspiring enemies the Donatists, when he saw himselfe by commu­nicatory letters joined with the Roman Church, in which alwaies the prin­cipality of the Apostolical chaire flourished, &c. So we at this time, neede as little to care for the bitter reproches and deceitful argu­ments of the Protestants, so we stand stable and firme, in the like society of faith and religion with the same Church of Rome.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Cont. Epist. Fund. cap. 4.THERE vvas reason why Augustine should be moued with the name of Catholike, vvhen they that were called Catholikes, had testimony of their faith from the communion & society of the Church throughout the vvhole vvorld, and were therefore so cal­led;Breui. collat. diti 3. cap. 2. Quia communicant Ecclesiae toto orbe diffusae, Because (saith S. Augustine) they communicate with the Church spread ouer al the whole world. But most sottishly it is alleaged for a motiue to vs, being now Donatistically applied to one particular Church of Rome, and to men bearing the name of Catholikes, only for communica­ting vvith that Church. Surely, as the name of Iewes was of old a name of honour, and the proper title of the people of God; but afterwardes by their Apostacy who bare it, was left forEsai. 65. vers. 15. a name of curse and reproch: so the name of Catholike was an honourable name, and the peculiar title of the true children of the Church; but now by their abuse who haue vnjustly taken that name vnto them­selues, it is become a name of curse and shame vvith the people of God, and the proper badge of Apostataes and Heretikes. And as the ApostleRom. 2. v. 28. denieth the name of Iewes to them, vvho yet ac­cording [Page 99] to the letter were so called, because of the circumcision of the flesh; and applieth the truth of the nam [...] to them, vvho vvere so according to the spirit, albeit according to the letter they were not so named: so the name of Catholikes in deede, belongeth not to the Romish faction, who according to the letter take vpon them to be so called; but the true meaning thereof belongeth to them, vvho although they joy not in the litteral name, &c. yet doe fol­low the same faith vvhich they followed, vvho first were called by the name of Catholikes. Let them haue the shel, so that we haue the kernel, &c. the name in his true vse, importeth them that imbrace the faith of the Catholike, that is the vniuersal Church, that hath beene from the beginning of the world, that is through the vvhole vvorld, and shal be to the worldes end.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

S. AVGVSTINE indeede, was so much moued with the name of Catholike, that he alleageth it to haue beene one principal cause, Cont. Epist. Fund. cap. 4. De vera re­lig. cap. 7. which kept him in the lappe of the Church. And else where very often exhorteth al Christians, To hold the communion of that Church, which both is Catholike, and knowne also by that very name; not only to her owne followers, but also to others. And the self [...] same reason alleaged by M. Abbot himselfe, vvhich caused that most holy, vvise, and learned Father to esteeme so highly of that title Catholike, is now of great force to perswade al reasonable men, to make themselues members of the Roman Church: for by joining in society of faith with the Church of Rome, they shal cōmunicate with the Church spred ouer the whole vvorld; because the faith and religion of the Church of Rome, hath beene generally receiued al the world ouer, as our aduersaries themselues doe confesse. The name Catholike, is by the Protestants Donatistically applied to their Schismatical congregation, that neither are nor euer were scattered al the world ouer; but be inclosed and confined vvithin certaine countries of Europe, as the Donatists were within the boundes of Afrike. Most sottishly then (to vse his owne wordes) doth M. Abbot affirme, the name Catholike to be applied by vs of the Roman religion, vnto the particular Church of Rome; when as we cal al other Churches of what country soeuer (that with the Church of Rome keepe in­tirely the same faith) Catholike. And men of al other nations doe we cal Catholikes, as vvel as those vvho are Romans borne, be­cause [Page 100] they al beleeue and confesse the same one Catholke faith, that is extended ouer al the world.

Secondly, M. Abbot is much mistaken in his comparison of the name of Iewe, with the name Catholike: for to omit first that such examples proue nothing, but doe only serue for shew, or explica­tion; and moreouer, that it can hardly be shewed that the name of Iewe was a name of such honour at any time: for that peoples ho­nourable name vvas Israelites, and vvere not called Iewes, til to­wardes the declination and wane of their estate. Neither was it e­uer any peculiar and proper title of the people of God: for God had many good seruants, that were neuer called Iewes, as may be gathered by Iob the Husite, Naaman the Sirian, the widow ofLuc. 4. vers. 26. Sa­repta a Sidonian, and by a great number of Prosilites, and finally by that which the Apostle teacheth:Rom. 2. vers. 14. Many Gentils were saued without the law. Lastly, most vncertaine it is, of what name the Prophet Isay speaketh when he saith:Cap. 65. vers. 13. It shal be left for a name of curse. Al these impertinencies of his example being too too many, I doe remit him, but cannot pardon his grosse fault in the maine point of the comparison: for the name Iewe (according to the v­sual signification of the word) being the name of a certaine people of one race and kindred, and hauing a law giuen them by Moises, which should continue only for a prescript time, and end at the comming of Christ, is not like the name of Catholike; which is no special name of the people of any one country, but is attributed and doth agree to al sortes of men, of what country or nation soe­uer, that doe embrace the true Christian faith: And is inseparably linked, and so fast joined and riueted with the Christian profession and religion, that it shal neuer faile, fal, or be separated from it, so long as Christs faith standeth; nor euer be contemned of the faith­ful, whiles Christs true religion flourisheth: vvhich is proued in­uincibly out of the very Etimology of the name Catholike, and that according to M. Abbots owne interpretation in the same place, who doth expound it to signifie that Church, which is through the whole world, and shal be to the worldes end. If the name Catholike, shal continue to the worldes end the true title of the Church, who then but miscreants and Heretikes, can take it for a name of curse, reproch, and shame? Is it not vntil this day set downe in the Apo­stles creed, as the honourable title and epithite of the true Church? [Page 101] I beleeue the holy Catholike Church. Must he then not be rather an Apostata then a scholler of the Apostles, [...]hat blusheth not to a­uouch the very name Catholike, to be the proper badge of Apo­stataes and Heretikes, which the Apostles asscribe and appropriate vnto true Christianity? If any proude and false fellowes doe v­surpe that name, and challenge it to themselues wrongfully, as ma­ny did euen in S. Augustines time, when M. Abbot confesseth it to haue beene in greatest estimation; let such vsurping companions be rebuked sharply, and conuicted of their insolent and audatious folly: but the name Catholike, which the Apostles thought vvor­thy and fit to be placed in the articles of our creede, and principles of our religion, must alwaies remaine and be among true Christi­ans, a name very glorious and desireable. We therefore say with S. Augustine: We receiue the holy Ghost, if we loue the Church, Tract. 32. in Iohannem. Lib. 1. cont. Gaudēt. c. 33. if we be joined together by charity, if we rejoice in the Catholike name and faith. And they that doe not joy in that name, but mocke at it, doe bla­spheme, as the same most holy Authour intimateth. The name Iewe being taken in the Apostles sence, for one (of what nation so­euer) that fulfilleth the justice of the law, neuer was, nor neuer shal be a name of reproch: so that M. Abbot is driuen to hoppe from one sence of that name to another, to make it appliable to his purpose.

But (and it please you) the Protestants haue the kernel of the name Catholike, and we but the shel. Why doe they then so bitterly in­ueigh against it? vvhy are they not more willing to extol and ma­gnifie that renowmed title, being of such ancient Nobility? twen­ty pound to a peny, that vvhat face soeuer he set on it, yet in his hart he maruailously feareth the contrary himselfe. If that faith and religion only be Catholike & vniuersal (as he acknowledgeth) that hath euer beene, and is also spread ouer al the world, and shal continue to the worldes end; then surely their religion cannot be Catholike, euen by the vniforme confession of themselues: vvho generally acknowledge, that for nine hundred yeares together, the Papacy did so domineer al the world ouer, that not a man of their religion, vvas to be found in any corner of the vvorld, that durst peepe out his head to contradict it. Could there be any Church of theirs then, when there was not one Pastour and flocke of their religion (though neuer so smal) in any one country? and euen now [Page 102] vvhen their Gospel is at the hottest, hath it spread it selfe al the world ouer? is it receiued in Italy, Spaine, Greece, Afrike, or Asia, or carried into the Indians? nothing lesse. They cannot then cal themselues Catholikes, after the sincere and ancient acceptation of that name, which is as himselfe hath often repeted out of S. Au­gustine: Quia communicant Ecclesiae toto orbe diffusae; Because they communicate in fellowship of faith, with the Church spread ouer al the world. They must therefore (notwithstanding M. Abbots vaine bragges) be content with the shel, and leaue the kernel to vs, who doe embrace the same faith that is dilated al countries ouer: yea, they must be contented to walke in the foote-steps of their fore-fa­thers the Donatists, euen according to M. Abbots explication, and flie from the vniuersality of faith and communion of the Church spread al the world ouer, vnto the perfection of their doctrine; which is neuerthelesse more absurd, and further from the true significati­on of the word Catholike, then the Donatists shift was, of fulnesse of sacraments and obseruation of al Gods commandements, as hath beene already declared. But let vs heare, how clearely and substantially, he wil at length proue their Church to be Catholike.

ROBERT ABBOT.

NOw, as of this Catholike Church from the beginning to the end, there is (as appeareth in the vvordes cited by M. Bi­shop) butEphes. 4. vers. 4. One body, euen as one Lord, one God and Father of al: so is there also but one spirit, one hope, one faith, one baptisme, one spiri­tual meate and drinke, one religion. Let vs then looke out those that haue beene before vs, and consider Abel, Noë, Abraham, Isaac, Ia­cob, and the rest of the Patriarkes and Fathers. Let vs looke to Moises and the Prophets, and the whole generation of the righte­ous and faithful of the old Testament and see what their faith was, what was their religion and seruice of God: vndoubtedly we find not a Papist among them; we finde no shadow of that which they now obtrude and thrust vpon vs, vnder the name of Catholike re­ligion. They did not worship Idols and Images: they did not cō ­ming after, pray to Saints that were dead before them: they vsed no inuocation of Angels: they knew no Merits nor vvorkes of su­pererogation. They vowed no vowes of Monkery: they made no pilgrimage to Reliques and dead mens bones: they knew no shrift nor absolution, or any of that riffe-raffe-stuffe, vvherein the sub­stance [Page 103] of Catholike religion is now imagined to consist. But what they did, the same doe we; as they worshipped God, so (sauing ceremonial obseruances) vve also worship him; as they beleeued, so by the same spirit of faith vve also beleeue; as they praied, so vvith the same vvordes we also pray; according to the approued example of their life, we also teach men to liue: therefore no Po­pery, but our religion is the Catholike religion, because it is that vvhich the Catholike Church hath practised from the beginning of the world; and Popish religion not so. The same faith and re­ligion which they followed, and no other, our Sauiour Christ at his cōming further confirmed, and only stripping it of those tipes and shadowes, vvherewith it pleased God for the time to cloth it, commending the same to his Apostles, simply and nakedly to be preached to the nations. They did so, They added nothing of their owne, they preached only the Gospel, promised before by theTertul. de Praescript. Rom. 1.Prophets in the holy Scriptures, saying no other thingesAct. 26. v. 12. Lib. 3. cap. 1. then those which the Prophets and Moises did say should come. The Gospel which they first preached, afterwardes by the wil God (as Ireneus saith) they deli­uered to vs in writing, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. Thus then, vvhat Christ deliuered the Apostles preached; vvhat the Apostles preached they wrote; vvhat they vvrote we receiue and beleeue,De praescript. and beleeuing this (as Tertullian saith) we desire to beleeue no more, because we first beleeue, that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue. And therefore (as S. Augustine saith) if any man, August. cont. literas Petili. lib. 3. cap. 6. nay if an Angel from heauen, shal preach vnto vs any thing concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life, but what we haue receiued in the Scriptures of the law and Gospel, accursed be he. Our faith therefore, because it is that which the Apostles commit­ted to writing, is the Apostolike faith, and our Church ex consan­guinitate doctrinae, by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine, is pro­ued to be an Apostolical Church, &c. of this Apostolical Church his Majesty is the supreme gouernour vnder Christ. As for M. Bi­shops religion, it cannot be the Catholike religion, because it is not that vvhich the Catholike Church, that is the faithful of al ages haue practised. His faith is not the Apostolike faith, because it is not that vvhich the Apostles left in writing. They make no men­tion of the Pope, of his Supremacy, of his Pardons, of worship­ping of Images, inuocation of Saints, Pilgrimages, and a thousand such trumperies.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

WE agree in this, that there is but one faith, one baptisme, one spiritual foode, and one religion in the Catholike Church: but M. Abbot is fouly ouer-seene about the time, when the true Church beganne first to be called Catholike; which was not before Christs time but afterwardes, according to that alleaged out of Pacianus an ancient authour, who writeth of the name Catholike, saying: Christian is my name, Pacian. epist. ad Simphor. de nomine Catholico. Catholike is my surname. For when among Christians some beganne to teach false doctrine, and to draw o­thers after them into sects, they that remained sound, & did cleaue fast vnto the whole body of the Church were intituled Catholikes, to distinguish them from Heretikes that did not joine vvith the v­niuersal corps of Christians, in faith and religion; which M. Abbot before did in plaine wordes confesse: see his text afore, vvhere he beginneth to argue of the word Catholike. And the reason is most perspicuous, why the Iewes and their religion could not be called Catholike, though it vvere right and according to the wil of God for that time, because Catholike signifieth that which is spread al the world ouer, and receiued of al nations; so was not the law of Moi­ses, and the manner of seruing God therein prescribed, but vvas peculiar vnto the children of Israel, and as it were confined with­in the limits of one land and country: vvherefore it could not be called Catholike and vniuersal.

And M. Abbot was greatly deceiued, or else goeth about to de­ceiue others, when for proofe of communicating with the Catho­like Church, he recoileth back vnto the beginning of the vvorld. Why did he not rather shew, that their new Gospel flourished in al countries assoone as the Christian faith vvas planted, and that it hath continued in al ages since the Apostles daies, vntil our time? that had beene to haue spoken directly to the purpose, which he seldome vseth. But he saw that to be a worke to hard for Hercules, and therefore to delude his reader, and to lead him from the matter, he flieth vp to the old farne-daies of Abel, Noē, Abra­ham, &c. as though they had reuealed vnto them, al those particular points of faith which Christ taught his Apostles, and the same re­ligion and manner of vvorshipping God that we Christians haue; which is flatly opposite to the doctrine of S. Paul, who testifieth:Ephes. 3. v. 4. That the mistery of Christ vnto other generations, was not knowne vn­to [Page 105] the Sonnes of men, as now it is reuealed vnto his holy Apostles and Prophets in the spirit. Those ancient Patriarkes (as menHebr. 11. vers. 13. looking a farre off, at the daies of Christ the light of the vvorld) did not discouer so distinctly the misteries of the Christian faith as the A­postles vvho vvereIob. 6. v. 45. taught by his owne mouth, and made to knowIoh. 15. v. 15. al his Fathers secretes, and had ¶Rom. 8. vers. 23. the first fruits of the spirit, in best sort to vnderstand them and carry them away. To be short, our Sauiour hath decided this question, and saith in ex­presse wordes:Math. 13. vers. 17. Many Prophets and just men, haue desired to see the thinges that you see, and haue not seene them, and to beare the thinges that you heare, and haue not heard them. Obserue then how absurdly M. Abbot behaueth himselfe in this matter. First he vseth tergiuer­sation, in leaping so farre backe from the point of the question, see­king communion with the Catholike Church, some thousandes of yeares before there vvas any Church Catholike. Secondly, in a­uouching the ancient founders of the first world, to haue beleeued clearely and particularly, al the articles of faith that vve beleeue; or else why doth he conclude, that the Roman faith is not Catho­like, because in that old and hoare-headed world, some branches of their faith were not sprong vp and of ful growth? They did not (saith he) worship Idols and Images, they did not pray to Saints, &c. But (good Sir) did they beleeue that al their children vvere to be baptised? and that al persons of riper yeares among them, were to receiue the holy Sacrament of Christes body? yea, can M. Abbot demonstrate, that they had perfect faith of the most holy and bles­sed Trinity, beleeuing distinctly in three persons and one God? or that the redeemer of the world Christ Iesus, was to be perfect God and perfect man, the nature of man in him subsisting vvithout the proper person of man, in the second person of the Trinity; which are the most high misteries of our Christian faith? I am not igno­rant, that albeit those ancient Patriarkes and Prophets, had not cleare and distinct knowledge of many articles vvhich vve are bound to beleeue; yet they beleeued some few of them in parti­cular, and had a certaine confuse and darke conceit by figures and tipes, of most of the rest.

Touching these very points, vvhereof M. Abbot would haue them vvholy ignorant (if his bare vvord without any manner of proof were so powerful) I affirme, that they held the most of them; [Page 106] vvhich I wil not stand here to proue at large, for that were Prote­stant-like to runne from one question to another without order: but I wil only giue a touch to euery one of his instances, referring the reader for more ful satisfaction, to the proper place of those head controuersies. First, no Catholike euer taught any man to worship Idols, let that then passe as a Protestant slander: but that Images are to be placed in Churches, the examples recorded in the old Testament, of hauing them both in theirExod. 25. vers. 18. Tabernacle, and in the3. Reg. 6. vers. 23. Temple of Salomon, & this sentence of the Psalmist;Psalm. 98. vers. 5. Adore his foote-stoole, and many such like places and resem­blances, doe argue very strongly, that Images are to be worship­ped. Secondly, inuocation of Angels is most plainly practised, by the holy Patriarke Iacob the Father of al Israelites:Genes. 48. vers. 16. God, &c. and the Angel that hath deliuered me from al euil, blesse these children. The example of so religious a person is our sufficient vvarrant, to pray to Angels and Saints: forLuc. 22. Saints in heauen are equal to Angels, as our Sauiour himselfe assureth vs; and Iob was counsai­led to pray and cal for aide vnto some of the Saints:Iob. 5. vers. 1. Ad ali­quem Sanctorum conuerte. Thirdly, they of the old Testament knew good vvorkes to merit life euerlasting, and had by Gods grace free-wil to doe them; which I adde, because by the same sen­tences I wil proue both togither. God said vnto Cain: Genes. 4. vers. 7. If thou doe wel, shalt thou not receiue; if euil, thy sinne wilbe at the dore, but the appetite or pange of it shal be vnder thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it: see both power giuen to the wicked to doe wel, if they wil, and recompence promised therefore. Againe, in the law Moises hauing propounded to the Israelites Gods commandements, ex­horting them thereunto, saith:Deuter. 30. vers. 15. Consider that I set before you life and good, and contrariwise death and euil; if you loue God, and wil walke in his commandements, life; or else death, &c.Vers. 19. choose therefore life, &c. Must they not be very dul, that hence cannot gather the keeping of Gods commandements, to deserue and merit life euerlasting, and that man hath by the aide of Gods grace, free-wil to performe them? Fourthly, they that were skilful in the law of Moises, could not be ignorant of vvorkes of supererogation, that is: that there vvere many good workes which men were not bound to doe, yet if they did them, they might thereby aduance themselues in Gods fauour; because there isNumer. 6. special order taken, for the sanctification [Page 107] of any man or woman, that would be a Nazarite, that is: any one that of deuotion would withdraw himselfe from secular affaires, and for some certaine time serue God more religiously, yet no man was bound there­vnto. Further they were allowed and encouraged to make vowes, which is also a worke of supererogation, against M. Abbot, fift in­stance. For not only Dauid saith:Psalm. 75. vers. 12. Vow and render it to our Lord; but in the law it is written:Deuter. 23. vers. 21. When thou doest vow a vow vnto the Lord thy God, slacke not to performe it, because the Lord thy God doth re­quire it, &c. but if thou wilt not promise thou shalt be without sinne. And to leaue the word Monkery, as fitter for a Monkey then for an Abbot, Iosephus a graue authour among the Iewes, vvitnesseth: That there liued in the time of the law many thousandes called Esseni, Antiquitat. Iudaic. lib. 18. cap. 2. who were contemners of riches, liued in common, hauing neither wiues nor ser­uants. What other thing doe Monkes professe then such pouerty and chastity? sauing obedience, vvhich must needes also in some degree be among the others, who liued no doubt in orderly socie­ty. Sixtly, neither they nor vve either buy or sel pardons, yet had great mercy and pardon shewed them for their fore-fathers sake, as God test fieth in the first commandement. And that they were on the other side, to endure temporal punishment for sinne, after the guilt of the sinne, & the eternal paine was forgiuen them, is most clearely recorded both of al the people of Israel,Numer. 14. Whose murmuration against God, was at the earnest intercession of Moises par­doned; and yet were they therefore depriued of entring into the land of promise. YeaNumer. 20. vers. 24. Moises and Aaron themselues, were in like manner both pardoned for their diffidence, that they did not glorifie God at the waters of contradiction; and yet neuerthelesseDeuter. 32. vers. 51. debarred from entring into the land of promise, for the same offence: so that after the mortal guilt of sinne is remitted, there remaineth either some temporal satisfaction to be made on our parties, or else to be forgiuen and pardoned vs by God and his Ministers Seauenthly, that they made praiers and offered sacrifice for the soules in Purgatory, is manifest by the fact of2. Mach. 12. Iudas Machabeus, who was a most noble vertuous and faithful Israelite, as al Christians doe confesse. Nei­ther is there any neede, for this purpose to auerre and proue the bookes of the Machabees to be Canonical Scripture, when it ser­ueth this turne, that they be taken for a graue History, and that the Protestants allow them to be of sufficient authority for instruction [Page 108] of manners. Further, al the Iewes euen to this day, doe pray for the soules in Purgatory:Titulo. 1. Sect. 4. see the Catholike Apology out of Prote­stant Authours. Eightly, the Iewes of the male-kinde, by their law vvere bound to goe as it were in pilgrimage, at three solemne feasts in the yeare, vnto one special place, that God should choose for his seruice: And King Salomon encouraged al strangers to goe on pilgrimage, to the Temple builded by him, vvhen he praiedDeuter. 16. vers. 16 that what stranger soeuer, should come thither to pray, he might obtaine his sute. And the ¶3. Reg. 8. vers. 21. bones of the Prophet Elizeus, giuing life by their touch vnto a dead man, doth sufficiently instruct al true beleeuers, that it is very profitable to goe on pilgrimage, vnto the sacred bones and holy Relikes of Gods faithful seruants departed. Last­ly, they were not wholy vnacquainted with a kinde of shrift and absolution: for4. Reg. 13. vers. 21. Numer. 5. Leuit. 5. they were charged to confesse the sinnes they had com­mitted, and to bring with them vnto the Priest, a prescribed sacrifice, to be offered by them for their pardon and absolution. And as the lepers by that law were bound to present themselues to the Priests, and were by them declared such, or purged from that imputation: so in the law of grace, men infected with the soules leprosie (that is mortal sinne) are either to be bound, and declared obstinate by the Priests, if they vvil not repent; or repenting and confessing the same, are to be cleansed there-from by the Priests absolution,Chrisost. li. 3. de Sacerdot. Hieron. in ca. 16. Math. as both S. Chri­sostome and S. Hierome doe argue. This in briefe wil suffice I hope, for answere vnto M. Abbots particulars.

I might easily adde, how the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine, were both prefigured by Melchisedechs Host in bread and vvine, and foretold by theGenes. 14. Malach. 10. Prophet Malachy: and vvhat a liuely type Manna (that Angeli­cal and delicate foode) was of Christs body in the Sacrament And how the supreme authority of one head ouer al the whole Church, and that to belong to a Bishop & not to the lay Magistrate, was not obscurely shadowed but liuely represented, by the Soueraigne power that the high Priest of the old testament had ouer al the rest,Deuter. 17. To determine and end al doubts and controuersies, arising about any hard point of the law. As for consecrating of Priests, and hallow­ing of Churches and Altars, vvith al vestiments and ornaments thereunto appertaining; and for the seueral feasts and fasts, there is so great resemblance betweene them and vs, that Protestants [Page 109] commonly cry out against vs, for the ouer-great affinity that is be­twixt the old law and our religion. But as they are to be reproued of indiscreet zeale against the rites of Moises law, vvhich were of God and good for the time, and most of them figures and tipes of the law of grace, according to that of the Apostle;1. Cor. 10. Al thinges chanced to them in figure, and were written for our correction and instru­ction: so on the other side, some strange defluxion, and distillation of corrupt humours, maruailously darkned M. Abbots soare-eies, that he could not discerne nor finde in the whole law of Moises, a­ny one shadow of that vvhich vve now practise. May not these worthy wordes, which S. Paul pronounced of the blinded Iewes in his time, be verified of him?2. Cor. 4. Their sences were dulled vntil this day: when Moises is read, a veile is put vpon their hart; that is, they reading and hearing the law of Moises, doe no more vnderstand it, then doth a man hoodded, or that hath a veile before his eies, see what is before him; or else M. Abbot reading the old Testament, could not choose but haue seene much of our religion, and many articles of our faith there recorded. And albeit we teach, most mi­steries of our faith to haue beene in the law of Moises prefigured and fore-told: yet is it very absurd, to say as M. Abbot doth, that we beleeue no more articles of faith then they did; for we were by the Sonne of God our blessed Sauiour, giuen to vnderstand many high points of beleefe, vvhich vvere not reuealed vnto them, as hath beene before declared.

And much more reprochful is it, to hold as he doth, That we worship God after the same manner as they did: for then should vve sacrifice to him, beefes, muttons, calues, and lambes, and our sacri­ficers should be of Aarons issue and order, and vve al circumcised. I omit al their ceremonies, because M. Abbot excepteth them. And if the Protestants doe altogether pray as they did, and in the same tearmes as M. Abbot affirmeth them to doe; they sometimes then doe pray vnto God toExod. 32. vers. 13. remember Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and for their sakes to take mercy on them: for to that effect & in those tearmes prai­ed the Prophet Moises, and that according vnto those PatriarkesGenes. 48. vers. 16. expresse order and commandement. Whereunto if it please the Protestants to joine that other praier of the Psalmist: ¶Psal. 131. Remember (ô Lord) Dauid, and al his mildnesse; let them tel me, whither this smal praier, with which they finde so great fault, (Tu per Thomae [Page 110] sanguinem, &c. Thou (ô Lord) for that blouds sake, which thy seruant shedde in defence of thy holy Church, take compassion vpon vs) be not vvarranted for good, by example of the like recorded in the old Testament. For if they then did desire God to remember the ex­cellent vertues of his seruants, and for their sakes to shew mercy to others, vvhy may not we doe the same now? vvhy may we not as wel beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas, as they did the mildnesse of Dauid? I vvil not dwel vpon these im­pertinent and loose follies, which al that be not babes, may of them selues easily discry; but doe out of the premises inferre: first, that no religion was to be called Catholike, before the Gospel of Christ vvas preached, or to be preached to al nations; and therefore the law of Moises, being peculiar to one people and country, could not be called Catholike: secondly, that the Roman faith and religion, is very conformable, to that of the Patriarkes and Prophets, as the verity is to the figure; vvhence it followeth, that the Protestants new deuises, hold no due correspondence with them. I haue al­ready confuted this his assertion, That Christ at his comming, confir­med the faith and religion of the Iewes, without any additions of his owne, and commended it simply and nakedly (only stripping it of types and sha­dowes) to be preached to al nations: And here I adde, that then Chri­stians may yet haue many vviues together, as the Iewes had, or giue their wiues vpon any displeasure, a l [...]bel of diuorse; for these vvere no shadowes nor ceremonies. And briefly, it should fol­low thereof, that al that part of their law that doth belong to justice and judgement, stands stil in ful force and vertue among vs Chri­stians: vvhich is most opposite to the determination of the Apo­stles in the first Councel holden at Hierusalem, where it was plain­ly decided; thatAct. 15. vers. 28. we Christians were not bound to keepe the old law. Againe, if the Apostles vvere simply and nakedly, to preach vnto the Gentiles the law of Moises stript of tipes and shadowes, why were they cōmanded to preach vnto them the Sacrament of baptisme, or of our Lords supper, vvhich are no vvhere commanded in the law of Moi­ses? Wel let this then passe, as a most notorious and grosse ouer­sight. But the Apostles (saith he) added nothing of their owne, vvhich is very false; for many thinges vvere left by our Sauiour to their disposition: vvhereupon S. Paul saith,1. Cor. 11. vers. 34. Caetera cùm venero dispo­nain, I wil dispose of the rest when I come; and vvas further bold to [Page 111] say,1. Cor. 7. vers. 12. Haec dico ego non Dominus, For the rest I say not our Lord. M. Abbot goes on belying the Apostle & saying, ¶Rom. 12. and they preached only the Gospel, promised before by the Prophets: where he corrupteth the Text, by adding the word only; and vveaueth into that Text to the Romans, these wordes out of the Acts of the Apostles,Act. 26. vers. 22. say­ing none other thinges, then those which the Prophets and Moises did say should come: where he both mangleth the Text, and also breaks off in the middest of a sentence, that it might seeme appliable to al points of the Apostles preachings, vvhich the Apostle applieth only to Christs death and resurrection, and the preaching and carrying of light vnto the Gentiles. It is a peece of strange alchumy, to distil out of these wordes of the Apostle, that they preached nothing but the same faith and religion vvhich the Iewes embraced. S. Paul saith, that be had preached nothing of Christs death and resurrection, and that he was the light of the Gentiles, but that vvhich the Prophets did speake should come to passe: M. Abbot of his owne head, enlargeth this his speech to al other points of our faith. Againe, al is besides the purpose: for the Apostle saith not, that he taught any one arti­cle, which the cōmon sort of the Iewes did beleeue, but such things as the Prophets said should come to passe. Who knowes not, that they fore-saw and fore-told, many thinges that were no articles of faith in their daies? and touching these very particulars, how many of the Iewes did beleeue that their Messias should die so shameful a death? or that M [...]ises law should be abrogated by their Messias? and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached vnto al nations? al these vvere great nouels, and exceeding scandalous to the body of the Iewes: wherefore, though some better learned among them, and more religiously affected, might vnderstand the Prophets speaking of those points; yet vvere they farre from the common reach, & perswasion of that people of the Iewes from these points, that the Iewes beleeued al that Christ taught, and al that he cōmanded his Apostles to deliuer to al nations.

M. Abbot runneth like a vvandering Planet to a third; that al which the Apostles taught, they committed to writing, vvhich is not­withstanding as false as any of the former: for many of them vvho neuer ceassed to preach, left not one sentence in vvriting behinde them; and he that wrote most, did not write the hundreth part of that which he taught by word of mouth. We know vvel, that they [Page 112] left the Gospel in writing, and many other most diuine and rare in­structions in their Epistles; vvherefore he needed not cite Ireneus to witnesse that, which no man is ignorant off: but that they wrote al which they preached, or al thinges necessary to saluation, Ireneus saith not a word, but plainly signifieth the contrary; vvhere he most sagely counsaileth al men,Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 19. when any controuersie in religion ari­seth, to make their recourse to the most ancient Churches, where the Apo­stles had conuersed, (amongst which he commendeth the Roman for principal of al the rest) and from them to take their resolution: he then was of opinion, that the decision of al controuersies, vvere not to be searched out of the vvritten word, but rather to be taken from the resolution of the Church.De Praescri­ptionibus. Oh, but Tertullian saith, That belee­uing this we desire to beleeue no more, because we first beleeue, that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue. Beleeuing this? beleeuing what? the vvritten word only? nothing lesse; for in that very Treatise, his principal drift is, to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted out of the written word, but by ancient customes & traditions, which he calleth Praescriptions: but (saith he) when we beleeue the whole do­ctrine of Christ, both written and deliuered by Apostolical tradition, then we desire to beleeue no more of any vpstart Heretikes new deuises. To S. Augustine I answere first, that those be not his formal wordes which he citeth. Secondly, admitting the sence (if it be rightly taken) I say, that these wordes;Gallat. 1. If any man or Angel, shal preach any thing besides that which is writen (vvhere he alludeth to the A­postles like vvordes) are to be vnderstood, as S. Augustine him­selfe expoundeth those of the Apostle, that is: If any man shal preach contrary to that which is written. For this is his owne inter­pretation:Aug. lib. 17. cont. Faust. cap. 3. The Apostle saith not more then you haue receiued, but o­therwise then you haue receiued; for if he had so said, he had prejudi­ced himselfe, who desired to come to the Thessalonians, to supply what was wanting to their faith. He that supplies addeth that wanted, but doth not take away any thing that was before: so that you see, when he faith that nothing is to be preached besides that vvhich is vvritten, his meaning is, nothing vvhich is contrary to it; allowing withal, that much more conformable to it, may be added for a supply to make it ful and perfect.

M. Abbot hauing in few lines run ouer 4. large questions, to wit: first, That the Prophets and Patriarkes beleeued no principal points of the [Page 113] Roman faith; secondly, that Christ deliuered nothing but what the Iewes before hand beleeued; thirdly, that the Apostles preached the same and no other to the Gentiles; fourthly, that whatsoeuer they preached they afterwardes wrote: he fiftly addeth, that the Protestants receiue and beleeue al the written word. Whence he wil haue it to follow finally, that the Protestants are very good Iewes, and doe jumpe just with them in al articles of faith; and consequently are true Catholikes: so that in M. Abbots reckoning, before you can be a true Protestant Catho­like, you must first become a good honest Iewe. Behold what a round this man is driuen to walke, & how many brakes of thornes he is forced to breake through, ere he can come to make any shew of proofe that the Protestants are Catholikes, the matter is so im­probable. I haue already declared how false euery one of his for­mer foure propositions be: the fift is as vntrue, and more (if more may be) then any of the other; and he plaies the sophister in it egregiously, to begge that which is principally in question. How proues he that Protestants receiue and beleeue al the writen word? hath he so litle wit and judgement, as to thinke that we would free­ly graunt him that? for to omit that they receiue not, but reject di­uers bookes of the old Testament (because they vvere not in the Canon of the Iewes, or doubted off by some in the primitiue Church, by which reason they might refuse as many of the new) doe they rightly vnderstand and beleeue truly, al that is vvritten in that blessed booke of Gods vvord? nothing lesse. Doe they giue credit to our Sauiour IESVS Christ himselfe telling them:Math. 26. v. 27. & 28. This is my BODY that shal be broken for you; this is my BLOVD that shal be shedde for you. Iohan. 20. vers. 23. Whose sinnes yee shal forgiue on earth shal be forgiuen in heauen. Math. 16. vers. 18. Thou art PETER, and vpon this Rocke wil I build my Church, &c. and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it. Math. 20. vers. 8. Cal the worke-men (that had laboured in his vine-yearde) and pay them their hire. Iacob. 2. vers. 24. Doe you see that by workes a man is justi­fied and not by faith only? Iacob. 5. vers. 14. Is any man sicke among you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray ouer them, anoiling them with OILE in the name of our LORD, &c. Ibidem 16. Confesse there­fore your sinnes one to another? these and an hundred more plaine texts recorded in that fountaine of life, vvherein our Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse tearmes, to wit: The Real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament; That Priests haue power to [Page 114] pardon sinnes; That Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter; That good workes doe in justice deserue eternal life; That we are justified not by faith alone, but also by good workes; That in extremity of sicknesse, we must cal for the Priest to anoile vs with holy Oile; That we must confesse our sinnes, not to God alone, but also vnto men: these and diuers such like heades of our Catholike faith, formally set downe in holy Scripture, the Protestants wil not beleeue, though they be written in Gods vvord neuer so expresly; but doe ransacke al the corners of their wits, to deuise some odde shift or other, how to flie from the euidence of them. Whereupon I conclude, that they doe not receiue al the written word, though they professe neuer so much to allow of al the bookes of Canonical Scripture.Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const. For the written word of God consisteth not in the reading, but in the vnderstāding (as S. Hierome testifieth:) that is, it doth not consist in the bare letter of it, but in the letter and true sence and meaning joined togither; the letter being as the body of Scripture, and the right vnderstanding of it, the soule, spirit, and life thereof: he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sence, but swarneth from the sincere inter­pretation of it, cannot be truly said to receiue the written word as a good Christian ought to doe. Seing then that the Protestants and al other sectaries, doe not receiue the holy Scriptures, according vnto the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition; they may most justly be denied, to receiue the sacred vvritten word of God at al, though they seeme neuer so much to approue al the Bookes, Verses, and Letters of it; vvhich is plainly proued by S. Hierome vpon the first Chapter to the Galathians.

Now to draw towardes the end of this clause, not only neuer a one of M. Abbots assertions (whereby he went about to proue them selues and their Church to be Catholike) is true, as hath beene shewed before, but ouer and besides, his very conclusion conuin­ceth himselfe (euen by the verdict of himselfe) to fal into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists. Our faith (saith he) because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing, is the Apostolike faith, and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine, is proue to be an Apostolical Church, &c. and is the only true Catholike Church, &c. see you not how he is come at length, to proue their Church to be Catholike,Page 16. Line 5. Ex perfectione doctrinae, By perfectnesse of their doctrine? vvhich was (as he himselfe in this very assertion noted) a plaine [Page 115] Donatistical tricke, reproued by S. Augustine, whom in that point he then approued. What doating folly is this, in the same short discourse so to forget himselfe, as to take that for a sound proofe, which he himselfe had before confuted as heretical? we like wel of Tertullians obseruation, That our faith ought to haue consanguinity, and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine; but that is not the question at this time: but vvhether our doctrine or the Protestant be truly called Catholike, that is, whether of them hath beene re­ceiued and beleeued in al nations ouer the world? that is to be pro­ued in this place. M. Abbot if he had meant to deale plainly and soundly, should not haue gone so about the bush, and haue fetched such vvide and vvilde windlesses from old father Abrahams daies, but should haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesia­stical Histories, or of ancient Fathers (vvho were in the pure times of the Church, the most Godly and approued Pastours thereof,) that the Protestāts religion had flourished since the Apostles daies, ouer al Europe, Afrike, and Asia; or at least, had beene visibly ex­tant in some one country or other, naming some certaine Churches in particular, which had held in al points their faith and religion: vvhich he seing impossible for any man to doe, fel into that extra­uagant and rouing discourse, which you haue heard; concluding without any premises (sauing his owne bare word) that in the writ­ten word, There is no mention made of the Pope, or his Supremacy, nor of his Pardons, &c. Belike there is no mention made of S. Peter, nor aught said of his singular prerogatiues. It hath not peraduenture, That whatsoeuer be should loose on earth, should be loosed in heauen. The other points were touched before, and shal be shortly againe. But I would in the meane season be glad to heare, where the writ­ten word teacheth vs, that Kinges and temporal Magistrates, are ordained by Christ, to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesia­stical affaires; because M. Abbot made choice of this head-article of theirs for an instance, that the written word was plaine on their [...]ide: he should therefore at least haue pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament, where it is registred, that Princes are supreme gouernours of the Church. Nay, are temporal Magistrates a­ny Ecclesiastical persons at al? or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiastical body, be head of al the rest of the Ecclesiastical members? or is the state Secular higher and more worthy then the [Page 116] Ecclesiastical, and therefore meete to rule ouer it, though they be not of it? to say so, is to preferre the body before the soule, nature before grace, earth before heauen: or is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy-member, should haue the supreme command o­uer the more honourable? vvhere the Christian vvorld is turned topsy-turuy, that may be thought meete and expedient, but in o­ther places, that wil not be admitted for currant, vvhich in it selfe is so disorderly and inconuenient; without it had better warrant in the word of God, then that new position of theirs hath.

ROBERT ABBOT.

NOw vvhereas he alleageth, that al his Majesties most roial Progenitours, haue liued and died in that vvhich he calleth the Catholike and Apostolike faith,Ambros. lib. 5. epist. he plaieth the part of Sym­machus the Pagan sophister, who by like argument, vvould haue perswaded Valentinian the Emperour, to restore their Heathenish Idolatry and abhominations: We are to follow our Fathers (saith he) who with happinesse and felicity followed their Fathers. Aug. psal. 54. Thus men haue hardned themselues in their heresies, saying: What my parents were before me, the same wil I be. But his Majesty wel knoweth, that in matter of religion, the example of parents is no band to the chil­dren,L. 2. epist. 3. but the trial thereof is to returne to the roote and original of the Lordes tradition (as Ciprian speaketh) not regarding what any before vs hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ hath done, who is before al. It is not vnknowne to his Majesty, that there should be a time, whenApocal. 17. vers. 13. the Kinges of the earth shal giue their power and king­dome to the beast, vntil the word of God be fulfilled, and with the whoore sitting vpon many waters,Vers. 14. should bende themselues to fight against the Lambe. Wherein if any of his Progenitours or Predecessours erred, he leaueth them to the counsaile of God, but by the vvord of God, learneth himselfe to be one of themVers. 16. that shal hate the whoore, and make her desolate, and shal eate her flesh, and burne her with fire: Albeit it is vtterly false vvhich he affirmeth, that al his Maje­sties Progenitours, Kinges of these Realmes of England and Scot­land, liued and died in the Romish faith, that now our Romish fa­ctours labour so much to set vp. Indeede, he and his fellowes are vvont to be very lauish in their speeches of this matter, as if from King Lucius of Britanny, and Donaldus of Scotland, the only religi­on that had beene professed, had beene that vvhich now is practi­sed [Page 117] by them: vvhere as it shal afterwardes plainly appeare, that at the comming in of Augustine the Italian Monke, 400. yeares after the receiuing of the faith in this Iland, the Bishops and Churches of Scotland, joined with the Britanes against those new obserua­tions, which the same Augustine brought from Rome, and vvould by no meanes admit thereof; & for the space of an hundred yeares at least, refused to communicate with the English that had receiued the same. Yea, in the time of King Henry the third, 1200.Math. Paris. in Hērico 111. Anno 1238. & 1239. yeares after the incarnation of Christ, when the Popes Legate vvould haue entred into Scotland, to visit the Churches there, the King of Scots Alexander the second, forbadde him so to doe, alleaging that none of his Predecessours had admitted any such, neither would he suffer it; and therefore willed him at his owne peril to forbeare: so long vvas it before the Popes authority could gaine acknow­ledgment in that Kingdome, which his agents would make vs be­leeue, hath beene in al ages vniuersally and vnquestionably recei­ued. But they care not indeede vvhat they say or write, so that it may carry a magnifical and braue shew, to dazel the eies of them, that are not wel acquainted with their leude and naughty dealing.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

PAGANS and Heretikes doe now and then, like Apes counter­fait true Christians: And no maruaile, for their great master Sathan2. Cor. 11. vers. 14. doth transfigure himselfe sometimes into an Angel of light, and did alwaies, and yet doth labour ¶Esai. 14. vers. 14. to be like vnto the Highest; but it is easie to espy their apish trickes, and to returne their fond subtleties vpon their owne heades. Simmachus plaied but the part of a foolish sophister, when he pleaded so with the Emperour Va­lentinian, we are to follow our Fathers: for the Emperours Father and neerest Predecessors were no Pagan Idolaters, but professed Chri­stians, as al men know vvho are conuersant in those ancient histo­ries. To the point of the proofe I answere in briefe, that it is a most sound inducement among vs Christians, and to be dearely re­garded of al, To follow the foot-steppes of our fore-fathers in beleeuing. if they before haue not degenerated from their Ancestors. The base and ground of it is this: As God is more ancient then the Deuil, and Christ IESVS then al Heretikes; so vvas the true seruice of God and the right faith of Christ planted, sowne, and tooke fast roote, before Heresie and Idolatry sprong vp: vvhich hath firme testi­mony [Page 118] from our Sauiour, who teacheth;Math. c. 13. vers. 24. That the good seede was first sowne by the Father of the houshold, and the cockle after, and ouer­sowne by the enemy. VVhence it followeth perspiculously, that they who doe hold the same doctrine inuiolably, vvhich was em­braced by them of that stock, who were first cōuerted to the Chri­stian faith, are true and sincere Christians. Those children then, vvho follow the holy steps of their Catholike Progenitors ascen­ding from Sonne to Father successiuely, til they ariue at the first Christians in that country, are true Christians: and they that doe not succeede their Predecessors in their faith and religion, but ei­ther are fallen themselues, or doe follow others vvho before fel from the faith of their fore-fathers, are vndoubtedly slipt into er­rour and infidelity. By vvhich discourse it is euident, that I ten­dered a most reasonable request vnto his Majesty, that he would imbrace and countenance that religion, which al his Progenitors euen to the first Christian among them, had liued and died in; be­cause they vvere al Catholike, and not one of them can be named, vvho changed the religion of his fore-fathers: yet this notwith­standing, Simmachus the Pagan vsing the like argument in shew, vvas not to be heard; the difference is, because his fore-fathers for vvhose Idolatry he pleaded, had before forsaken the true and sin­cere vvorship of the one liuing God, and therefore their children vvere not to continue in their Idolatry, but to returne vnto their former Ancestors true piety. So vvere the Donatists children (of whom S. Augustine cited by M. Abbot speaketh) not to follow their Fathers in that sect and heresie, but to leaue their late corrupted parents in their new doctrine, and to looke back vnto their grand­fathers ancient faith and religion, from vvhose integrity their Fa­thers were degenerated: Euen as now a-daies we exhort men that had or haue Parents turned Protestants, not to be led away vvith their erring Parents opinions, but happily to receiue their forefa­thers ancient faith, from vvhich their Fathers reuolted vnaduised­ly. And so shal they returne vnto the roote and original of our Lordes tradition, as S. Cyprian speaketh; because they shal returne to that faith vvhich was receiued from hand to hand, euen from the Apo­stles, our Lordes most trusty and sacred messengers: and cleauing fast to that, shal not neede to regard what any man hath thought fit to be dine or said against it

Now to that point vvhich followeth in M. Abbot: Apocal. 17. There shal be a time, when the Kinges of the earth shal giue their power to the beast, and bend themselues to fight against the Lambe, vvhich I doe willingly admit; but vvhen that time shal be, or vvhat Kinges, it is very vncertaine: for there shal be also a time,Esai. 60. Psalm. 70. When the Kinges of the earth shal be as nurses to the true Church, and shal most humbly both obey it, and also enrich and defend it to the vttermost of their power. Now, by the very insinuation of the Text, and the vniforme con­sent of ancient writers, the good Kinges shal cherish, exalt, and magnifie the Church, before those euil Kinges shal arise, who fal­ling away from their fathers faith and from the Catholike Church, vvil lend their aide to her professed enemies, to vvorke her ouer­throwe: vvhich is a shrewd presumption, that the Kinges of for­mer ages, stood farre better affected to the true Church of God, then some of later times: Wel, this I leaue to vnderstanding mens judgement. But I may not slippe M. Abbots exceeding grosse o­uer-sight, or rather hainous crime, in ranking his Majesty among those Kinges mentioned in the Apocalipse: for albeitCap. 17. they shal hate the whoore, and make her desolate and naked, and eate her flesh, &c. yet they shal be most vvicked and impious Kinges, and shal adore the monstruous beast there described, and fight against Christ IESVS. These be the very vvordes of the Text: And the tenne hornes, &c. be tenne Kinges, &c. these haue one Councel and force, and their power they shal deliuer to the beast; these shal fight with the Lambe, and the Lambe shal ouerthrow them, &c.Vers. 16. And the tenne bornes which thou sawest in the beast, these shal hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, &c. so that the very same tenne Kinges signified there by tenne hornes, that did giue al their power to the beast, did hate the harlot. But how can it be saith one, that they vvho hate the vvic­ked harlot, should joine with the beast who was as wicked as shee? Yes, that may wel be: for it is no newes that vvicked men fal out among themselues, so that one vngodly and wicked Prince, doth sometimes with al his might aide another more vvicked then him­selfe; and at the same instant perhaps, or shortly after fight against a third the most wicked of al: they doe fight against both good and euil, as their owne rage, passions, or occasions carry them. Which I say to stoppe a starting hole of the Protestants, who to auoide this inconuenience say: that first these ten Kings were bent to al mischief [...], [Page 120] and then helped the beast against the Lambe, but afterward repented them of their former iniquity then loe they hated the harlot, and persecuted her, which they would not haue done, if they had beene hadde Princes; this is a prety shift. Wel, say first that this sence could stand vvith the vvordes of the text, yet they cannot be applied to his Majesty, who was not in his former time any aider of our religion, and now is fallen off from that to the Protestants: wherefore this deuise (if it could stand with the text) wil not serue their turne. But the spi­rit of God hath preuented and wholy cut off this vaine imaginati­on; for it saith in the next verse, That the tenne Kinges who hated the harlot, euen then and after too, gaue their Kingdomes to the beast, til the word of God be consummate, that is, til the end of al. Wherefore most manifest it is, euen by the warrant of Gods sacred word, that those Kinges mentioned in the Apocalipse, were reprobates: such did they liue, and such shal they die. Let then his most excellent Majesty censure, what reward they are worthy off, who feare not to thrust his Highnesse into that list of condemned cast-a-waies; and that too, after they had such faire warning, as in my answere to M. Perkins I gaue them, to beware how they did his Majesty that shame and despite. If it please his Highnesse to take notice of it, I doubt not, but that he wil conne them little thanke, for this their commendation of him.

M. Abbot hauing acquited himselfe so Clarke-like in the prece­dent part of his answere; That we are not to imitate our fore-fathers, descendeth to the subsequent, to wit; That his Majesties Progeni­tours, Kinges of England and Scotland, were not of our Roman faith: which he wil proue hereafter at more leisure, that is to say neuer. For he doth not deny but that the religious and holy man Augustine, sent into our country by Gregory the great Bishop of Rome, to con­uert our Ancestours the Saxons and English to the Christian faith, did then teach the same Roman faith vvhich vve now professe: so that aboue this thousand yeares by his owne confession, his Maje­sties Progenitours haue beene of our Catholike Roman faith and religion, and very few Kings now liuing (I weene) can deriue their pedegree much further. Afterward he doth rake out of the cha­nels of Bale, Page 198. Iewel, Hollinshead, and such like late partial vvriters (which any man not past al care of his reputation, would be asha­med to cite for sufficient witnesses in matters of controuersy, where [Page 121] in they themselues were parties) that there was great disagreemēt betweene Augustine the Italian Monke, (as he speaketh) and the Churches of England and Scotland: vvhereas venerable Bede a most approued authour, and neare vnto those times, vvho did as most diligently trace out those matters, so record them most faith­fully; he I say (whose authority is sufficient to put downe an hun­dreth late writers interessed in the cause) affirmeth, that there vvas no variance betwixt them, in any one article of faith, but only in some few points of ceremony, namely in these two:Beda. lib. 2. histor. cap. 2. Vpon what day the feast of Easter was to be kept, and about the rites of Baptisme. For S. Augustine offered them to beare vvith al other their different rites, if they would yeeld vnto him in these two points: Vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis; That yee would keepe Easter-day at the due time appointed by the Councel of Nice, and minister the Sacrament of Baptisme after the manner of the Roman and Apostolike Church. And concerning these two points, vvho can thinke, but that the Sacrament of Ba­ptisme, vvas like to be administred in those daies, in the most re­nowmed citty of Rome, after a more decent and deuout manner,Euseb. in vita Const. l. 3. 17. Epiphan. l. 3. Haeres. 70. then among the Britans, that liued in a corner of the world? now for the other of keeping the feast of Easter, the 14. day of the first Moone with the Iewes, It was many yeares before condemned in the first most famous general Councel of Nice: and therefore it cannot be denied, but that those Britans vvere either very ignorant in the Canons of the Church, if they knew not so solemne a decree; or else too too contentious and vvilful in refusing to yeeld vnto it. A third clause was added by S. Augustine, that the Britans vvould joine with him and his fellowes, Beda ibidem. in preaching the word of God vnto the English nation; which also argueth yet more strongly, that they a­greed together in al articles of faith, or else they vvould not haue required their helpe, in instructing others in matters of faith. And this is not only registred by S. Bede, that holy Historiogra­pher; but also reported by their owne late vvriters Hollinshead, Volum. 1. page 103. andPage 6. M. Godwine in his Catologue of the Bishops of England. S. Bede also witnesseth further in the place aboue-said, that the same Britan Christians, euen then confessed, that they did perceiue that to be the true way of justice, which Augustine did preach. Furthermore, the principal Preachers and most Godly men, that liued not long be­fore S. Augustines arriual among the Britans, as namely S. Dulcitius [Page 122] and S. Dauid, vvere brought vp at Rome, and one of them the Popes Legate too,Iohn Baal in their liues. as the aduersaries themselues confesse. Where­vpon it followeth clearely, that not only for these later thousand yeares, but also in the former hundreths, al his Majesties Ancestors both English and Britans, embraced and maintained the same Ca­tholike Roman faith, which we now doe.

The same might as easily be proued of the Churches of Scot­land, vvho acknowledge Palladius and Patritius, for two of the chiefe founders of the Christian faith in that country; vvho both were brought vp at Rome, and sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome, to instruct the Scots in the doctrine of the church of Rome, euen as Augustine vvas from S. Gregory into England, From which the Scots Church neuer swarued, vntil of late yeares, Knoxe, Buchanan, and such like giddy-headed and fiery spirited fellowes, seduced them. And M. Abbot most ignorantly or impu­dently, affirmeth it to haue beene 1200 yeares after the incarnation of Christ, ere the Popes authority could get any acknowledgment there: for in the very same hundreth yeare by him named, they vvere so farre off from denying the Popes authority ouer them in causes Ecclesiastical, that they did acknowledge him to be also their Protectour in temporal affaires. For when King Edward the third, would haue giuen them Iohn Balial for their King, they an­swered him;Walsingham. in vita Edw. Anno 1292. That they would not accept of him for such, without the Popes consent who had their country in protection, as they then pleaded. And M. Abbots argument to the contrary, is most friuoulous: Alexander the King bade the Popes Legate to enter his country at his peril: ergo, he did not acknowledge the Popes authority. By the like ar­gument one might proue, that King Philippe and Queene Mary did not acknowledge the Popes authority; for they commanded a Legate of his, to stay at Calis, and to forbeare entrance into this Realme at his peril. The Popes Legates then, when they be sent about affaires that doe seeme to the Prince and his Councel, preju­ditious to the temporal state, may be refused, without disparage­ment to the Popes supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical. And the King of Scots had reason to refuse that Cardinal Legate, whose special arrand was, to collect mony to maintaine the warres of the holy Land, vvhich was not to be spared in his country. Besides, the very entertainement of such a great State so accompanied, was [Page 123] reputed as needlesse, so ouer costly for that poore country. If M. Abbot haue no better stuffe then this to vphold his badde cause, he that best knew his owne meaning and designement, hath to the life painted out himselfe, where he saith: They care not indeede what they say or write, so that it may carry a magnifical and braue shew, to da­zel the eies of them that are not wel acquainted with their lewde and naughty dealing.

ROBERT ABBOT.

BVT M. Bishop being out of doubt, that he should not preuaile in this first part of his sute, therefore addeth the second: Or if you cannot be wonne so soone to alter that religion, in which it hath beene your misfortune to haue beene bredde and brought vp, that then in the meane season, you wil not so heauily persecute the sincere professours of the other. Where you see the presumption of a base and beggerly vassal, (I forget here that he is a Doctor of diuinity, I consider him as a subject) thus to vpbraide his Prince vvith misfortune in his breeding and bringing vp: whereas his Majesties bringing vp, by the singular prouidence of almighty God, hath serued to make him high & admirable among other Princes; and he hath learned thereby to be indeede a King, by casting off the yoke of bondage, vvhereby sundry other Princes are enthralled to a beast. Yea, and by his bringing vp; is so wel able to defend the religion he profes­seth, that M. Bishop must stand before him like a dumbe Asse, able to say nothing, but only to repeate their old cuckowes song, The Church, the Church, The Fathers, the Fathers; albeit he can make nothing good, neither by Church nor Fathers. But his sute is, that his Majesty vvil leaue off so heauily to persecute them, com­plaining before he haue cause, and intreating his Majesty to leaue off before he hath begunne. And doth he like a dissembling hy­pocrite, talke of heauy persecution, only for an easie imprisonmēt and amersement of goodes, vvhen they in most barbarous and cruel sort, by infinite vexations and torments, by rackes and strap­padoes, by fire and sword, haue spilt and destroied the bloud and liues of so many thousandes of ours, only for the profession of the Gospel of Christ? but no otherwise doe they complaine of perse­cution, then did of old the Donatists, and runnegate Circumcel­lions. And vve say of them as S. Augustine did of the others: They suffer persecution, Sed pro fatuitate, pro vanitate, but it is for [Page 124] their foolery, Prouerb. 22. vers. 25. it is for vanity. Foolishnesse is bound in the hart of a child (saith Salomon) but the rodde of correction shal driue it away from him. Indeede they doe for the most part play the children; it is but their wil or rather vvilfulnesse, for which they suffer; they can giue no reason why they doe so, but what ignorance affordeth them. They must follow the Church, they wil doe as their fathers and fore-fa­thers haue done: it is fit that a childes stomacke be subdued vvith a rodde, and necessary that some course be taken, for the subduing and reforming of their wil.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT concludeth this his clowdy and vvindy Section, with a storme of railing; calling me in it dumbe Asse, dissem­bling Hipocrite, base and beggarly Vassal. This last name he giueth me, because I shewe my selfe sorry, for that it vvas his Majesties misfortune, to be bredde and brought vp in the Protestants religion: great cause you see vvas giuen him, to burst out into so rude and bitter wordes. But to qualify this clownish tricke, he addeth the excuse of a country Coridon, rather indeede accusing then excusing him­selfe: for why did he forget that I was a Doctor in diuinity? or how did he forget it, that euen then so wel remembred it? He would not (forsooth) respect it here, but by a metaphysical abstraction consi­der me only as a subject: wherein he discouereth a double folly; for first who seeth not, that any man of neuer so great vvorship or ho­nour, may in like sort be called a base vassal, if his dignity and de­gree be excepted? Might not M. Abbot himselfe (if one should forget his calling and learning) be stiled in like manner a base beg­garly vassal? vvherefore, this figure of his may rather be tearmed rustical then rethorical. And had he not also forgotten himselfe to be a Doctor in diuinity, yea a man of ordinary ciuility, he would not haue plaied the part of a furnish and foule-mouthed butter­wench, by falling into such rude tearmes of scurrillity.

His second ouer-sight is more queasie and dangerous; for if I be a base vassal in that I am a subject, then is my Soueraignes ho­nour called in question: for none be base in that they are subjects, vnlesse their Soueraignes be so meane and obscure, that their roial estate cannot giue lustre and dignity to those that serue and obey them; for Soueraigne and Subjects be correlatiues, and the splen­dour of the one doth dignifie and ennoble the other. And to de­rogate [Page 125] from the subject, in that he is a subject, is to disparage and to blemish greatly the Soueraignes Majesty. M. Abbot then shewed himselfe a jolly wise-man, and very acute, when he would remoue the cause of basenesse, from my degree, and cast it vpon the respect of my subjection, vvhich is common to me with al o­ther his Majesties subjects, euen of the highest dignity, and most honourable calling. I doe not here forget, that there is incompa­rable difference betweene one subject and another, both in degree and quality: yet am I bold to say, that he vvho debaseth any one subject considered as a subject, (as M. Abbot speaketh) doth joint­ly offer great wrong and disgrace, not only to al the rest of the sub­jects, but euen to the Soueraigne himselfe.

Here I hope, the courteous Reader vvil giue me leaue, to say some-thing of the birth and degree of some Roman Priests, being by M. Abbot so often vpbraided with beggarly basenesse: neither vvil I report aught else, then that vvhich by some honest men of great intelligence, is recorded for very true, to wit, that since these times of persecution, more Gentlemen borne haue beene made Roman Priests, then are to be found in al the English Ministery, though for euery one Priest there be more then an hundreth Mini­sters. And touching M. Abbot himselfe, I am credibly informed, that he is by birth but a meane Tanners Sonne of Gilford in Sur­rey, and was at his first comming to Oxford, but a poore Scholler, gladde to sweepe and dresse vp chambers, and to play the drudge for a slender pittance. Which I doe not vvrite as in contempt of such base beginnings, from vvhich many haue proued profound Clarkes, and growne to great promotion; but only to admonish M. Abbot, out of the remembrance of his owne condition, not to carry himselfe so contemptuously towardes others, vvho vvere borne his betters farre, and not brought vp so beggarly, but that they had as good maintainance in the Vniuersity, as those vvhose shoes he was gladde to wipe, and to sweepe their chambers: other wise that graue sentence of the wise Poët must needes be verified in him. Nil est asperius humili cum surgit in altum.

None carry themselues more rough currish and hawty,
Then these base companions once raised to dignity.

But setting aside both right of birth, and degree of study, the very sacred order of Priest-hood, (vnto which albeit most vnwor­thy, [Page 126] vve are by the meere goodnesse of God called,) doth by the stile of holy Canons, exempt vs from the vulgar sort, and by ver­tue of that sacred calling adorne and dignifie vs:Distinct. 5. Can. den [...] (que) Deniue Sacerdo­tes, &c. quos dignitas Ecclesiastici gradus exornat. Againe, the most ancient and reuerend Fathers, haue alwaies had the holy vocation of Priest-hood in so high and singular estimation, that they haue not feared to paraleel and compare it, vvith the greatest temporal Majesty on earth. The ground of their reason is this: Priests re­ceiue power from IESVS Christ, ouer the soules of men, and that in supernatural courses, tēding to the most high end of euerlasting blisse and glory; vvhereas the Princes of this world how puisant soeuer they be, haue dominion only ouer our goodes and bodies in ciuil causes, to the quiet & peacible gouernement of the affaires of this life. Priests then honoured vvith such high gifts, vvhich were neuer bestowed vpon Angels (to vse S. Chrysostomes wordes) that is: that hadLib. 3. de Sacerdot. f [...]om Christ authority and power to Ioh. 20. forgiue sinnes; to consecrate his blessed Math. 26. body; that are briefly1. Cor. 4. the dispensours of Gods holy word and Sacraments; Hebr. 5. ve [...]s. 1. &. 2. taken from among men, and appoin­ted for men in those thinges that appertaine vnto God, that they may offer gifts and sacrifices, as for their owne, so for the sinnes of the rest of Gods people (to vse the Apostles wordes) if these mens heauenly functi­on be base, beggarly, and contemptible, it is in the conceit only of blinded worldlings:1. Cor. 2. vers. 14. That perceiue not the thinges which are of the spirit of God, nor can judge of them, because they be spiritually to be exa­mined. And M. Abbot (the best floure of whose garland is his Ec­clesiastical calling) should haue left the vilifying of the order of Priest-hood, to some other of the laity: And so no doubt he would haue done; had he beene a true Clergy-man in deede, and not so called by meere vsurpation; for as you know, it is the part of an vncleane bird to defile her owne nest. But the wel-nurtured man, would perhaps out of his little good manners, haue made excepti­on of this also, as he did of my degree, if he had remembred it.

Now to that vvhich followeth, to shew that he had some cause to burst out into those bigge wordes, he saies: That I did vpbraide my Prince with misfortune in his bringing vp, which is false; for I men­tioned it with compassion (as King Priamus calamities are by many remembred vvith sorrow,) yet with great affection to his person. I did not write a sillable that sounded to his Majesties disgrace, but [Page 127] did rather excuse his failing in religion, laying the fault of it vpon them, who in his tender yeares (vvhen he was not able to judge) misinstructed him; signifying, that if it had beene his blessed hap, to haue escaped their seducing speeches, til he had come to riper age, he would rather haue controled and corrected them, then haue giuen eare to their errours and follies. I vvillingly acknow­ledge a most rare readinesse of wit in his Majesty, and firmenesse of memory both to attaine to high litterature, and to deliuer it most eloquently: so much the more sorry I am, that these goodly and faire gifts of nature, wanted such supernatural aides and ornamēts, as education in the Catholike Church, and among the best sort of Catholikes, might and would most willingly haue afforded him; for then no doubt he would haue farre out-gone himself in al good litterature, and proued most singular. Let the considerate reader (to judge the better of our spirits) compare my speeches to my So­ueraigne, vvith M. Abbots of the supreme Pastour of the Church as we beleeue, (vvhom the Protestants doe not denie to be one of the chiefest Patriarkes of the Christian world) I meane the Bishop of Rome; vvhom M. Abbot doth cōmonly raile vpon in most vile and reprochful tearmes, stiling him ordinarily nothing else, but The man of sinne and perdition, the whoore of Babilon, Antichrist himselfe, and such like: betweene whose supereminent dignity, and M. Ab­bots meane place, there is no lesse difference then betweene a tem­poral Prince, and his subject of any good sort. If I then be rightly censured a base and beggarly vassal, for shewing my selfe sorrow­ful for my Princes misfortune, what stile deserues he for such out­ragious reproches, bealched forth against the highest Bishop of Christes Church? Now whereas M. Abbot boldly auerreth, That thereby his Majesty hath learned to cast off the yoke of bondage, by which other Princes are enthralled to a beast, (sauing his reuerence:) I an­swere, that other Kinges nourished in countries accounted as ciuil (to say the least) as Scotland, vvil not change that their bondage, vvith his Majesties supposed liberty and freedome; because they hold it farre better to enjoy the direction and assistance of the Bi­shop of Rome, for the vniforme and peacible gouernement of their Clergy, according vnto the ancient Canons of the Church; then either to take it into their owne handes, or to cōmit it to the discre­tion of Consistory Ministers, or to any other sort of late deuised [Page 128] Ecclesiastical plat-formes. Godly, wise, and vnderstanding Kings vvil no doubt consider, that some who perswade them to cast off such yokes, are very false Parasites, no sound and true harted sub­jects; because it is said of Kinges out of il counsel in the second Psalme: Let vs breake their bandes, and let vs cast from vs their yoke; vvhereas contrariwise in the same place, the spirit of God speakes thus to Princes: Apprehendite disciplinam, Receiue discipline, that is, obserue al good orders and take correction, least that our Lord waxe angry with you, and then you perish from the right way. And if they themselues should so much forget their duty to God, and respect to his holy Church, as to seeke the vtter ruine and subuersion of it; yet very reason teacheth them, that it is farre more safe, orderly, and expedient, that there should be one only supreme Pastour, (assisted with the graue counsel of some of the wiser sort of euery Christian country, as the Popes holinesse is with the counsel of his most graue, wise, and learned Cardinals) to controule and correct them; then to be left to the mercy of the Ministers of euery coun­try, and to the tumultuous reformation of the rash and giddy mul­titude, who by the cōmon consent of the best learned Protestants, must take their Prince in hand and belabour him, if he goe about to oppresse the Gospel, as hath beene before proued.

To proceede, is it not a rare pranke of a parasite, to auouch that an ancient student in diuinity, must needes stand dumbe like an Asse before his Majesty, and not be able to answere him one word in his owne profession, but the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers? I vvish hartily, that his excellent Majesty would match me with no meaner a man then Doctor Abbot, (he that professeth himselfe a­ble to stoppe al mens mouthes) to alleage not only the Church, and the Fathers, but the Scripture, the Scripture; and by his Highnesse authentike judgement, approue him to haue the better cause, that can pertinently cite most plaine texts of Scripture for their religi­on: I make no doubt but the Protestant part (notwithstāding their common craking of the vvord of God) should goe to the ground. Marry, vvhen vve auouch holy Scripture for vs, in as expresse tearmes as can be deuised, they wil not yeeld, but deuise most ex­trauagant glosses, to fly from the euident testimony of Gods most holy word; whereupon we are compelled, to make recourse vnto the definition of the Church of God,Iob. 16. v. 13. Which is guided by the spi­rit [Page 129] of God vnto al truth, and vnto the learned commentaries of the most ancient, holy, and juditious Fathers vvho vvere for their times, appointed by the holy Ghost to rule and instruct the same his Church: that seing how they vnderstood the holy Scriptures, vve may by their euen and vnpartial line and square, direct our judgement in the true sence of holy Scripture; vvhich is the prin­cipal cause why we rely so much vpon the Church and Fathers, and for vvhich he so scornefully vpbraideth vs vvith the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers. And here to returne one of M. Abbots sharpe wordes vpon himselfe; vvhat a dissembling hipo­crite was he to say, that when al was done, we could not make any thing good by either Church or Fathers?Sect. 9. & 10. when as he himself doth plainly confesse, that S. Augustine, S. Hierome, Epiphanius, and diuers other Fathers, be flat for vs; and is driuen roundly to deny their authority, and to preferre the opinions of condemned Here­tikes, Iouinian, Vigilantius, and Aërius, before these most renow­med Doctors and Pastors.

As grosse and palpable an vntruth is that vvhich followeth; That the Catholikes be not heauily persecuted by the state: whereas al their goodes and chattels be vvholy confiscate, and two partes of their landes; their bodies at pleasure subject to prison, there to lie without baile or mainprise; their persons daily in danger of death for receiuing or any vvay maintaining their Pastours; to omit al other their oppressions which be almost innumerable: but belike, because al Catholikes be not by most cruel death suddainly made away, this Minister of bloud, accounteth their persecution light and easie. And vvhereas he so enlargeth the short and smal perse­cution of their bretheren, I doe offer to joine with him in this issue: that more Catholike Priests, Religious men and others, haue beene tormented, murthered, and most despitefully slaine by men of their religion, within the compasse of two Realmes, France, and England, during the only time of Queene Elizabeth her raigne, then were of Protestants and men of al other Sects, for a thousand yeares before in those countries, yea & take to them also al Spaine and Italy. The Donatists and al other sectaries, doe suffer perse­cution (as S. Augustine truly saith) for their obstinate folly, vvhat of that? ergo, whosoeuer suffereth persecution for his religion is a foole? what a foolish reason in this? then were the Apostles and al [Page 130] the best Christians fooles?

But M. Abbot saith, We be children and can yeeld no reason for that we suffer, but what ignorance affordeth vs, to wit: we must cleaue to the Church, and follow our fore-fathers: Surely that were a foule fault, that we as children should obey our Mother the holy Church, and follow the faith and religion of our fore-fathers. But first it is most palpably false, that we can yeeld no other reason for our religion, as our bookes euidently doe conuince. Then, if we had no other reason but that one, it alone were sufficient: for it is an article of our Creede, to beleeue the Church; and S. Paul assureth vs,1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. That the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: vvhereupon this is receiued as a principle of faith among the ancient Fathers, allowed euen by Protestants themselues; That he that hath not the Church to his Mo­ther, shal neuer haue God to his Father: he therefore that cleaueth fast vnto the firme pillar of the Church, and followeth her precepts as of a most faithful Mother, can neuer goe astray. Finally, he doth absurdly apply S. Augustines wordes spoken against the Donatists, to vs; they vvil much better fit the Protestants, vvho imitate their errours in most points, as I haue proued already: who also may be more aptly resembled to children, that stand in neede of a rodde, because their religion is euery vvay childish; as being young and of late borne, phantastical, and without any sound ground of ma­ture judgement, as changeable also as children, according to the diuers humour of the state and time.

SECT. 4. W. BISHOP.

VERY many vrgent and forcible reasons, might be produced in fauour and defence of the Catholike Roman religion, whereof diuers haue beene already in most learned Treatises tendered to your Majesty: where­fore I wil only touch three, two chosen out of the subject of this booke, the third selected from a sentence of your Majesty, recorded in the aforesaid conference. And because that argument is as most sensible, so best assu­red, which proceedeth from a principle either euident in it selfe, or else granted and confessed to be true; my first proofe shal be grounded vpon that your Highnesse resolute and constant opinion, recorded in the said confe­rence,Page 75. to wit: That no Church ought to separate it selfe further from the Church of Rome, either in doctrine or ceremony, then shee hath departed from her selfe, when shee was in her most flou­rishing and best estate: from whence I deduce this reason. The princi­pal [Page 131] pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate, taught in al points of religion, the same doctrine that shee n [...]w holdeth and teacheth; and in expresse tearmes condemneth for errour and heresie, most of the ar­ticles, which the Protestants esteeme as chiefe partes of their reformed Go­spel: therefore if your Majesty wil 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 Catholike into your Princely and Roial protection.

ROBERT ABBOT.

YOV talke (M. Bishop) of many vrgent and forcible reasons, but you talke as your fellowes doe, like mount-bankes and ju­glers: You haue much prating and many wordes, but your reasons vvhen they are duly examined, are as light as feathers before the vvinde; neither vvould they seeme other to your owne followers, but that you bewitch them with this principle, that they must read nothing written on our part for answere to them: we see your vr­gent and forcible reasons in this booke, vvhich you tel vs is the marrow and pith of many volumes. I doubt not but by that time I haue examined the same, your owne pupils and schollers (if they reade the answere) wil account you a meere seducer, a cosener and abu­ser of them, and wil detest you accordingly. But to beginne withal, you offer three reasons to his Majesty in this your Epistle, for the justifying of your Romish religion, & for the impeaching of ours: Two chosen out of the subject of this booke; the third selected from a sentence of his Majesty. Now if these reasons proue rea­sonlesse, then your reason (M. Bishop) should haue taught you more manners and duty, then thus to trouble his Majesty vvith your reasonlesse reasons. To examine them in order, the first reason is grounded vpon a principle, most judiciously & soundly affirmed by his Majesty: That no Church ought further to seperate it selfe from the Church of Rome, in doctrine or ceremony; then shee hath departed from her selfe, when shee was in her flourishing & best estate, and (which is subtilly left out by M. Bishop) from Christ her Lord and head. For seeing it cannot be denied, that the Church of Rome vvas once sound and vpright in faith, the Apostle bearing witnesse,Rom. 1. That their faith was published throughout the world; it must needes follow, that vvhat shee hath not since that time altered, is stil vpright and sound, and therefore to be embraced. Now, from thence M. Bishop [Page 130] [...] [Page 131] [...] [Page 132] argueth thus: The principal pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate, taught in al points the same doctrine, that shee now teacheth, and in expresse tearmes did condemne of heresie, most of the articles of our religion, ergo, &c. but soft and faire M. Bishop, there is no hast, &c.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

TRVE, there is no hast indeede, for M. Abbot comes faire and soft to the matter. What a number of idle vaunting wordes and vaine repetitions be here? as though any juditious man vvere to be perswaded by bare wordes and voluntary supposals, before he see any proofe. Sir I doubt not, but the indifferent reader vvil suspend his judgement, and deeme nere the worse of my vvriting, for your empty censure, til he see good reason to the contrary. Sure I am, that some Catholikes hauing read your booke, doe like much the better of mine, and esteeme yours a very fond peece of worke, ful of babble, lies, and foule wordes, void of found proofes, and farre from common ciuility. Who are more circumspect then you your selues, to keepe your followers from reading our bookes? vvho first imprison any that wil helpe to print them, then set fines on al their heades that shal keepe them, and make very diligent search after them? so that al these common wordes, may most truly be returned vpon your selfe: Mutato nomine, de te narratur fabula. You note that I subtilly left out of his Majesties speech from Christ her Lord and head, but shew no cause why; and no maruaile, for none indeede can be shewed: they are needlesse wordes, as being com­prehended in the former. For if the Church of Rome departed not from her selfe, vvhen shee was in her most flourishing and best e­state, shee cannot depart from Christ her Lord and head: vvhere­fore to note this for a subtle tricke, giueth the reader cause to note you for a wrangler, and one that is very captious where no cause is offered. M. Abbot comes at length to my first reason, and goeth about to disproue it thus.

ROBERT ABBOT.

WE hope you wil not deny, but the Apostle S. Paul was one principal pillar of the Church of Rome, vvho there shed his bloud. He vvrote an Epistle to that Church, vvhen the faith thereof was most renowmed throughout the world. He vvrote at large, comprehending therein (asTheodor. in praefat. epist. Pat. li. Theodoret saith) doctrine of al [Page 133] sortes, or al kinde of doctrine: Et accuratam, copiosamue dogmatum pertractationem; An exact and plentiful handling of al points thereof. Now in al that Epistle, what doth he say either for you, or against vs? nay, what doth he not say for vs against you? he condemneth theRom. 1. v. 23. changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and worshipping the creature in steede of the creatour. It is for vs against you: for you by your schoole-trickes, doubt not to teach men, by the Image of a man to worship God; and by religious deuotion of praiers and offerings, to wor­ship Saints, and Saints Images in steede of God.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

WHAT a worthy graue Preface he vseth, to assure men that vve wil not deny S. Paul, nor his Epistle to the Romans, vvhich neuer were called in doubt by any man. But good Sir, vvhiles you muse and busie your head so much vpon bables, you forget or wilfully mistake the very point of the question. Was the Church of Rome at her most flourishing estate, when S. Paul wrote that Epistle to the Romans? was her faith then most renowmed ouer al the world, as you write? nothing lesse: for not the tenne thousand part of that most populous Citty, was then conuerted to the faith; and they that had receiued the Christian faith, were very nouices in it, and stoode in great neede of the Apostles diuine instructions. Any reasonable man would rather judge, that the Church of Rome then came first to her most flourishing estate, when Idolatry and al kind of superstition was put to silence, and banished out of her; vvhen the Christian religion was publikly preached & countenanced by the Emperours authority, which was not before the raigne of Con­stantine the great, our most glorious country-man: vvherefore M. Abbots first fault is, that he shooteth farre vvide from the marke vvhich he should haue aimed at principally. The second is more nice, yet in one that would seeme so acute, not to be excused: It is, that he taketh an Epistle written to the Romans for their instructi­on and correction, as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith; vvhen as al men know, such a letter might containe many thinges vvhich they had not heard off before. Further yet, that you may see how nothing can passe his fingers vvithout some le­gerdemaine, marke how he englisheth Theodorets wordes: Dogma­tum pertractationem. The handling of opinions, is by him translated, [Page 134] al points of doctrine; vvhereas it rather signifieth some, then al opi­nions or lessons. But I wil let these ouer-sights passe as flea-bitings, and follow him whither he pleaseth to wāder, that euery man may see, when he is permitted to say what he liketh best, that in truth he can alleage out of S. Paul, nothing of moment against the Catho­like faith.

S. Paul (saith he) is wholy against you, and for vs. Quickly said, but wil not be so soone proued. First he condemneth the worshipping of Saints, and Saints Images, in that he reproueth the Heathens, for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man. O noble disputer, and wel worthy the whippe! because we may not make false Gods, or giue the glory of God vnto Idols, may vve not therefore yeeld vnto Saints their due vvorship? might not S. Paul whiles he liued, as al other most Godly men, be reuerenced and vvorshipped for their most excel­lent, spiritual, and religions vertues, with a kinde of holy and reli­gious respect; euen as Knights and Lordes and other worldly men, are vvorshipped and honoured for their temporal callings and en­dowments with temporal worship, vvithout robbing God of his honour? Is the Lord or Master dishonoured and spoiled of his due reuerence and respect, if his seruants for his sake be much made off and respected; yet with such due regard only, as is meete for their degree? This is so childish and palpable, that if the Protestants were not resolued to sticke obstinately to their errours, how grosse soeuer they be, they vvould for very shame not once more name it. To the next.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PAVL saith and we say the same, thatIbid. vers. 17. the righteousnesse of God is from faith to faith: you say otherwise, that it is from faith to workes, that faith is but the entrance to workes, and that in workes the righteousnesse of God doth properly consist.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THE sentence of S. Paul is mangled, his wordes are: for the justice or righteousnesse of God is reuealed therein, (in the Gospel) by faith into faith; which are obscure and subject to diuers exposi­tions. The most common is, that Christ (the justice of God) is re­uealed in the Gospel, by conferring the faith of them that liued be­fore the Gospel, vvith their faith that liued vnder it,; the faith of [Page 135] them who liue in the Gospel, giuing great light for the cleerer vn­derstanding of such thinges, as were taught of Christmore darkely in the law and Prophets. This being the literal sence of this place, what is here for mans justification by only faith? where only men­tion is made of Gods justice, and not one vvord of the imputation of it to man, but of the reuelation of it in the Gospel. What a foule mistaking is this? alas, his pouerty of spirit, and want of good ar­mour, compelleth him to lay hand on any vveapons, how simple and weake soeuer. In the next verse, it is plainly shewed, that God did grieuously punish al them vvho liued wickedly, notwithstan­ding they held the right faith, for (saith S. Paul)Rom. 1. v. 18.the wrath of God from heauen is reuealed vpon al impiety and vnrighteousnesse, of those men that retaine or hold the truth of God in injustice. Whence it followeth first, that men may haue a true faith without good workes, for they held the truth of God being themselues wicked. Secondly, that the same faith would not auaile them aught, nor saue them from the just wrath of God, if it were not quickned by good workes.

ROBERT ABBOT.

THE Apostle in expresse termes, affirmethRom. 4. v. 6. imputation of righ­teousnesse vvithout vvorkes: We doe the same, but you pro­fessedly dispute against it.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

WE hold with the Apostle, that vvorkes be not the cause of the first justification, whereof he there treateth, nor to de­serue it; though inspired with Gods grace, they doe prepare vs and make vs fit to receiue the gift of justification: neither doe the Protestants wholy exclude workes from this justification, vvhen they doe require true repentance which consisteth of many good workes, as necessary thereto. We hold that justice is increased by good workes, which we cal the second justification; against which the Apostle speaketh not a vvord, but doth confirme it vvhen he saith in the same Epistle:Rom. 2. v. 13. Not the hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shal be justified. Marke how by doing of the law (which is by doing good workes) men are justified with God, and not only declared just before men, as the Protestants glose the matter. Now, touchingSee the place. Rom. 4. v. 6. imputation of righteousnesse, the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant, of the outward imputa­tion of Christs justice to vs, but of inherent justice, to wit; of faith [Page 136] vvhich worketh by charity, which are qualitiesRom. 6. powred into our harts by the holy Ghost▪ so that there is only a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants, the true substance of the Text making wholy for the Catholikes.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PAVL teacheth, that Rom. 6. v. 23. Page 98. eternal life is the gift of God through IESVS Christ our Lord: but you M. Bishop tel vs, That al who are of yeares, must either by their good carriage deserue eternal life; or else for their badde behauiour, be disinherited.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

IN the same place you had a large solution of this objection; but he that hath made a couenant with hel, vvil not looke vpon that vvhich might helpe him to heauen. We teach vvith the Apostle, and vvith his faithful interpreter S. Augustine, That eternal life is the gift of God: both originally, because we must receiue grace by the free gift of God, before we can doe any thing that doth de­serue the joies of heauen; and also principally, the vvhole vertue and value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace in vs, which doth eleuate and giue such worth to our workes, that they thereby deserue life euerlasting. Notwithstanding, if we take not hold on Gods grace, vvhen it is freely offered vs, and doe not concurre with it to the effecting of good workes, we shal neuer be saued; and this our working with the grace of God deserues hea­uen: both which are proued by this sentence of the same Apostle.Rom. 2. vers. 6.7. & 8. God wil render to euery man according to his workes, to them truly, that according to patience in good workes, seeke glory, and honour, and incorruption, life eternal; to them that are of contention, and that obey not the truth, but giue credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation: where you may see in expresse tearmes, eternal life to be rendered and re­paid for good workes, to such men as diligently seeke to doe them; and to others vvho refuse to obey the truth, and rather choose to beleeue lies and to liue wickedly, eternal death and damnation.

ROBERT ABBOT.

HE telleth vs againe and againe, thatRom. 7. vers. 7. & 8. concupiscence is sinne; to lust is to sinne, and that by the law it is knowne so to be: vve say the same, and you goe about to make vs beleeue that it is no sinne.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THE Apostle telleth vs againe and againe, that our Sauiour Christ IESVS, was made2. Cor. 5, 21. sinne; and yet no Christian is so simple, as to take him to be properly sinne, but theRom. 8. v. 3. bost or satis­faction for sinne: so vvhen the Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne, we vnderstand him with S. Augustine, that it is not sinne properly; yet so called not vnaptly: both bec [...]use it is the effect and remnant of original sinne, and doth also pricke vs forward to actual sinne; but if by helpe of the grace of God we represse it, we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it. Which S. Paul in the very same chapter declareth; when he demandeth:Lib. 1. cont. duas Epistol. Pelag c. 10. & Lib. 1. de Nupt. & Cō ­cupis. cap. 23. Ibid. v. 25. Who shal deliuer me from this body of death? he answereth presently, the grace of God by IESVS Christ our Lord. And againe, that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very soundly out of the same sentence, vvhere concupi­scence is called sinne: (but now not I worke it any more, but the sinne that is in me;) that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly, which cannot (saith he) be committed without the consent of our minde: Lib. 6. cont. Iulian. c. 23. but that had no consent of the minde to it, because it vvas not the Apostle that did worke it. Now how can that be the euil worke of a man, if the man himselfe doe not vvorke it? as the Apostle saith expressely, not I doe worke it. Lastly, the same Apostle teacheth, that sinne hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace; which were false, if concupiscence were properly sinne: for that hath such do­minion ouer euery good body, that they cannot auoide the motion and sting of it. No not S. Paul could be2. Cor. 12. vers. 8. cleerely deliuered from that pricke of th [...] flesh, though he praied most earnestly for it: vvherefore by the testimony of S. Paul himselfe, concupiscence is not proper­ly sinne: no more is it to lust, if lust be taken for the first motions of concupiscence. ButIacob. 1. vers. 15. concupiscence when it hath conceiued (as S. Iames speaketh) that is, by our liking beginneth to take hold on vs, bringeth forth sinne, yet but venial; marry, when it is consummate by our consent or long lingring in it, then it engendreth death, that is, mortal sinne.

ROBERT ABBOT.

S. PAVL saith of the spirit of adoption, the same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the Sonnes of God: but you say we haue no such witnesse, whereby we should beleeue that we are the Sonnes of God.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

AND that vve say vpon good consideration: for we must not beleeue with the Christian faith (which is free from al feare) any thing that is not assured and most certaine. Now the spirit of God doth not beare vs vvitnesse so absolutely and assuredly, that we are the sonnes of God, but vnder a condition, which is not cer­taine, to vvit, that we be the sonnes and heires of God;Rom. 8. v. 17. Si tamen compatimur, yet if we suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him: but whether we shal suffer with him and constantly to the end beare out al persecutions, we know not so assuredly, because as our Sauiour fore-telleth;Luc. 8. v. 13. There be some that for a time beleeue, and in time of temptation doe reuolt. Was it not then a tricke of a false mar­chant, to strike off the one halfe of the Apostles sentence, that the other might seeme currant for him? now no man doth more plain­ly or roundly beate downe their presumption, vvho assure them­selues of saluation, then S. Paul, as in many other places, so in this very Epistle to the Romans, in these wordes.Cap. 11. v. 20. Wel because of their incredulity they (the Iewes) were broken off: but thou (Gentil) by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, but feare. For if God hath not spared the natural boughes, least perhaps be wil not spare thee neither; see then the goodnesse and seuerity of God: vpon them surely that are fallen, the seue­rity; but vpon thee the goodnesse of God, if thou abide in his goodnesse, otherwise thou shalt also be cut off. &c. Can any thing be more per­spicuously declared, then that some such who were in grace once, afterwardes fel and were cut off for euer? and that some others stand in grace, who if they looke not wel to their footing, may also fal and become reprobate? the Apostle directly forewarning those men, vvho make themselues so sure of their saluation, not to be so highly wise, but to feare their owne frailty and weakenesse, least o­therwise they fal, as many had done before them. If this plaine discourse, and those formal speeches, vttered by the holy Ghost, wil not serue to shake men out of their security of saluation, I can­not see what may possibly doe it.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PAVL saith: theRom. 8 v. 18. sufferinges of this time, are not worthy of the glory that shal be reuealed vnto vs; but you say they are vvorthy.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Say that M. Abbot hath gotten such a custome of abusing Gods word, that he scarce alleageth one sentence of it, vvithout one paltry shift or other. The wordes of S. Paul truly translated, are: Our sufferinges are not worthy to the glory (or as our English phrase is) are not to be compared to the glory of, &c. that is, our labours or paines are not either so great and waighty, or of so long endurance, as be the joies of heauen: yet through the dignity which we receiue by being made members of Christ, and by the vertue of Gods grace, wherewith those workes be wrought, and by the promise of God, both we are accounted vvorthy of heauen, according to S. Pauls owne phrase;2. Thessal. 1. vers. 5. Which (persecutions) you sustaine, that you may be counted worthy the Kingdome of God: and our sufferinges meritori­ous of life euerlasting, vvhich S. Paul doth very precisely teach, vvhere he saith; that2. Cor. 4. vers. 17. our tribulation, which for the present is mo­mentary and light, yet worketh aboue measure exceedinglie an eternal waight of glory in vs, we not considering the thinges that are seene, but that are not seene: and else vvhere is bold to say,2. Tim. 4. vers. 8. That God had laid vp for him a crowne of justice, which our Lord wil render to me in that day, a just Iudge; and not only to me but to them also that loue his comming. If God as a just Iudge, render the joies of heauen as a crowne of justice, then were they before justly deserued, and the sufferinges of them that deserued them, vvere in just proportion worthy of them. Thus briefly any indifferēt reader may perceiue, how farre S. Paul being rightly taken, is from affording any reliefe vnto the Protestant cause. They doe now, as many vnlearned and vnstable men did, euen in his owne time, (witnesse S. Peter)2. Pet. 3. vers. 16. de­praue and misvse certaine sentences of his, hard to be vnderstood, to their owne perdition, and to the deceiuing and vndoing of their followers: for in al his Epistles (being vnderstood as he meant them) there is not one word or sillable, that maketh for the Protestants or any o­ther sectaries; and plenty there are of plaine texts for the most points of the Catholike faith. A tast vvhereof I wil giue you, as soone as I shal haue made an end of answering vnto this his idle discourse.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PAVL saith nothing for those points, for the denial vvhereof M. Bishop condemneth vs. Nothing for the justification be­fore [Page 140] God by vvorkes, nothing for free-wil, nothing for Relikes, nothing for the merit of single life, nothing for praier for the dead, nothing for traditions, nothing for any of the rest. Now in this case M. Bishop, it had beene fit, that you should by very good rea­son haue satisfied his Majesty, how it should be probable or possi­ble, that the Apostle writing at large to the church of Rome, should not once mention any of those maine points, wherein the religion of the Church of Rome now vvholy consisteth; if the Church of Rome vvere then the same that now it is. That he should say no­thing of the prerogatiue of that Church, nothing of the Pope, of his pardons, of the Masse, of transubstantiation, of Monkish vowes, of Images, of pilgrimages, of praier to Saints, of al the rest of your baggage stuffe; in a word, that he should be a Papist, & yet should write nothing,Rhem. Test. argum. of the Epist. in ge­neral. but that in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne: only we must be perswaded forsooth, that where anything soundeth contrary to the R [...]mish faith, we faile of the right sence. But vndoubted­ly M. Bishop, either S. Paul vvas a Protestant, or else he dealt very negligently in your behalfe. S. Peter was another principal pillar of that Church, the founder and head thereof as you perswade vs: vvhat would he also forget his triple crowne? vvould he say no­thing for al these thinges? not a word: there is nothing hindreth in either of his Epistles, but that he also must be taken for a Protestāt. Me thinkes here you should fare,Erasmus de ratione. as in another case Robertu [...] Liciensis did before the Pope, you should spit and cry out, fie vpon Peter, fie vpon Paul, would they not thinke these trash and trinkets of ours so much worth, as to speake of them: Ah these Protestants, these He­retikes, they say al for them, and nothing at al for vs. But alas, Peter and Paul had not heard any of these thinges, and therefore no maruaile that they wrote nothing of them. They reade Moyses and the Prophets, they preached as Christ did according to the Scri­ptures; the Catholike religion that had beene from the beginning of the world, they continued: betwixt the old and the new Testa­ment vve see a vvonderful agreement, but concerning Popery we see nothing.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

WE haue here a dainty dish of M. Abbots cookery, a large rhetorical conclusion, deducted out of leane, thinne, and weake premises. He assaied to make a shew out of the Apostle, that [Page 141] there was not a little which would serue the Protestants turne, and cited to that purpose certaine sentences out of him: but so proper­ly, that some of them indeed seemed to sound for him, though they had in truth a farre different sence; others had neither sence, nor sound, nor sillable for him. Neuerthelesse as though he had gotten a great conquest, he singeth a triumph, and striketh vp a braue vi­ctory, that al in Peter and Paul is for the Protestant, nothing for the Papist. Afterward as it were correcting himselfe, he addes nothing, but in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne: vvhich is one of the truest wordes he there deliuereth. The Protestants indeed be jolly nimble witted fellowes, that can make any thing serue at least for a shew of their cause, and when al other thinges faile th [...]m,2. Tim. 4. vers. 4. A [...] fa­bulas conuertuntur; they turne their eares away from truth (as the Apostle speaketh) and fal to fables; and one Robin good-fellow (I vveene) for lacke of a better, is brought vpon the stage, to spit and cry out: Fie vpon Peter, fie vpon Paul, that had not remembred to say one word for Popery, but al for the Protestant. Fie (I say) vpon such a cause, that must be vnder-propt vvith such rotten baggage stuffe. What shadow of likely-hood is there, that one should tel the Pope such a tale to his face, or that Erasmus (vvho vvas in most points a Catholike) should report it? or could there be any poore Robin (excepting M. Abbots himselfe) so simple and poore-blinde, that in al the writings of those blessed Apostles, he could not finde one vvord, that gaue any sound or shew for the Catholike cause? you haue heard already, that I haue to euery place picked by M. Abbot out of S. Paul in fauour of their religion, opposed another out of the same Epistle, that speaketh more plainly against them for vs: I vvil here out of the aboundance of testimonies vvhich the same S. Paul (vvhom the simple Protestants take to be wholy for them) beareth to our doctrine, set downe some store euen in defence of those very points, vvhich M. Abbot hath made special choise off to object against vs.

To beginne with the first, there is plaine testimony, that we are justified before God by vvorkes, vvhich I cited before:Rom. 2. v 13. With God the doers of the law shalbe justified. There is much for freewil, witnesse this:Ibid 6. vers. 12. & 13. Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortal body, that you obey the concupiscence thereof, but neither doe you exhibite your mem­bers instruments of iniquitty vnto sinne; but exhibite your selues to God, [Page 142] of dead men aliue, and your members instruments of justice to God: for sinne shal not haue dominion ouer you, for you are not vnder the law but vnder grace. See how the Apostle maketh it in the power and vvil of euery man indued with Gods grace, either to doe wel, or to doe euil: and that sinne hath no such dominion ouer them, but that they may doe wel, if they wil concurre with Gods grace. Item, that it is not grace which doth al, but a man must worke with grace, and exhibite the powers of his soule as instruments towardes the pro­ducing of good workes; vvhich is flatly our doctrine of freewil.

And before we depart from this matter of justification, as M. Abbot doth very quickly, you shal heare more of it out of the same Apostle: he teacheth expresly, that a man in the state of grace may fulfil the law, in these wordes.Ibid. cap. 8. vers. 3. For that which was impossi­ble to the law, in that it was weakned by flesh, God sending his Sonne, in the similitude of the flesh of sinne, euen of sinne, damned sinne in the flesh, that the justfication of the law might be fulfilled in vs, who walke not ac­cording to the flesh, but according to the spirit. Which is seconded in the thirtenth chapter, where he concludethIbid. vers. 9. & 10. loue to be the fulnesse of the law, hauing before said, that he who loueth his neighbour ful­filleth the law. And as for that certainty of saluation, vvhich many Protestants bragge off, the Apostle doth vvholy dispossesse them of it: first in the place before cited, vvhere he willethRom. 11. vers. 20. them that stand right in the true faith, to beware that they fal not; and assureth them that they shal fal as others had done before them, if they did not di­ligently looke vnto it. Else vvhere he aduiseth vsPhilip. 2. vers. 12. with feare and trembling to worke our saluation. Marke how two points of the Pro­testant doctrine be wounded in one sentence, and two of ours con­firmed: both that vve must worke our saluation, (it comes not then by only faith) and that with feare and trembling; we are not then as­sured of it before hand by the certainty of faith, which excludeth al feare and doubt of it. Now that we ought to haue a firme hope of saluation, S. Paul teacheth vs:Rom. 5. v. 2. We haue accesse through faith in to this his grace, wherein we stand and glory in the hope of the Sonnes of God. Also,Ibid. 8. v. 24. For by hope we are saued. Item, vve giue thankes to God, &c.Colloss. 1. v. 5. for the hope that is laid vp for you in heauen. With whom S. Peter consorteth:1. Pet. 1. vers. 3. Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord IESVS Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated you into a liue­ly hope, vnto an incorruptible crowne, &c. laid vp in heauen. Not to [Page 143] prosecute al the particular points of justification, which haue eue­ry one good ground in the Apostle S. Paul, as in that question may be seene; the very faith, whereby Abraham was and we are justified, is no such kind of faith, as the Protestants claime to be justified by, that is, by an apprehension and drawing of Christs righteousnesse to themselues: but that faith vvhereby we beleeue al thinges to be true which God hath reuealed, as S. Paul declareth in the fourth to the Romans, where he reporteth;Rom. 4. v. 19. Abraham to haue beene justified, by beleeuing that God according to his promise would giue him a Sonne, and make him the Father of many nations: so that finally there is not a word in S. Paul, vvhich in his owne meaning maketh for any one peece of the Protestants justification; but heapes of testimonies for euery branch of justification as we beleeue it.

Now I come to the other points named by M. Abbot. There is nothing (saith he) in S. Paul for the merit of single life. But he is great­ly mistaken; for the Apostle saith:1. Cor. 7. vers. 32.33. & 34. That the care of the single and vnmarried is to please God, and their study to thinke vpon those thinges that appertaine vnto God, and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit; vvhich must needes be more acceptable in Gods sight, then to be carping for this world, and caring how to please their yoke­mate. To this we adde Monkish vowes (of which if he were wor­thy to be a good Abbot, he vvould speake more respectiuely:) somwhat S. Paul hath of the vow of chastity, which is one of their principal vowes, for he auoucheth1. Tim. 5. vers. 12. certaine widowes worthy of dam­nation, because they broke the same former vow of chastity. And S. Paul himselfeAct. 18. vers. 18. shoare his head in Cenchris because he had a vow; vvhich was the vow of a Nazarite, not much vnlike for the time, though much inferiour vnto the vow of religious persons: see of that vow the sixt Chapter of the booke of Numbers. There is nothing (saith M. Abbot) in S. Paul of praier for the dead, vvhich is not true: for he teacheth, that some of the faithful, who haue1. Cor. 3. v. 13 built vpon the right foundation, hay, stubble, and such like trash, shal notwithstanding at the day of our Lord be saued; yet so as through fire. Which the ancientSS. Aug. in ps. 37. Hier. l. 2. cōt. Iouin. 13. Ambros. in hūc locū Gre­gor. in psal. 3. poenit entialē. Doctors doe take to be the fire of Purgatory. Now if many, vvhiles the drosse of their vvorkes be purged, doe lie in fire, it wil easily follow thereof, that euery good soule who hath any Christi­an compassion in him, vvil pray for the release of their Christian brother out of those torments.

I come now to Images and Relikes, of vvhich he affirmeth that S Paul saith nothing: vvhere was the good-mans memory vvhen he wrote this? or remembring the matter vvel enough, was he so fiercely bent to deceiue others, that he cared not vvhat vntruth he vttered? The Apostle maketh honourable mention ofHebr. 9. vers. 4. & 5. the Images of the Cherubins, placed gloriously in the vppermost part of the Israelites Tabernacle, which for the holinesse thereof was called Sancta sanctorum. Further, that within the Arke of the testament standing in the same place, vvere reserued pretious Relikes, as the rodde of Aaron that blossomed, a golden pot ful of that Angelical foode Manna, which God rained from heauen, and the Tables of the Testament: to vvhich if you joine the sentence of the same Apostle,1. Cor. 10. vers. 11. That al hapned to them in figure, and were written for our instruction; may not vve then ga­ther thereby, that Images are to be placed in Churches, and holy Relikes in golden shrines? And the same Apostle in the same Epi­stle, declaringHebr. 11. vers. 21. that Iacob by faith adored the toppe of Iosephs [...]odde, vvhich was a signe of his power, doth he not giue al juditious men to vnderstand, that the Images of Saints for their holy representa­tion, ought to be respected and worshipped?

With as great facility and no lesse perspicuity, we doe collect out of S. Paul, that the Saints in heauen are to be praied vnto: for he dothRom. 15, 30. 2. hartily craue the Romans to helpe him in their praiers, and hopeth by the helpe ofCor. 1. vers. 11. the Corinthians praiers, to be deliuered from great dangers. Whence we reason thus: If such a holy man as S. Paul was, stood in neede of other mens praiers, much more neede haue we poore vvretches of the praiers of Saints. S. Paul was not ignorant how ready God is to heare vs, nor of the only mediation of Christ IESVS; and yet as high as he was in Gods fauour, and as wel informed of the office of Christs mediation, he held it needful to request other farre meaner then himselfe, to pray for him. Al this is good (saith a good Protestant) for to instruct vs to request the helpe of other mens praiers, that are liuing with vs, but not of Saints who are departed this world. Yes say we, because the Saints in heauen are more charitable and desirous of Gods honour and of our spiritual good, then any friend we haue liuing, and therefore more forward to assist vs vvith their praiers: They are also more gratious in the sight of God, and thereby better able to obtaine our requests. Al vvhich may easily be gathred out of S. Paul, vvho saith; that [Page 145] 1. Cor. 13.8. charity neuer faileth, but is maruailously encreased in that hea­uenly country. Also, thatEphes. 2. vers. 19. we are not strangers and forraigners to the Saints, but their fellow cittizens, and the houshold seruants of God with them; yea, we are members of the same body: wherefore, they cannot choose but tender most dearely al our sutes, that appertaine vnto the glory of God, & our owne saluation. They therefore, haue finally no other shift to auoide praying to Saints, but to say, that though al other circumstances doe greatly moue vs thereto, yet considering that they cannot heare vs, it is labour lost to pray to them. To vvhich we reply and that out of S. Paul, that the Saints can heare vs, and doe perfectly know our praiers made vnto them; For the Apostle comparing the knowledge of this life, vvith that of the life to come, saith:1. Cor. 13. vers. 9.10. & 12. De Ciuitat. Dei lib. 22. cap. 29. In part we know, and in part we prophecy; but when that shal come which is perfect, that shal be made voide which is in part. And a little after: We see now by a glasse in a darke sort, but then face to face. Whence not I, but that Eagle-eied Doctor S. Au­gustine doth deduce, that the knowledge of the heauenly cittizens, is without comparison farre more perfect and clearer, then euer a­ny mortal mans vvas, of thinges absent and to come: yea, that the Prophets (vvho vvere indued with surpassing and extraordinary light) did not reach any thing neare vnto the ordinary knowledge of the Saints in heauen, grounding himselfe vpon these expresse wordes of the Apostle: We prophecy in part, that is imperfectly in this life, which shal be perfect in heauen. If then (saith he) the Pro­phets being mortal men, had particular vnderstanding of thinges farre di­stant from them, and done in other countries, much more doe those immor­tal soules, replenished with the glorious light of heauen, perfectly know that which is done on earth, though neuer so farre from them: thus much of praying to Saints.

Now to the Masse. The same profound diuine S. Augustine, with other holy Fathers (vvho were not wont so lightly to skimme ouer the Scriptures, as our late new Masters doe: but seriously searched them, and most deepely pearced into them) did also finde al the partes of the Masse touched by the Apostle S. Paul in these vvordes:Aug. epist. 59 ad Paulinū. Ambros. & Chrisost. in hunc locum. 1. Tim. 2. v. 1. I desire that obsecrations, praiers, postulations, thanks-gi­uings, be made for al men, &c. declaring how by these foure wordes of the Apostles, are expressed the foure different sort of praiers, v­sed in the celebration of the holy Misteries. By obsecrations, those [Page 146] praiers that the Priest saith before consecration: By praiers, such as be said at and after the cōsecration, vnto the end of the Pater noster: By postulations, those that are said at the communion, vnto the bles­sing of the people: Finally, By thanks-giuing, such as are said after by both Priest and people, to giue God thankes for so great a gift receiued. He that knowes what the Masse is, may by these wordes of the Apostle, see al the partes of it very liuely painted out, in this discourse of S. Augustine; vvho though he calleth not that celebra­tion of the Sacrament, by the name of Masse, yet doth he giue it a name equiualent:Epistola. 59. Sacri Altaris oblatio; the oblation or sacrifice of the holy Altar, in the solution of the fift question, at the exposition of these vvordes Orationes. As for the principal part of the Masse, vvhich is the Real presence of Christes body in the blessed Sacra­ment, S. Paul deliuereth it in as expresse tearmes as may be, euen as he had receiued it from our Lord:1. Cor. 11. vers. 23. This is my body which shalbe deliuered for you, &c. and addeth, that he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe, not discerning the body of our Lord. And in the chapter before makes this demande: The Chalice or cup of benediction, which we blesse, is it not the communi­cation of the bloud of Christ? and the bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? Moreouer, he speaketh of the Church of Rome (being then but in her cradle) most honourably, saying: Your faith is renowmed in the whole world, and after,Rom. 1. v. 8. Rom. 16. vers. 19. Your obedience is published into euery place. But no maruaile to the vvise, though he did not then make mention of her Supremacy, for that did not belong to the Church or people of Rome, but to S. Peter, vvho (vvhen S. Paul wrote that Epistle) vvas scarse vvel setled there; neither did that appertaine to the matter he created of.

Of pardons, S. Paul teacheth in formal tearmes, which both the Church of Corinth and he himselfe gaue vnto the incestuous Co­rinthian, that then repented: these be his wordes.2. Cor. 2. vers. 10. And whom you haue pardoned any thing, I also: for my selfe also, that which I haue par­doned, if I haue pardoned any thing, for you in the person of Christ, that we be not circumuented of Sathan. What can be more manifest, then that the Apostle did release some part of the penance of that ince­stuous Corinthian, at other mens request? vvhich is properly to giue pardon and indulgence. And if S. Paul in the person of Christ could so doe, no doubt but S. Peter could doe as much; and con­sequently, [Page 147] other principal Pastours of Christes Church, haue the same power and authority.

The last of M. Abbots instances is, That S. Paul saith nothing of traditions: wherein he sheweth himselfe not the least impudent; for the Apostle speaketh of them very often. He desireth the Romans toRom. 16. vers. 17. marke them that make dissentions and scandals, contrary to the do­ctrine which you haue learned, and to auoide them: but the doctrine that they had then learned, before S. Paul sent them this Epistle, vvas by vvord of mouth and tradition (for little or none of the new Te­stament was then written:) vvherefore the Apostle teacheth al men to be auoided, that dissent from doctrine deliuered by tradi­tion. And in the Actes of the Apostles it is of record, how S. Paul vvalking through Siria, and Silicia, confirming the Churches:Act. 15. v. 41 Commanded them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and of the An­cients. Item, vvhen they passed through the citties, theyAct. 16. v. 4. deliue­red vnto them to keepe the decrees that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients, which were at Hierusalem: and the Churches were confirmed in faith, &c. Where it also appeareth, that those decrees vvere made matter of faith, and necessary to be beleeued to saluation, before they vvere written. He doth also charge his best beloued disciple Timothy, 1. Tim. 6. vers. 20. To keepe the depositum (that is the vvhole Christian do­ctrine, deliuered vnto him by word of mouth, as the best Authours take it) auoiding the prophane nouelty of voices, and oppositions of falsly called knowledge. Againe, he commandeth2. Tim. 2. vers. 2. him to commend to faith­ful men, the thinges which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses. Was not this to preach such doctrine as he had receiued by Apostolike tradition without writing? And further (vvhich suppresseth al the vaine cauils of the sectaries) he saith:2. Thessal. 2. vers. 15. Therefore bretheren stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned, whether it be by word or by our Epistle: where you see that some traditions went by word of mouth from hand to hand, aswel as some others were vvritten, and vvere as wel to be holden, and stood too, as the written, proceeding from the same fountaine of truth Gods spirit. Thus much in answere vnto the instances proposed by M. Abbot, vvhich he very igno­rantly and insolently auoucheth, to haue no proofe or sound of proofe out of S. Paul.

I could (vvere it not to auoide tediousnesse) adde the like con­firmation of most controuersies, out of the same blessed Apostle; [Page 148] as that1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: vvherefore any man may most assuredly repose his faith vpon her declaration. That Christ gaueEphes. 4. v. 11. & 13. Pastors and Doctors to the edifying of that his misti­cal body, vntil we meete al in the vnity of faith, &c. Therefore the Church shal not faile in faith vntil the day of judgement, nor be inuisible, that hath visible Pastors and teachers. AlsoHebr. 5. vers. 1. that Priests are chosen from among men, and appointed for men, in those thinges that appertaine to God, that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sinne. That Preachers and1. Cor. 3. v. 9. Priests are Gods coadjutors and helpers, and not only idle instruments. That S. Paul and Timothy 1. Cor. 9. vers. 23. 1. did saue other men, and therefore no blasphemy to pray to Saints, to helpe and saue vs. That S. Paul didTim. 4. vers. 16. accomplish those thinges that want to the passions of Christ in his flesh, for Christes body which is the Church, therefore Christes passion doth not take away our owne satisfaction. That heColloss. 1. vers. 24. 1. Cor. 9. vers. 16. gloried in preaching the Gospel of free cost, which was a worke of supererogation. ThatEphes. 5. vers. 32. Marriage is a great Sacrament. That1. Tim. 4. vers. 23. grace was giuen to Timothy, by the imposition of the handes of Priest-hood: vvhence it followeth, that Matrimony and holy Or­ders be true and perfect Sacraments. But vvhat doe I? I should be too long if I would prosecute al that which the Apostle hath left in vvriting in fauour & defence of the Roman faith. This (I doubt not) wil suffice to confront his shamelesse impudency, that blushed not to affirme, there vvas not a vvord in S. Paul that sounded for the Catholike, but al (in shew at least) for the Protestant. As for S. Peter I vvil wholy omit him, because the Protestants haue smal confidence in him.

Here I may be bold I hope, to turne vpon M. Abbot this dilemma and forked argument, vvhich S. Augustine framed against the Ma­nichean Adimantus: Lib. 1. cont. Adimant. Hoc si imprudens fecit, nihil caecius; si autem sciens, nihil sceleratius: If M. Abbot did ignorantly affirme S. Paul to haue said nothing for the Roman Catholikes, what could be more blind, then not to be able to discerne any thing in such cleare light? if he said it vvittingly knowing the contrary, then did he it most vvickedly, so to lie against his owne conscience, to draw after him selfe, other men into errour and perdition.

ROBERT ABBOT.

WEL M. Bishop, let vs leaue Peter and Paul for heretikes: let vs see vvhether those that succeeded, did al teach the [Page 149] same doctrine, that the Church of Rome now teacheth.Hollinshead descript. of Britan. ca. 7. Eleutherius the bishop of Rome, being sent vnto by Lucius king of this realme, for a copy of the Roman constitutions, for the gouernement of this new conuerted Church, and of the imperial lawes, for the better ordering of his common wealth, about 150. yeares after the death of Christ, for answere writeth vnto him:Annals of England by Iohn Stow. That hauing receiued in his Kingdome the law and faith of Christ, and hauing now the old and new Testament, he should by a Councel of his realme, take lawes from thence to gouerne them by: that he was the Vicar of God in his Kingdome: that the people and nations of the Kingdome of Britany were his, euen his chil­dren: that such as were deuided, he should gather them together vnto the law of Christ his holy Church, to peace and concord, and should cherish and maintaine, protect, gouerne and defend them, &c. But now the re­ligion of Rome hath altered that stile, and telleth vs:Sext. proem. in glossa. That not the King, but the Pope is Gods Vicar vpon earth; his Vicar general for al Kingdomes. And as for the Church, the matters and gouernement thereof belong not to the King, vvho if he make any lawes con­cerning religion, He challengeth to him selfe anothers right, that is,Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. the Popes; because God would not haue the worke of Christian reli­gion to be ordered by publike lawes, or by the secular power, but by Popes and Bishops.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

TRVE M. Abbot, you had neede to leaue Peter and Paul for he­retikes, who so plainely & plentifully confute your doctrine and establish ours; or else you and your fellowes must needes be taken for heretikes. And if you hope to finde any of their Succes­sors more friendly vnto you, you wil proue in the end as fouly (if not more grosly) deceiued then you were before. But how chan­ceth it, that you lept from Peter & Paul vnto one that was the thir­tenth Pope after S. Peter? why did you ouer-skip al the rest? Was there not one of the other twelue, that vvould afford you some peece of a darke broken sentence, out of vvhich you might picke some colour of cauil against vs? If they vvould haue yeelded him any comfort, they should not haue beene forgotten, as we may see by Anacletus, who is afterwardes haled in by the way, and yoked with another for want of some cleare sentence of his owne.

Wel let vs come to Eleutherius, the man of whom you haue made choise. First, you relate such a wise tale of so vvorthy a Bishop, [Page 150] so impertinent & il hanging together, and so weakly verified, that no considerate person standing vpright, can giue you any credit therein. To beginne with the Authors that report it, they be both professed Protestants, and come more then a thousand yeares to late for the relation of so auncient a matter, vnlesse they had allea­ged other authentike Authours in confirmation of it. But Hollin­head reportes himselfe to M. Fox, a crafty deceitful lying Minister of his owne time: Stow to some moth-eaten monument lying in the Guild hal. Now, what credit is to be giuen to thinges so sillily confirmed, specially vvhere there is farre greater probabilitie a­gainst it? for Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome, whose epistles and letters vvere registred there, and most diligently preserued in their treasury, among other monuments of antiquity: where one only epistle of his to the prouince of France is to be found. And if he had vvritten another to a King of great Britany, no question but it vvould haue beene as carefully preserued there, as the other. A­gaine, what likelihood is there, that any old writing of or to Lucius King of great Britany, should be preserued in the citty of London, vvhen al the Britons vvere driuen thence by their enemies the Saxons, vvho vvere most like to make smal store of such letters, specially which concerned the Christian religion, to vvhich they were then enemies? And if they had reserued any such, should not venerable Bede (our most learned and industrious country-man, vvho made most diligent enquiry after al such, vvhen our Ance­stours were conuerted to the faith) haue heard some newes of this famous letter, vvho heard and writ as much of Pope Eleutherius, King Lucius, and the realmes conuersion, as he could discouer, and finde any ground for, out of any part of antiquity? the like may be said of al the rest of our ancient Historiographers, whether En­glish or Britons; among whom there is not one to be found, that made any mention of this vvorthy letter: how then is it possible that there should be any such? besides, if you marke but the Kings demand and the Bishops answere, both being persons of great wis­dome and grauity, such simplicity and incongruity appeares, that any man of vnderstanding wil take it to be ridiculous and counter­fait. The King (forsooth) writeth to the Pope, for a copy of the Roman constitutions, and Imperial lawes, for the gouernement of his realme: the Pope writeth backe ad correctionem Regis, to the correction and amend­ment [Page 151] of the King; vvhich is an answere as just as Germans lips: goodly stuffe surely, and fit to lie hidde in dusty corners. Those vvordes (for the Roman constitutions to gouerne the Church) are de­ceitfully shuffled in, besides the purpose; as may appeare by the answere. And the King sent before, and receiued by the Popes messengers, ful instruction of al points concerning the Christian religion: wherefore he then wrote only for the Imperial lawes, to direct him how to gouerne his temporal estate. To vvhich the letter maketh the Bishop to answere very childishly, that he had the old and new Testament, and willeth him to fish out thence the ciuil gouernement of his realme, vvhich neuer any Christian King, either before or sithens euer did. Adde finally, that the letter beareth date in those authours cited by M. Abbot, 169. yeares after the passion of Christ, vvhich is at least twise seauen yeares after the death of Pope Eleutherius. But al these impertinences and improbabilities being set aside for the while, let it be graunted that the letter vvere true, and not fained, vvhat hold can the Protestants take on it to serue their purpose? surely very weake, and such as may be most easily shaken out off their handes. The letter hath, That the nations and people of his Kingdome, were euen his children. Be it so, a good King is Parens Patriae, & Pastor populi; The Parent of his country and foster-father of his people: followeth it of this, that he is their chiefe head in spiritual causes? then were the Heathen Roman Emperors supreme head of the Church; for they were parents of their country, that is nourishers, defenders, and rulers of the common weale: this then wil help the Protestants nothing. Neither wil that which followeth in the letter, that they are Gods Vicars in his Kingdome, and should gather his people vnto the law of Christ; for the Roman Catho­likes doe allow Kinges to be Gods Vicars, not only in al the tempo­ral affaires of their realmes, but also that they should by counsel, countenance, example and authority, draw al their subjects to the true faith of Christ, and seeke to cal home, al them that are gone astray, and diuided from the Catholike Church, and to establish peace and concord among them: and finally to gouerne them so happily vnited, in al such thinges as appertaine vnto their Kingly vocation, and to the publike tranquillity of the common vveale. Now let the in­different reader consider, vvhether there be any one word in this supposed letter, that carrieth meate in mouth (as they say) to feede [Page 152] the Protestants faith: so that here is an ancient and reuerend Fa­thers letter cited to no purpose.

But M. Abbot saith, that now a-daies not the King, but the Pope is Gods Vicar, and his Vicar general for al Kingdomes. True it is, the Pope is Gods Vicar in al Christian Kingdomes,Sext. proem. in glossa. (though there be not one vvord of any such matter in the glosse cited by him) but that is in Ecclesiastical matters; vvhich nothing hindereth, but that the King is also Gods Vicar in temporal affaires: for he may be called a Vicar, that doth Vicem gerere alterius, that is another mans Depu­ty, Lieutenant, or Substitute. One King may haue many Vicars, that is substitutes or deputies, to whom he committeth some prin­cipal charge. King Henry the eight for example, hauing giuen him by the Parliament, supreme power in both Ecclesiastical and Tem­poral causes, had one Vicar for spiritual causes, and many other for the temporal: so God hath the Bishop of Rome for Christes Vicar general in causes of the Church, and Kinges in the administration of the common vveale. And the very Canon cited by M. Abbot, would haue taught him so much, if he had read it vvith a minde to learne the truth, rather then to sucke out some matter of cauil out of it:Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. for therein be these wordes; The Emperour hath the priuiledges of his power, which he obtained of God for the administration of publike lawes. Marke here the Pope acknowledgeth the Emperour, to be Gods Deputy and Vicar in the administration of the common lawes; vvhich in the Canon that goeth next before is confirmed: for there Gelasius an ancient Pope speaketh thus to Anastatius the Emperour;Ibidem duo sunt. There be two thinges (ô Sacred Emperour) wherewith this world is principally gouerned, to wit, the holy authority of Bishops, and the power of Princes. These two then be both Gods Substitutes and Vicars; the one for spiritual causes, the other for temporal: wherefore M. Abbot reasoneth very childishly, vvhen he goeth about to proue that we deny the King to be Gods Vicar, because we teach the Pope to be Gods Vicar; for vve hold that they both be Gods Vicars, though in distinct and different matters. Neither lastly can he take any aduantage of the word gouerne, if it be in that letter; for King Lucius demand was, for the Imperial lawes to gouerne the temporal state of his realme: vvherefore it is euident that he spake there of temporal gouernement, and not of spiritual. Now because the maine question is, whether Kings haue authority ouer Bishops [Page 153] in Ecclesiastical causes, or Bishops ouer Kinges, let vs heare some two or three of S. Peter and S. Paules Successours, M. Abbots owne vvitnesses, deliuer their knowledge thereof. The first shal be the same learned and holy Pope Gelasius last named: he affirmeth in the same Epistle vvhich vvas written to the Emperour himselfe, that the authority of Bishops in spiritual causes, doth extend it selfe o­uer Kinges and Emperours, these be his vvordes.Distinct. 96. Duo sunt. Thou knowest (ô Emperour) thy selfe to depend on their judgements, and that they can­not be reduced to thy wil and pleasure; therefore many Bishops fortified with these ordinances, and with this authority supported, haue excommu­nicated, some Kinges, others Emperours. And if a particular example be demanded of the persons of Princes, blessed Innocentius the Pope did ex­communicate the Emperour Archadius, for consenting vnto the deposition of S. Iohn Chrisostome. And blessed S. Ambrose, though a holy Bi­shop, yet not Bishop of the vniuersal Church, for a fault that to others did not seeme so grieuous, excommunicating Theodosius the great, did shut him out of the Church, &c. Is not this plaine enough, and directly to the purpose, that Bishops haue power ouer Princes in Ecclesiasti­cal causes? and the authority of Gelasius is of such vvaight with M. Abbot shortly after, that here he cannot gaine-say it vvith any honesty. I vvil joine to him Anacletus (vvhom M. Abbot also no­teth the next) who succeeded immediately after Clement S. Peters Scholler: he saith expresly,Epistola 1. prope finem. That the Church of Rome receiued by our Sauiour Christes order, the primacy and preeminence of power ouer al Churches, and ouer the whole flocke of Christian people: If then M. Abbot vvil allow, that Kinges be any of Christes people, the Pope hath authority ouer them. S. Clement himselfe (one of S. Paules Philip. 4. v. 3. co­adjutors, and whose name is in the booke of life) hath left this vvritten among the constitutions of the Apostles:Lib. 2. c. 11. Wherefore (ô Bishop) en­deauour to excel in sanctity of workes, knowing thy place and dignity; thou art Gods Lieutenant, and placed ouer al Lordes, Priests, Kinges and Princes, Fathers, Sonnes, Masters, and al Subjects joined together. Ibid. cap. 33. And in the same booke, touching by the vvay the dignity of Bishops, repeateth these memorable wordes out of holy Scripture, spoken to Moyses as a King & Bishop:Exod. 7. v. 1. Ecce constitui to Deum Pharaonis; Behold I haue created thee the God of Pharao, vvho was King of the land of Aegipt, vvhere both Moyses and al the children of Israel then liued: see the dignity of a Bishop aboue his owne King. [Page 154] And the 38. chapter of the same booke of Clement is formally inti­tuled, That Priests are more excellent then Kinges and Princes. And finally, that the gouernement of the whole Church, was commit­ted to Bishops, that vessel of election S. Paul is a sufficient witnesse, vvho saith:Act. 20. v. 28. Take heede to your selues and to the whole flocke, wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his owne bloud. If then M. Abbot wil allow that Kinges be any of Christs flocke, and that he purchased them with his bloud, they are to be ruled by Bishops, who are placed by the holy Ghost to rule the whol [...] flocke of Gods Church. Hither­to comparing the Bishop of Rome with temporal Princes, I haue proued the prerogatiue of Ecclesiastical gouernement, to apper­taine to the Bishops.

Now a word or two of the preeminence of the Church and See of Rome ouer al other Churches; vvhich shal be briefly verified, euen by the testimony of some of the most ancient, and most holy successours of S. Peter and S. Paul, to whom M. Abbot attributes so much. The afore named Anacletus, who succeeded next after their owne Disciple S. Clement, hauing shewed that al Ecclesiastical causes belong to Bishops euen as temporal causes doe to the tem­poral Magistrate,Epistola 1. ad omnes Eccle­sias. addeth: that if more difficult questions shal arise, as the judgements of Bishops, and greater causes: let them (if any appeale be made) be referred vnto the See Apostolike. Because the Apostles, by the commandement of our Sauiour, haue ordained, that questions of greater difficulty, shal alwaies be referred vnto the Apostolike See, vpon which Christ built the whole Church, saying vnto blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles: thou art Peter, & vpon this rocke wil I build my Church, &c. Anacletus his immediate successor Euaristus Pope & Martir, wri­ting vnto the Bishops of Africke,Epistola. 1. ad Eccles. Afri­canam. speaketh thus: Truly your charity following the rule of the wise, hath chosen rather to referre vnto the See Apostolike, as to the head, what ought to be obserued in doubtful matters, then to presume your selues by vsurpation: and writing to the brethren in Aegipt,Epistola 2. doth command certaine Bishops (whom he resembleth to adulterers, because they had intruded into other Bishops Cit­ties) to be cast out of those places, and to be made infamous, and depriued of al Ecclesiastical honours; adjoining, That if (after these thinges so dispatched) they should haue further complaint against them, that matter were to be enquired out, and to be determined by the au­thority [Page 155] of this holy See. Note how these holy Popes, that vvere so nigh vnto the Apostles, taught it to belong vnto the See of Rome, to determine of the causes of the Bishops of Afrike and Aegipt, most remote from them. And because the Apostle S. Paul willeth2. Cor. 13. vers. 2. euery word to stand in the mouth of two or three witnesses, I vvil take for the third, Alexander the first, Pope and Martir, who succeeded vnto Euaristus; he is as plaine and formal in this cause as any of the rest: these be his wordes.Epist. 1. om­nibus ortho­doxis. It is related vnto the primacy of this holy and Ap [...]stolike See (vnto which the disposition of the highest cases, and the affaires of al Churches, are by our Lord committed as to the head, &c.) and a little after, Our Lord here appointed this holy See the head of the whole Church I omit here the verdict of al others herein, because this very matter must be spoken off hereafter againe and againe: these three most ancient graue and Godly Martirs, (al successours of S. Peter and S. Paul, vpon whose authority M. Abbot here only insisteth) vvil suffice to certifie the indifferent reader, that euen from the Apostles daies, the Bishop of Rome hath beene taken for supreme judge in al Ecclesiastical causes, aswel in the East as West Church. To finish this passage, thou maist gentle reader by this little, see what shamelesse shifts M. Abbot is forced to vse, to make any coulourable shew out of antiquity, for the lay Magistrates su­periority in spiritual causes. He is first driuen to cite an vnlearned, an vnlikely, and an Apocriphal letter of 1400. yeares old, vpon the credit of men of our owne age, and those most partial too on his owne side, the letter bearing date also, many yeares after the death of him that is supposed to be the authour of it: and when al is done, in the same vvorshipful letter there is not one pregnant proofe for any part of their doctrine; lastly, that his owne chosen witnesses, doe deliuer vp most cleare euidence against himselfe: he therefore that vvil giue judgement on his side, must needes shew himselfe exceeding partial.

ROBERT ABBOT.

ANACLETVS Bishop of Rome,Dist. 1. Epi­scopus & 2. peracta. and after him Calixtus ordai­ned, that consecration being done, al should communicate or else be excommunicated: For so (say they) the Apostles did set downe, and the holy Church of Rome obserueth. But the Church of Rome that now is, maketh it lawful for the Priest to receiue alone, the people in the meane time standing gazing and looking on, and [Page 156] the fight only must suffice them.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE is nothing in manner worth the answering, only the co­sening deceitfulnesse of the man is to be displaied. First, A­nacletus hath only,De consecrat. dist. 1. Can. Episcopus. that Deacons, Subdeacons, and other Ministers, that in solemne feasts attend in holy vestiments vpon the Bishop whiles he doth sacrifice vnto God, should in the same solemne feasts communicate, or else be debarred of their Ecclesiastical places: where is not one word of the lay peoples communicating. And therefore that Canon is wholy besides the purpose, sauing that it doth teach, that then Bi­shops vsed to offer sacrifice vnto God, and that the Clarkes did in holy vestiments serue them at Masse: See the Canon and vvonder at the folly of the man. In like manner doth the second Canon of Calixtus speake of Ecclesiastical persons that serue at Masse: for so saith the Collector,De consecrat. dist. 2. Can. peracta. Ecclesiasticis liminibus careat Minister; Let the Mini­ster or he that serueth, want Ecclesiastical place. With which agre­eth the glosse vpon the same Canon, vvhich also is euident by the very Text: for the punishment set downe is, Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus, To be shut out of the Ecclesiastical mens seates and places; vvhich vvere no punishment to a lay man, that was not before ad­mitted into any such roome. And as it may be seene in the said di­stinction Cap. Etsi non frequentius. De consecrat. dist. 1. and Cap. Secularis. Lay men were commanded about those times, to communicate but thrife in the yeare, at Easter, Whitsontide, and Christmasse. Briefly, here is nothing against the moderne practise of the Church of Rome; for both they that solemnely serue at Masse on festiual daies doe re­ceiue, and no lay man is denied to communicate on any day, either on those feasts or at any time else, vvhen he vvil prepare himselfe thereto. But to debarre Priests from seruing God in that most high degree, (be their deuotion and preparation neuer so good) vntil they can get some company of the laity to communicate with them, is without just cause to robbe God of his soueraigne honour, to extinguish the working of his holy spirit in deuout soules, and to defraude the whole flocke of the benefit of many most holy and effectual praiers, not only of the Priests but also of the people; vvho doe not with vs stand gazing on at the time of communion as M. Abbot prophanely conceiteth, but humbly kneeling doe then pray most deuoutly, and doe in spirit and desire communicate also. [Page 157] Briefly, there is not one sillable in those Canons sounding to the Protestant sence, that Priests should not cōmunicate, if the Clarke or people joine not vvith them; but only that the indeuout and slugglish Clarkes should be depriued of their places, if vpon high feasts they did neglect to communicate with the Bishop or Pastor.

ROBERT ABBOT.

IVLIVS the Bishop of Rome, disallowed intinctam Eucharistiam,De consecrat. 2. cum omne. the dipping of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Christs body in the cuppe, Because no witnesse thereof was brought out of the Gospel; but there is mentioned the commending of the bread by it selfe, and the cuppe by it selfe: but now by the Canon of the Masse the Priest must dippe the third part of the consecrated host into the Sacrament of the bloud, and there praieth that this mixture may be heathful to himselfe, and al the re­ceiuers vnto euerlasting life.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Cannot easily judge, whether this man were more fiercely bent to deceiue others, or more foolishly set to shame himselfe vvith lying, that durst aduenture vpon this Canon of the auncient and most learned Pope Iulius; for besides that it hath nothing for the Protestants purpose, it doth in sundry points notably confirme the Roman doctrine: thus beginneth the Canon. When euery crime and sinne, is purged and blotted out by sacrifices offered vnto God, what shal hereafter be giuen to God for the purgation of our sinnes, when errour is committed in the oblation of the sacrifice it selfe? (note how often he re­peateth and recommendeth the diuine sacrifice of the Masse.) For we haue heard of some men possessed with schismatical ambition, who con­trary to diuine order and the institution of the Apostles, doe in the diuine sacrifice, offer milke in steede of wine: others also for a complement of communion, doe giue the dipped Sacrament to the people, &c. Then con­futing these opinions he saith: When the Master of truth did commend to his Disciples the true sacrifice of our saluation, he gaue to none of them milke, &c. let therefore milke be no more offered when we sacrifice. Then come in the broken vvordes of M. Abbot thus: But for that of the dipped Eucharist, which for a complement of communion they deliuer to the people, they haue not receiued any testimony brought out of the Gospel, where our Lord commended to the Apostles his body and bloud; for there the bread is mentioned apart, and the commendation of the Chalice apart: where M. Abbot first left out the commending of Christs body and bloud [Page 159] to his Disciples, because those vvordes vvould haue scalded his tongue. Secondly, this Canon hath nothing against that vvhich is now done by the Priest in the Masse: for the Priest doth not dippe any part of the Host into the Chalice, to be afterwardes ta­ken out and giuen to the people, vvhich is that which Pope Iulius doth disproue. Neither doe our Priests (to speake properly) dippe any part of the Sacrament into the Chalice; for dipping in, impor­teth as much as the putting in and taking foorth againe, which we doe not: but only for a holy signification we doe put into the Cha­lice, one litle par [...] of the Host, there to lie and not to be taken out againe, but to be receiued by the Priest together with the bloud; and therefore we cal it not the dipping in, but the mixture or min­gling together of the body and bloud of Christ: wherefore M. Ab­bot erreth in the maine point of his reprehension. For Pope Iulius reproued only the giuing of the dipped Host vnto the people, vvhich we doe not, nor hold it any way necessary; because vve teach them, that the holy Host of Christs body, containes in it selfe (being a liuing body) as wel Christes bloud as his flesh: now, vve doe only put a little peece of the sacred Host into the Chalice, there to be receiued with the pretious bloud, not of the people, but by the Priest alone. That this is no new deuise of the Church of Rome, may be wel gathered out of the same distinction, and in the very next leafe to that of Pope Iulius cited by M. Abbot, in the Canon Triforme, De consecrat. distinct. 2. vvhere Pope Sergius of more then 800. yeares standing, doth expound this very ceremony, of putting one part of the host into the Chalice. It was then a knowne vsed ceremony of the Masse in his daies, and no late inuention, as M. Abbot dreameth. I may not here forget, that in the very Canon of Pope Iulius, vvhich M. Abbot alleageth, there is most expresse and very earnest cōmande­ment, of mingling water with the vvine that is to be consecrated; Because (saith that blessed Pope) our Lordes Chalice according vnto the precepts of the Canons, must be offered, the wine being first mingled with water. Finally, we haue in this Canon (alleaged by M. Abbot) a confirmation of a propitiatory sacrifice, of the real presence of Christs body and bloud, (two principal points of our doctrine) and of min­gling water with wine in the offertory; and not one direct word for the Protestants. And because this resolution of Iulius, seemeth to be taken almost vvord for word, out of Pope Alexanders first letter, [Page 159] vvho was but the fift Pope from S. Peter; I wil acquaint the reader vvith his wordes: these they be.Alexand. in epist. omnibus orthodoxis. De consecrat. dist. 2. Can. 1. In the oblations of Sacraments which are offered vnto our Lord at the solemne time of Masse, the passion of our Lord is to be blended; that his passion may be celebrated, whose body and bloud is made and consecrated: so that superstitious opinions being banish­ed, bread alone and wine mingled with water, be offered in the sacrifice. For as we haue receiued from the Fathers, and very reason doth teach, in the cuppe of our Lord only water, or only wine ought not to be offered, but both of them mixed togither. And a little after: Crimes and sinnes are blotted out, when these sacrifices are offered; therefore the passion of our Lord, whereby we were redeemed is to be remembred: with such sacrifices our Lord is delighted, and shal be appeased, and wil pardon huge offences. For among sacrifices, nothing can be greater then the body and bloud of Christ. Neither is there any oblation better then this, but this surpasseth them al, &c. Where you see the present Roman religion deliuered in as formal tearmes as may be. There is also much more to the same purpose; but I am the briefer in these authorities, and doe al­leage them more sparingly, because Protestants (seing them to be beyond al other exceptions) doe flatly deny, almost al the Epistles and Decretals of the most ancient Popes: neuerthelesse they must needes be effectual, and haue good place against M. Abbot, that doth take vpon him to establish their doctrine, & put downe ours, by the testimony of these, the lawful heires and successours vnto the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; alleaging many testimonies out of the very same Epistles. Wherefore, seing he hath appealed to them, he must needes stand to them; for this sentence of the Presi­dent Festus hath his ground in very reason it selfe:Act. 25. v. 12. Hast thou ap­pealed to Caesar? to Caesar shalt thou goe. M. Abbot judged those Popes sentences of sound authority for confirmation of their religion, he may not therefore deny them being brought in against him. The same Pope Iulius, (to omit many other cleare testimonies, taken out of his owne letters, because the Protestants doe cauil at them) doth most euidently confirme, the soueraigne power of the See of Rome ouer al the East Church, euen by the vvitnesse of most approued authours. For vpon the sute of diuers Bishops of the East, he did solemnely summon S. Athanasius, that most learned and valiant Patriarke of Alexandria, to appeare at Rome before him, there to answere vnto such crimes as were indeede most vvrongfully obje­cted [Page 160] against him:Lib. 4. hist. Tripart. c. 6. Nicephor. lib. 9. cap. 6. thus saith the holy History. The Pope following the law of the Church, commanded them also to come vnto Rome, and ac­cording to the rule of the Canons, cited the venerable Athanasius to judge­ment. Athanasius obediently appeared; but his aduersaries know­ing that their lies in that place vvould soone be discouered, durst not appeare: vvhereupon Athanasius was purged of those imputa­tions,Ibid. cap. 12. and restored to his Bishoprick. Vnto the same Iulius not long after, Athanasius (being pittifully abused by the Arrians) re­paired the second time for aide, vvhere he found diuers other Bi­shops of the East, namely Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Mar­cellus Bishop of Ancony, Asclopas Bishop of Gaya, and Lucianus Bishop of Adrianople, al Easterne Bishops; and yet appealing to Iulius Pope of Rome, for remedy of the wrongs done them by the Arrian Heretikes: which doth most manifestly testifie, that in the primitiue Church, al other Bishops acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for the supreme Pastour of Christes Church, vvhich also Zozomenus doth confirme, shewing how Iulius restored them al: Tanquam omnium curam gerens, Zozom. l. 3. hist. cap. 8. propter propriae sedis dignitatem; As one that had care ouer them al, for the dignity of his owne See. And Iulius his owne wordes recorded by no meaner a man then S. Atha­nasius, doe declare the same: for blaming the Bishops of the East, he saith;Athanas. in Apolog. 2. Why did you not write vnto vs, especially you of Alexandria? are you ignorant that the custome is, that we should first be written vnto, that from hence it might be defined what was right? therefore if you haue any quarrel against any Bishop, you ought to haue referred it hither to our Church, &c. And shortly after: I signifie to you such thinges as were receiued from the blessed Apostle S. Peter, &c. vvhere M. Abbot may see, that one of S. Peters successours, of great worth and authority, doth tel the Bishops of the East Church, that by order set downe by S. Peter himselfe, Bishops causes of al countries, ought to be re­ferred vnto the definition of the Bishop of Rome; he therefore is their superiour. I adde hereunto (because it belongeth both vnto Pope Iulius, and this present purpose, of their supremacy in Eccle­siastical causes) this sentence taken out of the Ecclesiastical history: The Councel holden at Antioch was not good, Hist. Tripart. lib. 4. cap. 9. for that Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there present, nor sent any Legate in his place; because the Ecclesiastical Canons doe command, that Councels ought not to be celebra­ted without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome.

ROBERT ABBOT.

GELASIVS Bishop of Rome saith as we say;Gelas. cont. Eutich. & Nestor. That in the Sa­ [...]rament is celebrated the Image or resemblance of the body and bloud of Christ, and that there ceasse [...]h not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine: But now the Romish religion maketh them Heretikes, that say the Sacrament is the Image or resemblance of the body & bloud of Christ, and not the body and bloud of Christ it selfe; or wil not beleeue, that the bread and wine are substantially and real­ly turned into the same body and bloud. Albeit they beleeue with the same Gelasius, that the Sacrament is a diuine thing, and that there­by we are made partakers of the diuine nature, euen of Christ himselfe really and substantially, but yet spiritually vvith al his riches be­comming ours, and being eaten of vs; not by our teeth into our bellies, but by faith into our harts vnto life euerlasting.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

FIRST I say, that M. Abbot hauing his eie-sight sore troubled with a grosse defluxion of salt rhewme, taketh a Rowland for an Oliuer, that is one Gelasius an vnknowne Grecian, for Gelasius an African borne, yet Bishop of Rome. That he was not Gelasius the Bishop of Rome, appeareth plainly out of that very treatise cited by M. Abbot; for that Gelasius professeth to alleage the testimony of al the learned Fathers who wrote before him, & yet he maketh no mention of the most renowmed authours in the Latin Church, as of S. Hillary, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and of Pope Leo: al vvhich wrote before Gelasius the Bishop of Rome, and were had in very great estimation by him, as may be seene by his declaration of the Canonical Scriptures, & of the most approued fathers workes.Dist. 15. Sācta Romana Ec­clesia. Ibidem. Againe, that Gelasius citeth often, and relieth much vpon the autho­rity of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea; vvhereas Gelasius the Pope, hath noted his vvorkes for little better then Apocryphal: so that no­thing is more like, then that the good man hath mistaken his marke and is fallen from the successours of S. Peter and S. Paul, vpon I can­not tel whom; yet because he is an old writer (though of what cre­dit it be vncertaine) I wil not refuse him. And to the former part of his sentence (that in the Sacrament there is an Image or resemblance of Christes body) I answere, that vve Catholikes doe say as much in effect: for euery Sacrament is a visible signe of an inuisible and ho­ly thing; and so Christs body vnder the forme of bread and wine, [Page 162] is a resemblance of his body parted from his bloud on the Crosse: and the body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and vvine, as it is in the Sacrament, is a picture also, or resemblance of the vnion of his mistical body in faith and charity; euen as the bread is made of many graines of corne, and the vvine pressed out of many clu­sters of grapes. The later part of his sentence may also haue a good meaning, and stand wel with our doctrine; for the nature of bread doth not wholy ceasse to be in the blessed Sacrament, because the forme, sauour, and tast of bread, (which be natural qualities there­of) doe stil remaine, though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ; which that Gelasius doth in the same place signifie, when he there saith: The same bread to be changed into the di­uine substance, (that is, into the substance of Christ) by the operation of the holy Ghost, whereby the receiuers are made partakers of the diuine nature. And M. Abbots glosse vpon these later wordes, is very ex­trauagant: for we cannot in property of speech, be said to be par­takers of Christs nature really, by being made partakers of his riches; for it is one thing to be partaker of a mans nature really, & another farre different to be partaker of his goodes and benefits. And as for the receiuing of Christ spiritually by faith, that may be done vvithout receiuing any Sacrament at al; but Gelasius either spea­keth of receiuing Christ in the Sacrament, or else M. Abbot doth fondly alleage his wordes against the real presence: wherefore his later paraphrase is a meere trifle and a vaine shift. See more of this man and matter in the question of the real presence. Let vs proceede.

ROBERT ABBOT.

De consecrat. dist. 2. com­perimus.THE same Gelasius, when he vnderstood that some receiuing on­ly the portion of the sacred body of Christ, did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud, did forbidde that superstition, and willed that either they should receiue the Sacrament whole, or be kept from the whole; because the diuiding of one and the same mistery, cannot come without great sacri­ledge. But now the Church of Rome is so farre off, from acknow­ledging the diuiding of that mistery to be sacriledge, as that shee pretendeth to be moued with just causes & reasons,Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. Can. 2. (such as Christ and his Apostles and the primitiue Church, had neuer the vvit to consider off) to administer the Sacrament to the people only in one kinde; and pronounceth them accursed that say shee erreth in so doing.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

NOW we come to Gelasius the Pope indeede, and by his very phrase related by M. Abbot, you may plainely perceiue, that he beleeued firmely, the sacred body of Christ and his pretious bloud, to be really present in the blessed Sacrament: for thus he speaketh. We haue found, that certaine men hauing receiued the por­tion of the sacred body, doe abstaine from the Chalice of the sacred bloud. Neither doe his wordes fit M. Abbots turne, for the peoples recei­uing vnder one kinde; for he speaketh of Priests that doe conse­crate both together, vvho therefore must receiue both together that he may be partaker of the sacrifice which he himselfe hath of­fered. For as it is said in the Canon next before:De consecrat. dist. 2. rela­tum est. Quale erit illud sacrificium, cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse dignoscitur? what kinde of sacrifice is that, whereof he that sacrificeth doth not participate? Wherefore, it is by al meanes to be obserued, that how often the Priest doth sa­crifice the body and bloud of our Lord IESVS Christ vpon the Altar; so often he exhibite himselfe a partaker of the body & bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. These wordes (taken out of the Councel of Toledo) goe immediately before those wordes which M. Abbot citeth, and doe euidently shew, that they are to be vnderstood of the Priest only that consecrateth the Sacrament; as also the very title would haue told M. Abbot, if he had beene disposed to take them right: It is, that the Priest ought not to receiue the body of Christ without his bloud: So that here is not a vvord against the giuing the blessed body of Christ alone to the people. But M. Abbot is forced like an euil A­pothecary, to take quid pro quo (as they say) one thing for another, or else he should not be able to furnish his poore erring customers, vvith any sort of pleasing drugges, to feede their corrupt tast and grosse humours.

He doth by a parenthesis enterlace, (That Christ nor his Apostles, nor the primitiue Church, had euer the wit to consider any just cause of gi­uing the Sacrament in one kinde to the people:) vvhich is spoken too too like a blasphemer, to touch our Sauiour Christ Iesus with lacke of vvit, skil, or due consideration, who (as diuers ancient Doctors doe testifie) ministred the blessed Sacrament himselfe, to two of his Disciples at Emaus, vnder one only kinde of bread.Luc. 24. vers. 30. He tooke bread, and blessed and brake, and did reach it to them, and their eies were opened; and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight: [Page 164] vvhere the circumstances,August. lib. 3. De consensu Euang. c. 25. & Epist. 59. ad Paul. q. 8. Hier. in Epi­taph. Paulae. of blessing, breaking, and giuing bread, (as he did at his last supper) and the maruailous operation of it, doe very probably proue it to haue beene the blessed Sacrament; after which giuen in one kinde, IESVS vanished out of their sight. Isichius lib. 2. in cap. 9. Beda in The­ophil. in e [...]m locum Lucae. Opus imper­fectū in Mat. homil. 17. In the Apostles time also very vsually the Sacrament vvas admi­nistred in one kinde: They were perseuering in the doctrine of the Apo­stles, and in communication of the breaking of bread and praiers: vvhere breaking of bread, being joined with preaching, and praier, doth con­uince it to be spoken of the blessed Sacramēt. Againe saith S. Luke: In the first of Sabaoth, when we were assembled to breake bread, Paul di­sputed with them &c. This assembly vpon a Sonday, furnished with S. Paules sermon, must needes be to be made for the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament, asAugust. E­pist. 86. & Beda in illum locum. S. Augustine and venerable Bede doe testifie. In al which places, following the expresse letter of the Scripture, and the interpretation of many holy Fathers, we haue warrant for the administration of the Sacrament to the people vnder one only kinde: they then (I hope) vvanted not wit, to know a cause of gi­uing the Sacrament in one kinde. Lastly, that in the primitiue Church, the Sacrament was receiued vnder one kinde, is most ma­nifest by the testimony ofTertull. lib. 2. ad Vxor [...]m. Cyprian. ser­mone de lapsis Ambros. de obitu Satyri. Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and many others: who declare how the Christians in those times of perse­cution carried to the sicke, and reserued in their owne houses, the blessed Sacrament, viz. vnder the forme of bread, to receiue it when they were in danger of torments or death, for their more comfort and strengthning against those assaults. Thus much by the way, of administring the Sacra­ment vnder one kinde vnto the laity, out of the practise of the pri­mitiue Church, the Apostles, and our Sauiour himselfe, in answere vnto M. Abbots parenthesis.

Now ere I take my leaue of this holy and most reuerend Pope Gelasius, I vvil note briefly some branches of the Catholike faith, which he doth formally deliuer, to counterpoise those friuoulous objections, vvhich M. Abbot haleth in obtorto collo (as the Latin phrase is) by the heeles, out of his writinges. First, I haue declared out of him already,Epist. ad A­nast. Imperat. In Epist. ad Episcopos Da [...]daniae. how that Bishops haue power and authority o­uer Kinges and Emperours in Ecclesiastical causes, so farre forth as to ex­communicate them when vrgent cause so requireth. He saith further, That the Canons of the Church doe ordaine, that from any part of the world, appeale may be made to the See of Rome, and that from it no man is [Page 165] suffered to appeale. Againe, That euery Church in the world doth know, that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle, hath right and power to loose and vnbinde, that which is bound by the sentences of what Bishop soeuer, as that See which hath lawful authority to judge of al Churches. Item,In decreto de libris sacris & Ecclesia­sticis, tom. 2. Concil. Distinct. 15. Sancta Ro­mana, &c. That the See Apostolike takes great heede, that it be not stained with any touch of peruersity, or any kinde of contagion. Finally, Gelasius assisted with seauenty other B shops, doth declare the bookes of Wisdome, Eccle­siasticus, Tobias, and of the Machabees, to be Canonical Scripture; and the Epistles Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome, to be of sacred and sound authority, and to be receiued vvith reuerence: al vvhich the Protestants deny.

ROBERT ABBOT.

LEO Bishop of Rome speaking of the Martirs, saith: Epistola 81. That al­though the death of many Saints hath beene pretious in the Lordes sight, yet the death of no innocent person, hath beene the propitiation of the world: that the righteous receiued crownes but gaue none; and that the fortitude of the faithful, haue growne examples of patience, not gifts of righteousnesse: that their deaths as they were seueral persons, were seueral to euery of themselues, and that none of them by his death, paide the debt of any other man; because it is only our Lord Iesus Christ, in whom al were crucified, al dead, al buried, al raised againe from the dead. But now the Church of Rome hath changed that language, and telleth vs, that there are superabounding passions, and satisfactions of the Saints,Bellar. de In­dulg. l. 1. c. 2. Rhem. Annot. in col. 1. v. 24 wherein they haue suffered more then is due for their owne sinnes, vvhich doe serue to supply the necessity and want of others: and that they doe thereby pay the debt of other men, that hereof is growne a treasure in the Church of Rome, which is to be dispensed and disposed by the Pope; and that hence his Indulgences and par­dons haue their ground.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE are many vvordes of a right reuerend Father cited to smal purpose; for the Church of Rome hath not yet changed one sillable of the same her old language. Shee doth maintaine with S. Leo; That no man (how holy soeuer he were) hath by his death or otherwise, paid the ransome of any other mans sinnes, or satisfied God for any one mortal sinne, either of his owne or of any other mans: but that it is Christ alone, who with the price of his pretious bloud, hath fully satisfied his Fathers justice, for al and euery such deadly offence, and for the eternal [Page 166] punishment which was due to the same; and this is al that S. Leo teach­eth. Neuerthelesse, we hold (and that vvith S. Leo) that after the guilt of such sinnes is through Christ released vs, yet are we on our owne partes to endure some temporal punishment for the same of­fences, by Christes order and appointment: both to apply vnto vs the vertue of his owne sufferinges; as also to make vs (that are members of his body) like vnto him our head. Whereupon the Apostle saith;Rom. 8. v. 17. That we be the sonnes of God, and coheires with Christ: Si tamen compatimur vt conglorificemur; If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him: of this matter see more in the question of satisfaction. This to be our doctrine M. Abbot could not be ignorant,Page 118. because it is word by word deliuered, euen by M. Perkins himselfe in that place. Now that S. Leo vvas wel acquainted with such satisfactions, as we on our partes are bound to make, his lear­ned workes doe yeeld plentiful testimony. I wil cite but a place or two: thus he answereth vnto Nicetus, vvho did write vnto him to know how he should deale with some Christians, vvho being ta­ken prisoners of the Infidels, had there among them polluted them selues with eating of meates offered vp to Idols.Epist. 77. c. 5. Let them (saith Leo) be purged with satisfaction of penance, which is not so much to be weighed by length of time, as by compunction of the hart. And againe, speaking of certaine Priests that were doing of penance, he saith; Wherefore such men as these who haue fallen, Epist. 99. ad Rusti. cap. 2. must relieue themselues in priuate: Ad promerendam misericordiam Dei, To deserue the mercy of God: Vt illis satisfactio si fuerit digna, sit etiam fructuosa; That the sa­tisfaction may be fruitful to them, if it be worthy, that is, if it be corre­spondent to their faults, alluding to that of S. Iohn Baptist;Math. 3.Doe fruites worthy of penance: so that by the judgement of S Leo, and the ancient practise of his time, men that truly repented them of their sinnes, vvhereby the guilt and eternal punishment was abo­lished, were afterwardes put to penance, and to doe worthy satis­faction; and that not only to satisfie the cōgregation or other men, (as the Protestants fable, vvho haue a greater care to please men then God) but to be purged of their fault, and to deserue mercy at Gods hand, as S. Leo doth plainly teach.

Now that this temporal punishment which is due to euery Chri­stian, after the eternal is through Christ forgiuen him, may be re­leased and pardoned by the gouernours of the Chuch, and princi­pally [Page 167] by the Pope as chiefe Pastor thereof vnder Christ, and that through the superaboundant sufferings of some others, is a matter so wel knowne to Antiquity; that he must needs confesse himselfe a very puny therein, that thinketh it to be a new deuise of the late Church of Rome. For that S. Gregory the great, who liued aboue a thousand yeares past,D. Tho. & a­lij in 4. sent. dist. 20. instituted Stations to diuers Churches in Rome, and granted great Indulgences and Pardons, vnto al that with due preparation visited the same, is so wel knowne, that few learned Protestants doe doubt of it, or dare deny it. S. Leo himselfe vvho vvas S. Gregories Ancestor more then an hundred yeares, in the said Epistle to Nicetus, doth plainely signifie as much: for he leaueth that enjoined penance of the conuerted party, Epistola 77. numer. 6. to the discreet mo­deration of the Bishop, to be shortned and released as he shal see cause; which is properly a Pardon or Indulgence. Moreouer, Pope Sil­uester vvho vvas S. Leo his Predecessour by more then an hundred yeares,Antiodor. l. 4. summae cap. de relaps. at the request of S. Helen (Constantine the great his mother) consecrated a Chappel in Rome, called Sancta Croce in Hierusalem: the vvhich he did both beautifie and enrich with diuers Relikes of Saints, and granted large Indulgences to al that should with deuo­tion visit the same, as the ancient Records of the same place doe testifie. And that the Pastours of other Countries, yet more anci­ent then the former, were very wel acquainted with this language of this superaboundant passions and satisfactions of some Saints, let that most learned Archbishop of Carthage in Afrike, & glorious Martir S. Cyprian beare witnesse. He instructing the Christian pri­soners and most noble Confessours (for vvhose triumphant suffe­ringes the vse then was, to grant Indulgence and release of penance vnto other penitent persons that had fallen) aduiseth them to be ve­ry circumspect, Lib. 3. epist. 15. quaest. 11. apud Pame­lium. before they graunted the participation of their passions vn­to others, and to weigh wel the measure of their offences, that sued vnto them for such pardon, and to commend vnto their Bishop and Clergie such only, and that by their proper names; Quorum poenitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, Whose penance you see almost ended, and very neere to due satisfaction: vvhence an vnderstanding man, may fully ga­ther our vvhole doctrine of satisfaction and indulgences. First, that due penance is to be enjoined by the Ghostly father, after humble and harty sorrow, and acknowledgment of the fault. Se­condly, that the same penance may be abridged and released by [Page 168] the Pastours of the Church. Lastly, that such fauour, indulgence and release, is made at the contemplation of other mens super­aboundant passions. And he addeth further in the same booke, That without doubt, Epistola 18. those penitents are m [...]ch holpen towardes the release of their sinnes with God, (and not only with the congregation) by that communication of the Martirs sufferings to them. And to mount yet higher, this doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgence, is confirmed by that glorious Doctor of the Gentils S. Paul; who first adjudged the incestuous Corinthian to a most grieuous penāce for his sinnes, afterward strooke off some part thereof by a special pardon, say­ing:2. Cor. 2. vers. 10. And whom yee haue pardoned any thing, I also in the person of Christ. And else where he declareth plainely, that he himselfe had a part of those superaboundant passions, which might be commu­nicated to others, saying:2. Tim. 2. vers. 10. I suffer or sustaine al thinges for the e­lect, that they also may obtaine the saluation which is in Christ IESV, with heauenly glory. And yet more, thatColloss. 1. vers. 24. he did fulfil in his flesh, those thinges that wanted of the passions of Christ, for his body the Church. Seing the blessed Apostle S. Paul doth so plainely teach, that his owne sufferings were auailable to other mens saluation, and that he fulfilled in his owne flesh, that vvhich was wanting vnto other Christians, must he not be a ranke Infidel, that wil not be­leeue any mans sufferinges sauing Christs, to be able to helpe ano­ther, or to supply the want or necessity of others? And if it needed I could yet ascend to the old ancient daies of that blessed man Iob, who had good store of those superaboundant passions, as the holy Ghost speaking by his mouth doth testifie: for he saith;Iob 6. Would to God my sinnes by which I deserued wrath, were weighed, and the ca­lamitie which I suffer, in a balance: this calamity of mine would euen like the sandes of the Sea, appeare the heauier and more waighty. Now good reader judge, whether it be such strange newes to heare of su­peraboundant passions and satisfactions in the treasury of Gods Church: and whether it be vnfit or vnlikely, that the Bishop of Rome chief gouernour thereof, should carry a special hand in the disposition of the same. It is not then the Church of Rome that hath changed her ancient language: but I could hartily wish that M. Abbot would learne once to change his vsual language, and euil custome of ca­lumniating her, and of misconstruing the holy Fathers vvordes, vvhich by the grace of God he may the sooner be perswaded to [Page 169] doe, if he wil weigh wel, thatApocal. 12. vers. 9. DIABOLOS calumniator. the great Dragon and old Serpent cast out of heauen, is called Sathan and the Deuil, for calumniating and misreporting of others: vvherefore if he wil not be taken for one of the Deuils disciples, he must needes giue ouer this shameful pra­ctise of falsifying the ancient Doctors sentences, and of cauilling against that doctrine which they taught, vnder colour of some of their darke speeches.

ROBERT ABBOT.

THE same Leo did not take vpon him to cal general Councels, but when occasion of the heresie of Eutiches so required,Leo Epist. 9.23.24.31.42 47.48.49. Made request to the Emperour Theodosius, that he would command a Councel, and after intreated, that he would appoint the same in some place of Italy; which notwithstanding the Emperour would not, but commanded it to be holden at Ephesus: and Martianus after that at Chalcedon. And that vvhen Leo againe would haue had it deferred to a better opportu­nity: As in deede the affaires of the Church, Socrat. lib. 5. hist. in proem. after that the Emperours were Christians seemed to depend vpon their wil, and at their liking the greatest Councels were assembled, as Socrates witnesseth; Secundum sanctionem Imperialem, per Imperialem sanctionem, Synod. 6. Cō ­stant. art. 1. 4. 6. as the sixt Councel in Trullo often repeateth: yea, and so as the Emperour at his plea­sure, was President of the Councel, as in that sixt Synode was Con­stantius the fourth. But now the calling, and presidency, and con­firmation of Councels, is defended to belong wholy to the Pope: as for Christian Emperors and Princes, they haue nothing to doe, but to send vvhen he calleth, and to receiue vvhat he confirmeth. The same Leo professedLeo Epist. 16. & 17. his obedience to the Emperours appointment and wil, to Theodosius and Martianus. And Agatho the Bishop of Rome,Agath. E­pist. ad Const. Syno. 6. ar. 4. his due obedience to Constantius the fourth: and what your Ma­jesties clemency hath commanded (saith he) our seruice hath obediently performed; the Emperor being honoured according to the ancient doctrine of the Church,Tertull. ad scop. & Apo­log. cap. 30. as next to God, and inferiour to God only. But since that time, the Romish doctrine is, thatDecr. Greg. de maiorit. & obed c. solite. looke how much the Moone is lesse then the Sunne, so much is the Emperour inferiour to the Pope: and therefore they haue vvritten himCatol. test. ver. the Popes man, and made him to hold his stiroppe, and appoint him to hold the basin to him, and to doe sundry other offices of seruice. And to make al sure, the Pope hath made him to sweare fidelity and alleageance to him:Clement. de appellat. cap. Pastoralis. There is no doubt (saith the Pope) but we haue superiority ouer [Page 170] the Empire; who doubteth but that Priests are the Fathers and Masters of Kinges and Princes? Distinct. 95. quis dubitet. Distinct. 96. Si Imperator. Is it not miserable madnesse, for the children to goe about to subject their fathers, or schollers their masters? and therefore Christian Emperours must subject their executions to the Ecclesiastical Prelate, and not preferre them.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

LET it first be considered, vvhat blunt and weake tooles the poore Protestants are forced to vse, for want of better vvea­pons to vvound simple soules withal. This (and it please you) is one of their mightiest proofes for the Princes supremacy: the Em­perours some times called general Councels: ergo, they were supreme go­uernors in causes Ecclesiastical: a doubty argument, as you may per­ceiue by the like. A Lord calleth for his tenants being carpenters to build him a house; ergo, that Lord is the chiefest carpenter in the country. If that Lord be not taken for supreme judge in the carpenters occupation, though he had ful power to assemble the carpenters together; vvhy shal the Emperour be esteemed chiefe gouernour in Ecclesiastical causes, for that he hath authority to cal Ecclesiastical persons together? Againe, al men know, that Eccle­siastical persons are in al temporal causes subject vnto temporal Princes, who therefore may command them to meete together, to compose contentions risen about spiritual causes, vvhereby the temporal peace of his country is also much hindred; and this may be wel done, vvithout any pretence vnto soueraignity ouer them in spiritual matters: so that if it were graunted, that the Emperour had authority to cal general Councels, yet it vvould not follow thereof, that he were supreme head in Ecclesiastical causes; much lesse can he be taken for supreme gouernour, because the Popes gaue vnto the Emperours, the cōmon and vsual wordes of courte­sie, as M. Abbot afterward very childishly reasoneth.

But let vs come to the ground-worke of the question: I affirme then, that though Emperour or King, for the temporal command he hath ouer his spiritual subjects, may cal them together vvhen there is just cause; yet the soueraigne summoning of al Bishops & Ecclesiastical persons to a general Councel, doth not properly or principally belong to the Emperours, but vnto the chiefe Pastour among them: for very reason teacheth euery judicious man, & by induction through al societies it is most manifest, that the chiefest [Page 171] member of any corporation or assotiation, hath by instinct of na­ture, that priuiledge of calling together the rest of that cōpany and corporation; wherefore the lay Magistrate, that is no proper mem­ber of the Ecclesiastical congregation, cannot in natural reason and equity, haue that power of assembling the Clergy together. Be­sides, no Christian Emperor had euer yet so much as temporal do­minion ouer al Christendome: those Christians then that were not his subjects at al, could not be called together by his authority. That their Empire vvhen it was at the largest, vvas not so large as the bounds and limits of Christian religion, S. Leo himselfe is wit­nesse in these wordes:Sermon. 1. in Natiuit. SS. Apost. Petri, & Pauli. Rome being made head of the world by the Chaire of S. Peter, doth rule ouer more Countries by heauenly religion, then by earthly dominion. Againe, since the Emperours became Christian, not one hundred yeares together scarse, did one Emperour com­mand ouer al the Empire, but lightly one gouerned in the East, a­nother ouer the West: I would then gladly know, to whether of them it belonged to cal general Councels; or whether the Church of God must be destitute of such Councels, vntil that matter were agreed vpon? Further, the calling of national & prouincial Coun­cels, doth (according vnto S. Augustine and Antiquity,Aug. Ep. 217. Cal. lib. 4. In­stit. c. 7. n. 8. allowed therein by M. Caluin, and the great hundred ofCentur. 4. c. 7. col. 534. Magdeburge) ap­pertaine vnto the Primates and Metrapolitans of the same nation and prouince: therefore by the like proportion, it doth not apper­taine to the Emperors, but vnto the chief Patriarke of the Church, to cal a general Councel. That S. Leo, (on vvhose authority M. Abbot here doth stand) tooke S. Peter first, and after him the Bi­shops of Rome to be such, I wil briefly proue; thus he vvriteth: Out of the whole world one Peter is chosen, Serm. tert. de Assumptione sua. to haue chiefe charge of the vo­cation of the Gentils, and is placed ouer the other Apostles, and al the Fa­thers of the Church; so that albeit there be among the people of God, many Priests and many Pastours, yet doth Peter peculiarly gouerne them ouer whom Christ doth principally raigne: so that al temporal Princes, who vvil not deny Christ to raigne ouer them, must by S. Leos verdict, acknowledge themselues subject in spiritual cases, to S. Peter and his successours. The same he doth confirme at large, in an Epistle to the Bishops of the prouince of Vienna, where he concludeth in these wordes: To which S. Peter, whosoeuer doth deny the primacy, Epistola 87. he cannot in any sort diminish his dignity, but puffed vp with the spirit of [Page 172] pride, he doth drowne himselfe in the gulfe of hel. Now least any man should take exceptions against S. Peters successours the Bishops of Rome, though he vvould graunt the supremacy vnto S. Peter, I adde; that S. Leo in that second place, doth rather speake of his owne authority vnder the name of S. Peter, (impugned then by Hilarius Bishop of Vienna) then of S. Peters owne time. Yet for more cleare demonstration of it,Sermon. 2. de anniuersario. Assumptionis suae. take these his wordes: The disposi­tion and order of truth doth continue, and blessed Peter perseuering in the fortitude of a rocke, hath not forsaken the gouernement of the Church, which he vndertooke; Peter (I say) doth to this day hold on and continue stil, and liueth in his successours: which he confirmeth in an hundreth places of his Epistles, by me for breuities sake omitted, contenting my selfe vvith that which he vvriteth in one letter vnto Anastasius Bishop of the Thessalonians; to whom you shal see what authority he giues.Epist. 82. ad Anastasium. Like as (saith he) my predecessours haue giuen to your prede­cessours; euen so doe I following their example, delegate vnto your chari­ty, the roome or charge of my gouernement: that you imitating our milde­nesse, may helpe vs in the care which we owe vnto al Churches, by the insti­tution of God principally; and that you may in a sort represent the pre­sence of our visitation, vnto prouinces farre distant from the Apostolical See (of Rome.) For by reason of your nearenesse to them, you may more readily see, what matters and in what manner, either you your selfe may by your diligence compose, or else reserue vnto our judgement: vvhere going on, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers, made by the spi­rit of God (to vse his owne wordes) he giues to that Bishop of Thes­salonia, dignity and authority ouer many Metrapolitanes of di­uers prouinces, That none be chosen without his priuity, but al confirmed by his authority. Canon. 6. Item, That if among the Prelates, there happen to be question of greater affaires (which God forbidde) that cannot be ended by the prouincial Synode, the Metrapolitan shal then prouide, to instruct your brother-hood of the state of the whole businesse; and if the parties being present, it cannot be appeased by your judgement, let it whatsoeuer it be, be referred to our knowledge: Canon. 7. vvhere he giueth him Authority to cal Bi­shops before him, and a Councel also if any greater cause arise; and di­uers such other plaine and cleare markes of superiority, that euen M. Abbots badde eies may easily serue him to discerne them. Seing then S. Leo thought himselfe and his predecessours, to haue ful au­thority (and that by the holy Canons, made by diuine inspiration) [Page 173] to delegate ouer the Churches of the East (vvhere was most doubt of his authority) such power vnto others: Can it be doubted, but that he vvas most certainly perswaded, that the Bishop of Rome hath and alwaies had supreme command, in Ecclesiastical causes al the world ouer? And that you may see that S. Leo vvas not only of that opinion, but that the best & most learned of the East Church of that time, were also as fully perswaded of the Church of Romes authority ouer al the world, I wil adjoine hereunto the sentence of Theodoretus, one of the soundest Catholikes, and one of the most learned and famous authours of those daies. He being Bishop of Cyrus in Asia, doth write vnto Renatus a Priest of Rome, thus:Theodoret. Epistola 2. The Heretikes haue spoiled me of my Priestly function and seate, they haue cast me out of the citties, hauing no respect vnto my gray haires, nor regard of my time spent in religion: wherefore I pray you, that you wil perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he wil vse his Apostolike authority, and command vs to come to your Councel; for that holy See, doth hold the sterne of gouernement ouer al the Churches in the world. Another Epi­stle this holy Father did write vnto Leo himselfe, wherein he saith: I doe expect the sentence of your Apostolike See, and doe humbly beseech your Holinesse, to succour me appealing to your just judgement, &c. And that you may yet further perceiue, that S. Leo his sentence was of force to restore him, being a Bishop in Asia, to his former di­gnity and seate, these few vvordes out of the Councel of Chalce­don wil sufficiently proue: thus speaketh the Councel.Actione 1. Let the most reuerend Bishop Theodoret enter in, that he may be partner of the Councel, because the most holy Archbishop Leo, hath restored him to his Bishopricke.

Now I come to answere M. Abbots goodly proofes, and vvise glosses to the contrary: S. Leo (saith he) would not take vpon him to cal general Councels. That is false, for he did cal a general Councel in the West, witnesse these his wordes vnto Tuilius the Bishop of Asturicensis.Epistola 91. numer. 17. I haue sent letters to our bretheren and fellow Bishops of Carthage in Afrike, Tarragone, in Spaine, Portugal, and France; Eis (que) concilium Synodi generalis indiximus, And haue summoned them to meete at a general Councel. And that could not escape S. Leo his know­ledge (vvho vvas most skilful in al Antiquity) which by tradition descended vnto one of his successors Pelagius the second, who was S. Gregory the great his predecessor, to wit:Epistola 1 ad Orientales. that the authority of cal­ling [Page 174] general Councels, was through the priuiledge of S. Peter, giuen vnto the See Apostolike. But he made request (saith M. Abbot) vnto Theodo­sius first, and after vnto Martianus the Emperors, that they would com­mand a general Councel to be holden in Italy, which they would not doe, but chose rather another place. Be it so, for sometimes such mighty Monarkes take more state vpon them, then Christian dutie doth permit. And as for Theodosius the younger, though he were a good Emperour at the first, yet afterward it is euident that he assisted the Heretike Eutiches & his Patron Dioscorus too farre, in that wicked assembly at Ephesus,See Actionem primam Con­cil. Chalced. & Liberatus. cap. 12. the place by him assigned for that general Councel. The reason that moued S. Leo to request those Empe­rours to cal a Councel, was not for that he doubted of his owne au­thority therein; but for diuers other good respects. First, because (as I before signified) the Bishops to be assembled, vvere for the most part the Emperours subjects in temporal affaires, and there­fore were not vvithout his priuity, to be called so farre from their residences. And for this cause, the Kinges of euery country being aduertised by the Popes Holinesse, of a general Councel, doe to this day (as it appeared in the last general Councel of Trent) sum­mon the Bishops of their Realmes to the said general Councel, and command them to make choise of some to send thither; vvhich doth nothing derogate to the Popes general summoning. Besides, the Heretikes of those times vvould not obey the Pope, nor their lawful Pastours command, no more then these of our time: where­fore the Emperours power vvhich they dreadded, and stoode in more awe off, vvas to be joined with the Popes authority; where­fore he had good cause to request it.

Yet that the vnderstanding reader may perceiue, how S. Leo e­uen then did fore-see, that some inconuenience might happe to fol­low, of his condescending so farre vnto the Emperours pleasure, about the place and time of that Councel; he as it were to preuent it, doth yeeld his consent in such sort, that no great aduantage can be taken of it:Epist. 41. ad Martian. thus he vvriteth to the Emperour Martian. I requi­red indeede of your most gratious clemency, that the Synode which you thought necessary to be assembled, as we also required, for the restoring of vnity in the East Church, might be for a time deferred; that the mindes of men being more settled, those Bishops which for feare of enemies are staied at home, might also meete: but for that you doe zealously preferre Gods [Page 175] cause before the affaires of men, and are wisely, and Godly perswaded, that it wil further the wealth of your Empire, to haue the Priests of God in v­nity, and the Gospel preached without dissention; Ego etiam vestris dispo­sitionibus non renitor, I doe not withstand or striue against this your ordi­nance. Here you may see, that he did not yeeld vpon obedience, vnto the Emperours order, but moued vpon good consideration would not contend against it: his very wordes yet giuing, that he might haue withstoode him, if he had thought it more expedient for the common good. Againe, in his letters to the same Councel of Chalcedon he putteth in a caueat, by vvhich they might vnder­stand, that this his condescending to the Emperour, should not be taken for a prejudice against the authority of the See of Rome, for calling of Councels: these be his wordes.Epistola 45. ad Synod. Chalced. I had wished indeed (most dearely beloued) that al the Priests of God did agree in one profession of the Catholike faith, &c. but because many thinges are done, of which we of­ten repent, &c. the religious aduise of our most gratious Emperour is to be embraced, mouing your holy brother-hood to assemble your selues together, for the ouerthrowing of Sathans sleights, and for the restoring of vnity in the Church: (Beatissimi Apostoli Petri sedis jure at (que) honore seruato; the right and honour of the See of the most blessed Apostle Peter being preser­ued) inuiting vs also by his letters to assist in person at this reuerend Coun­cel, which neither the necessity of the time, nor any custome could permit; howbeit in our bretheren Paschasius and Lucentius Bishops, Bonifa­cius and Basilius Priests, your brother-hood hath me President in your Synode, &c. these wordes of S. Leo ouerthrow at once, al M. Abbots vveake forces for the Emperours supremacy. First he declareth, that he liked of the Emperours (not commandement but) counsel and aduise, of calling of a Councel; marry so to, that it be not ta­ken to derogate aught from the right & honor of the See of Rome, vvithout vvhose sentence (according to the ancient Canons) no Councel could be celebrated: then that the Emperour had no power to command him to come to that Councel: and lastly, that he in his Legates (and not the Emperour) was President in that ge­neral Councel.

But to stay yet a while in this matter of calling the Councel, for further assurance that the Popes letters and authority, did princi­pally moue al Catholike Bishops to meete in general Councels, take first their owne declaration, therof in formal tearmes: thus [Page 176] spake the Fathers assembled in the second general Councel, which vvas the first holden at Constantinople, in their letters to Pope Damasus.Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 9. By the commandement of letters sent the last yeare, by your reuerence, vnto the most royal Emperour Theodosius, we vndertooke the journey, euen to Constantinople. And in the Councel of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Maesia vvriting vnto the Emperour Leo, doe say; That many holy Bishops met together in the Citty of Chalcedon, Habetur in­ter Epistolas pertinētes ad Concil. Chal. Per jussionem Leonis Romani Pontificis, qui verè caput est Episcoporum; By the commandement of Leo Bishop of Rome, who is truly the head of Bi­shops. Ioyne hereto the testification of the Emperour Martianus himselfe, being one of M. Abbots owne witnesses: thus writeth that Godly Emperour.In Epist. eius praefixa Con­cil. Chalced. ad Leon. Pōt. Being called by the prouidence of God to the Em­pire, &c. we for the venerable Catholike religion of the Christian faith, &c. haue thought good in the beginning thereof, to speake by our letters to your Holinesse (who hold the principality in the Bishoply function of the same Godly faith,) requesting your Holinesse, to remember in your praiers the good estate of our Empire: and that also for the extirpation of al wicked errour, we may fully purpose to restore vnity and concord among al Catho­like Bishops, in celebrating of a Councel, (Te authore) by your authority, or you being the Authour thereof. What can be more manifest, then that this most Godly Emperour did agnize and confesse, the prin­cipal authority of calling general Councels, to appertaine vnto the Bishop of Rome? whom he professed also, to be the supreme Pa­stour of the vniuersal Church: to whom afterward he sent the same Councel when it was ended, to haue his confirmation of it, as you shal heare anone.Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Zoz [...]m. l. 3. cap. 9. Tripart. l. 4. cap. 9. Niceph. l. 9. cap. 5. Al which is exceedingly fortified by an ancient Canon of the Church, vrged by Pope Iulius (vvho liued an hun­dred yeares before S. Leo) and is recorded by al the approued Ec­clesi [...]stical Historiographers, for a most ancient and inuiolable rule in Christian religion, to wit: that no general Councel be holden, Prae­ter sententiam Romani Pontificis; besides or without the consent and sen­tence of the Bishop of Rome: thus farre about the authority of calling general Councels.

Now to that which followeth in M. Abbot, Who was President in those general Councels. M. Abbot affirmeth the Emperor to haue the Presidency thereof, and for proofe alleageth only the example of Constantius the fourth: Who (saith he) was President of the sixt Synode holden in Trullo. To which I answere, that the penurious man shew­eth [Page 177] himselfe very naked and needy of some proofes, that is com­pelled to ouer-leape fiue of the first general Councels, and to fal to the yeare 675. after Christ, before he can finde out one Emperour that did obtaine the name of President in a Councel. To vvhich also I picke an answere, out of the Epistle of the Chalcedon Coun­cel (vvhich vvas more then two hundred yeares ancienter then the other) vnto Pope Leo: thus it is there. Quibus tu quidem vt caput praeeras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem: Imperatores verò decentissi­mi ad ornandum praesidebant, &c. Ouer which Bishops there assembled thou (ô Leo) wast (by them that held thy ranke) President, as the head is to the rest of the members, &c. but the Emperours were Presidents most comely, to adorne that assembly. Where you see two kinde of Presi­dents in the Councel: the Pope in his Legates, as the head is ouer the members; the Emperour to honour and grace the Assembly: And therefore to the Popes Legates it did appertaine principally, to propose, argue, determine, and define the questions there deba­ted & discussed; to vvhich also they did set their handes in the first place; To the Emperor it did belong, to see due order kept in the Councel, vvhere vvere many vvily and vnruly Heretikes, that al thinges might be examined quietly, and without perturbation or tumult determined: who also in the end subscribed after al the Bi­shops and their Substitutes, consentiens, consenting, imbracing, and approuing the same; not determining or defining, as may be seene in the 18. Action of the said sixt general Councel, cited by M. Abbot.

To make this distinction more perspicuous and certaine, let vs heare some Emperours of those daies, declare themselues vvhat they did at those general Councels. Theodosius the younger, sent (for his Legate) vnto the third general councel holden at Ephesus, the Earle Candidianus: vvhat? to be President there in his place? nothing lesse, no not so much as to entermeddle in any Ecclesiasti­cal matters, but only ad Synodi defensionem, to defend the Councel. Ex eius E­pist. ad Sy­nod. Ephes. In oratione sua ad Sy­nodum. The Emperour Martianus was present in his owne person, at the fourth Councel kept at Chalcedon, where he sheweth what is the proper office of a good Emperour: Our endeauour must be (saith he) to apply the people to the one right Church, being first perswaded the true and holy doctrine; And therefore let your reuerences, expound and declare the true and Catholike faith, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, in al vnity [Page 178] and concord, &c. Valentinian the elder, being requested to be pre­sent at a Councel holden betweene the Catholikes and the Arrians. answered:Hist. 1. Tri­part. lib. 7. cap. 12. That it was not lawful for him being but a lay person, to ex­amine Ecclesiastical matters; but the Priests to whom they did belong, might meete together among themselues when they pleased, and determine of them. Of Constantine the great I shal speake more at large pre­sently. This therefore may suffice, to satisfie any indifferent rea­der, how the first Christian Emperours were Presidents at Coun­cels: that is (as may be gathered out of their owne wordes) first to honour that assembly with their presence; then to see that al things there be peacibly and orderly handled; thirdly, to learne the true Catholike faith, by the definitions of those learned Bishops there assembled; fourthly, to recommend the same to al their faithful subjects; and lastly to defend it against al obstinate Heretikes. Al vvhich put together, doth not come neare any probable proofe, that they are supreme gouernours in Ecclesiastical matters, but ra­ther that they are in them to be gouerned: For they neither argue, determine, nor define them; but only doe receiue, approue, and defend them, being before decided and defined by the Fathers as­sembled in the Councel, by the Bishop of Rome. Indeede Constan­tius an Arrian Emperour, vvas perswaded by the Arrians, to take vpon him the supreme judgement in Ecclesiastical causes; but he vvas very sharply reprehended therefore, by that most valiant champion of Christs Church, Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria: If (saith he) the judgement of these matters belong to Bishops, In Epist. ad Solitar. vi­tam agentes. what hath the Emperour to entermeddle with them? vvhere he relateth what that blessed Father Hosius (vvho was Pope Siluesters chiefe Legate in the first Councel of Nice) spoke of that vsurpation of Constantius: Who (saith he) seing the Emperour, Ibidem prope finem. in decreeing to make himselfe Prince of the Bishops, and President ouer their Ecclesiastical judgements, may not worthily affirme him to be that abhomination of desolation, which is fore­told of Daniel? In a word then, the Protestants treading in the steps of the condemned Arrians, vvould haue the lay Magistrates such Presidēts of Councels, as haue supreme authority ouer the Bishops judgements: vvhich we Roman Catholikes, with the consent of al ancient and holy, both Bishops and Emperours, doe thinke to be very preposterous, incommodious, and intollerable.

Now to that trash, vvhich M. Abbot chops in by the way, by [Page 179] broken and halfe sentences: the same Leo (saith he) professeth his o­bedience to the Emperours appointment and wil, to Theodosius and Mar­tianus; for proofe he quoteth Leo: vvhere we may gather, that a false marchants fingers are to be looked vnto. For in the first place there is expresse signification of S. Leo, Epist. 16. & 17. not fulfilling the Emperour Theodosius request, vvhich was to haue him present at the second Councel of Ephesus; and there was no reason for it: these be his owne wordes. Albeit no reason doth permit me, Epistola Leon. 16. t [...] meete at the Episco­pal Councel appointed by your piety, because I haue no president for it, by the example of any of my predecessours, and the necessity of the time wil not suffer me to leaue the citty, &c. yet so farre forth as our Lord wil vouchsafe to helpe, I haue applied my endeauour, that the decree of your clemency may in some sort be obeied, by sending hence some of my brethren, who shal supply my place, &c. Doe you see what profession of obe­dience S. Leo made to the Emperour Theodosius, vvhom he telleth plainly, that no reason vvil permit him to obey his appointment and vvil? Is not this trow you honest dealing? deserues not this man to be wel credited, vvhen he citeth the Fathers, vvhen as he blusheth not to alleage them, and to quote the place distinctly, vvhich if you wil but turne vnto, you shal finde him to be a man that hath a seared conscience, and cares not what he saith, so he may deceiue his simple reader? Now to the second place: there indeede S. Leo hath, that the Emperours piety, and most religious wil, Epistola 57. is to be obeied by al meanes; but he doth not make profession of his owne o­bedience to the Emperour, but speaketh indefinitely, obediendum est: and that not to his appointment and wil, as M. Abbot fableth; but vnto his Godly and most religious wil, that is, vvhen he commandeth or desireth any thing according vnto the wil of God. Now if you wil but looke into the circumstances of this obedience, you shal yet further discouer the deceit of M. Abbot; for the Emperour Mar­tianus did write vnto Pope Leo, that he would confirme the Coun­cel of Chalcedon with his owne sentence, vvhich was before sub­signed by his Legates present thereat, and that in the first place: the Emperour being perswaded, (as it is set downe in the same E­pistle) that the Councel should haue greater force, to suppresse al Here­tikes, if it might be taught throughout al Churches, that the definition there of did please the See Apostolike. Here you may see, that the Empe­rour demanded no obedience of S. Leo, but shewed himselfe to [Page 180] haue so great opinion of his judgement & authority, that it would greatly countenance, and commend that general Councel, which vvas by al the Bishops, and the Emperour himselfe before subsi­gned. A reasonable man can desire no more, to proue S. Leo his supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, then the testimony of this god­ly Emperour Martianus. Tom. 1. Con­cil. in Prolog. Concil. Chal. epist. 1. Mar­tian. ad Leo. For first he acknowledgeth him to hold the principality among al Bishops. Secondly, he acknowledgeth him to be the authour of calling general Councels: these two points haue beene before rehearsed. Thirdly he promiseth S. Leo, to assemble the Bishops of the East, that they might declare those thinges that be agreable vnto the Catholike faith, and Christian religion, euen as your Holinesse hath according vnto the Ecclesiastical Canons defined: Ibid. epist. 2. Sicut sanctitas tua secundum Ecclesiastic as regulas definiuit. And last­ly al thinges being so defined, he doth send vnto S. Leo to confirme the general Councel. Doth not this acknowledgement of the Em­perour (that the Pope is the authour of calling general Councels, that he is to direct and instruct them assembled, what they are to define, and lastly to confirme and ratifie that which is defined) euidently proue, that the supreme managing and authorising of the highest Ecclesiastical affaires, doe belong vnto the Bishop of Rome?

Now to returne to M. Abbot; he shewes the like wordes of Pope Agatho his due obedience to Constantius the fourth. I finde no such wordes in that place quoted by him: true it is, that I haue not his whole letter, but the abridgment of it as is standes in the Summe of the Councels;Epist Agath. ad Constant. in Synod. 6. art. 4. where he thus beginneth. That we may briefly inti­mate to your piety, what the vigour of our Apostolike faith doth containe, which we haue receiued by tradition from the Apostles, Apostolike Bishops, and holy Councels, by which the foundations of the Catholike Church of Christ, are fastned and fortified, &c. Out of which wordes we may gather, that Pope Agatho was ready to satisfie the Emperours re­quest, in certifying and instructing him, vvhat was the true Apo­stolike faith, about the questions then handled. But forsooth, be­cause he did (belike) vse these curteous vvordes of obedience, M. A [...]bot that lieth at the catch and wants better stuffe, is constrained to lay hold on them: by which manner of arguing he might proue, euery Pope to professe due obedience to euery priuate seruant of God, because his ordinary stile is; Seruus seruorum Dei, The ser­uant of Gods seruants. Now if one had so little wit, as hence to argue [Page 181] and gather, that the Pope professed obedience, or were inferiour to al other seruants of God, (for if he be their seruant he is bound to obey them:) would not al the vvorld wonder at his folly? And yet this admirable combatant and champion of the host of Ismael, is faine to fly to the like miserable shifts, and to imploy perforce, vvordes that are vttered of custome and curtesie in al Countries, for sound proofes. If al Italians and French men, that vvil say they are your seruants; Seruitore di vostre Signoria: Monsieur je suis vostre treshumble seruiteur; should be taken short at his word, and thereby be pressed to your obedience & seruice, you might soone become a great Signiour ouer many stately seruants, that vvould doe what they list. But that you may see, how M. Abbot can scarsly borrow one weapon out of the true armory of Antiquiry, vvhich vvil not serue to wound himselfe, I wil here acquaint you, vvith some wordes out of the very same Epistle, of Pope Agatho to the Emperour Constantius the fourth; vvhich doe demonstrate the Church of Rome neuer to faile in matter of faith.

Did you marke before in those few wordes, how he esteemed A­postolike tradition, and the definitions of Councels, and of the See Aposto­like, to be the firme foundation of the Church of Christ; which alone is sufficient to batter and beate flat to the earth, that chiefe fortresse of the Protestants, of the al-sufficiency of the vvritten word: then ha­uing deliuered the true faith of the blessed Trinity, he annexeth these wordes. This is the Apostolical and Euangelical Tradition, which the Apostolike Church of God (the Mother of your most happy Empire) doth hold: this is the pure confession of piety: this is the rule of the true faith, holden aswel in prosperity as in aduersity by the Apostolike Church of Christ; which is proued by Gods grace neuer to haue straied from the path of Apostolical Tradition, nor euer was corrupted with Heretical no­uelties, because it was said to Peter: I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not; and thou being conuerted, confirme thy brethren. Here our Lord promised, that the faith of Peter should not faile, and willed him to confirme his brethren: which the Bishops my predecessours, as is wel knowne to al men, haue alwaies done confidently; and I though much inferiour to them, yet for the person that by Gods goodnesse I sustaine, doe desire to follow them at the heeles: this out of Pope Agatho by the way, in fauour of our cause, because M. Abbot would haue gladly beg­ged an almesse of him, to relieue his miserable want.

Now that which followeth in him out of Tertullian: That the Em­peror is honoured according to the ancient doctrine of the Church, as next vnto God, & inferiour vnto God only. If the good man would haue be­thought himselfe a little, vvhat kinde of men the Emperours were in Tertullians time, and before; he vvould not (I thinke) for very shame, haue once offered to proue those Emperours supreme au­thority in causes Ecclesiastical: for they were al of them Heathen Idolaters, and professed enemies to the Christian religion. If then they vvere next vnder God supreme gouernours of Ecclesiastical causes, it would follow thereof (see the good effect of M. Abbots ar­gument) that the Christian religion vvas to be forsaken of al men, and Idolatry to haue beene imbraced: for that was these Emperors supreme judgement in spiritual matters. What meant M. Abbots (a Gods name) to perswade Christians, that Heathen and Idola­trous Emperours (such as those were in Tertullians time) vvere to be honoured & followed in matter of religion, before Bishops and Archbishops, and next vnto God? If those be Tertullians wordes, euery man can apply them better then M. Abbot doth, to wit: that Emperours in temporal causes, and in the ciuil gouernement of the common weale, are vnder no man, but next vnto God; but in Ec­clesiastical causes those Emperours had nothing at al to doe.

Now to those wordes which he proposeth as very odious: That how much the Moone is lesse then the Sunne, so much is the Emperour in­ferior to the Pope. They be not precisely the wordes of the Canon, but these: That how much difference there is betweene the Sunne and the Moone, so much is there betweene Bishops and Kinges. The sence he doth not much alter, but only sets it out more disdainfully; vve allow of the sence being rightly taken, to wit, that the authority of Bishops, is properly to be compared to the brightnesse of the Sunne, because it is wholy conuersant in spiritual causes, vvhich depend vpon the brightnesse and light of faith, and doe formally appertaine to the heauenly Kingdome of the Sunne Christ Iesus: Now who sees not, that the Emperours power being properly to gouerne the temporal state, by the light of natural reason (which is very dimme and obscure, if it be conferred vnto the light of grace) may aptly be resembled to the Moone light; the light of heauenly affaires, as farre passing in clearenesse the light of vvorldly busi­nesses, as doth the brightnesse of the Sunne at noone daies, passe [Page 183] the Moone-shine at mid-night? Now if vve would search higher towards the most pure Antiquity, we shal finde farre greater com­parisons betweene the spiritual power of Bishops, and the tempo­ral of Emperours: I vvil for a tast, cite only the sentences of two most authentike Doctors. S. Ambrose an ancient and most graue Father, saith: Bretheren, the honour and sublimity of a Bishop, Ambros. initio sui Pastor. ci­tatur dist. 96. cap. Si duo. Greg. Oratio. ad populum perturb. cannot be equalled with any comparison. The Majesty of Kinges, and Diademes of Princes, if they be compared to it, are farre more inferiour, then if the met­tal of leade should be compered with gold. And S. Gregory Nazianzene maketh no lesse difference betweene them two, then there is be­tweene the soule & the body, the spiritual power of Bishops, as much in his judgement, excelling that of Princes, as the soule in dignity doth surmount the body: so that the Popes comparison (alleaged by M. Abbot) is very temperate, in respect of these of the auncient Fathers, vvhich notwithstanding vvere made vpon great judge­ment.

The lies and toies that ensue in M. Abbots text, are not worth the answering. First,Catal. Testiū. he that reportes the Emperour to be the Popes man, is an heretical and lying companion; and therefore no suffi­cient vvitnesse. Secondly, if any Emperour or King, out of his owne profound humility, or aboundance of zeale towardes his spiritual Pastour, would of himselfe doe any such lowly seruice, as to hold the basin, &c. that is not to be imputed to him that suffereth it against his wil, as a marke of pride. To say that any Emperour or King, contrary to his wil was enforced to doe it, is a very fitten, as euery child may perceiue: for who either would or could force so mighty a Monarke, to so base a seruice, vnlesse he himselfe desi­red it? As for that oath of fidelity, vvhich the Emperour maketh to the Popes Holinesse, I finde it not either in the 69. or 96. Distin­ction, but in the 63 and it is only: that the Emperour shal not doe any harme, vnto the Popes temporal state in Italy; and if he chance to come to Rome, that be then shal carry to him and the Church of Rome, such respect as is meete. I vvould gladly be informed what alleageance may be picked out of this, and whether it be not expedient, (the Emperor being to be confirmed by the Pope) that he should take such an oath of him for his owne safety. The next text cited out of the Clementine, De appellatione, is a meere fiction:Can. Pastor. for there is no such chapter nor matter. That Priests be spiritual Fathers and Masters, [Page 184] in matters of religion, to Kinges and Princes, vvho can doubt, vn­lesse they vvould haue Kinges, neither baptized nor instructed in Christian religion by Priests? And let the Protestants paint it out al they can, a monstrous thing it must needes appeare vnto al men of vpright judgement, and the Christian world to be there turned topsy and turuy, where children shal take vpon them to rule their fathers, and schollers to teach their masters. Thus much in answere vnto al that is objected out of S. Leo: to vvhich I wil joine that, vvhich M. Abbot in another place pleadeth for the same matter, out of the example of Constantine the great; because it doth principally ap­pertaine thereunto.

I hauing in my Epistle to his Majesty said, that he being at the Councel of Nice, would not sit downe before the Bishops beckned to him so to doe; and that he there did professe, that it did not be­long to him to judge of Bishops, but vvas rather to be judged of them: M. Abbot answereth (cleane contrary to the Emperours o­pen confession) that he was judge ouer the same Bishops. Page 191. Whether wil you beleeue sooner, either the Emperour speaking for himself, or M. Abbot speaking he knowes not vvhat of his secret thoughts and intentions? specially when that which I affirmed of the Empe­rour hath plaine testimony out of the best approued Authors, nea­rest to that time; and M. Abbots proofes to the contrary doe consist meerely vpon his owne surmises and collections.Ruffi. lib. 1. hist. cap. 2. Socrat. lib. 1. hist. cap. 5. Ruffinus and So­crates I then cited, who in expresse tearmes deliuered so much as I said: to whom I adde for further cōfirmation, first the irrefragable record of the most famous Doctors, that were present at the same Councel. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, the Popes princi­pal Legate in that Councel of Nice, affirmeth as is afore rehearsed; that one may worthily cal that Emperour the abhomination of desolation, fore-told by Daniël, who presumeth to make himselfe Prince of Bishops, and President ouer Ecclesiastical causes: vvhich he would not haue done, if he had beene perswaded, that the Emperour Constantine (vvhom he tooke to be a most vertuous Prince) had beene judge ouer Bishops, & their spiritual causes in that very Councel, where he vvas there also present. Secondly, Athanasius who was a prin­cipal agent in the same Councel, auoucheth: that it cannot be cal­led a Synode and Councel,Apolog. 2. Where not a Bishop, but some temporal Magistrate is President. He then tooke not Constantine for President [Page 185] of the Nicene Councel, which he esteemed so highly off, and vvas indeede the patterne of al other Councels. Thirdly, S. Ambrose vvho liued shortly after, in formal tearmes doth say: that Constan­tine the great, was not judge in the Councel of Nice, but left the judge­ment free to Bishops. And writing vnto the Emperour Valentinian, addeth: When haue you heard most gratious Emperour, Ambros. l. 5. Epist. 32. that lay men did judge ouer Bishops in cases of faith? surely if your Majesty please to per­vse the course of holy Scriptures, or of former times, you shal find none that deny but in matters of faith, in matters I say of faith, Bishops were wont to judge ouer Emperours, not Emperours ouer Bishops. S. Gregory the great in expresse wordes vvitnesseth,L. 4. epist. 31. That the Emperour Con­stantine durst not judge Bishops though they themselues wished and desi­red it. By the record therefore, of these most ancient, holy, and learned Prelates, neither Constantine the great, nor any other Catho­like Emperour, was or could be judge in Ecclesiastical affaires o­uer Bishops: vvhence it followeth most perspicuously, that Con­stantines owne wordes (confessing that it did not belong to him to judge Bishops and their causes) are to be taken plainly as they si­gnifie, and vvere not spoken by him (as M. Abbot speaking by ghesse affirmeth) of modesty only, as though he meant himselfe to be their judge, in al causes aswel Ecclesiastical as Temporal. But let vs heare what moued M. Abbot to hold that strange opinion, so contrary to the Emperours owne confession, and the declaration of the worthiest men of that age. His first conjecture is, that though Constantine sate not downe vntil the Bishops beckned on him; yet he sate in the highest place, on a seate of gold: vvhich if it were true,Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 10. as it is false, yet vvould it not proue Constantine to be the President or Iudge of that assembly. For as Theodoret doth expresly note, the place that he there had, vvas by permission of the Bishops at his sute, and not properly belonging to him; these be his vvordes. Then the Emperour sate downe, Theodor. l. 1. histor. cap. 7. in a little chaire set in the middest (istud enim sibi permitti ab Episcopis postulauerat) for he had requested the Bi­shops to permit him so to doe. It being then a place by permission of the Bishops, it rather argueth that he acknowledged the Bishops of vvhom he requested that place, to haue beene the Presidents and commanders there. Secondly, the Tripartite Hystorie doth manifestly declare, that Constantine sate below the Bishops:Lib. 2. Hyst. Tripar. ca. 5. these be the wordes taken out of Zozomenus. The Emperour Constantine [Page 186] entred into the Councel house after al the Bishops, and had his seate be­neath them al, neither would he sit downe before the Bishops commanded him. Theodor. l. 1. Histor. cap. 7. And the wordes of Theodoret may also import as much: He sate in a little seate, placed in the middest amongst them. And falsly or craftily, doth M. Abbot report out of Eusebius; That he sate in the highest place: for Eusebius saith not so; but that passing through the middest of the assembly, he came to the vppermost place of it, where he stood on his feete; and when a little seate of gold was set for him, he would not sit downe, before the Bishops beckned to him so to doe. Where Eusebius saith indeede, that he passed vnto the vppermost end of the Hal; but doth not say, that vvhen he came thither he was placed in the highest seate: and one may wel sit in the highest end of a large Hal, and not in the highest place thereof. But in the vppermost part of the Hal, a little chaire vvas placed for him, beneath the benches whereon the Presidents of the Councel, and chiefest Patriarks did sit: for so the other Ecclesiastical historiographers doe intimate. Further, hauing after one of the Bishops, made an Oration to the Councel,Ibidem. As a most louing Sonne vnto the Bishops and Priests his Fathers, as Theodoret vvriteth: not as a President of a Councel to his inferi­ours.Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 13. Moreouer, hauing finished his said speech, Sermonem omnem Concilij Praesidijs reliquit (as testifieth Eusebius) he left al the commu­nication and discussings of matters, vnto the Presidents of the Councel. Out of vvhich vvordes we gather euidently, that the Emperour was not the President of the Councel, but there were other Presi­dents thereof, vnto vvhom the Emperour referred the decision of the questions then in controuersie. Finally, the Emperour Bazi­lius deliuereth in the end of the eight general Councel, That Con­stantine subscribed the Councel, after al the Bishops there assembled; vvhereas the President and chiefe Iudge of the Councel, subscri­beth in the first place. Seing then that Constantine the great confes­sed, that it appertained not to him to judge Bishops, but to be judged of them; and that therein he is seconded by Hosius, Atha­nasius, S. Ambrose, and others, al most ancient and renowmed Pre­lates of Christes Church; And being most probable, that he had no place in that Councel, but by permission of the Bishops, at whose beck he sate downe, in a little seate a part, and did not speake to them, in other manner then a child doth to his Father, leauing vnto the Presidents of the Councel, the discussion of the matters [Page 187] there proposed: what vpright weigher of such serious affaires can doubt, but that he was nothing lesse then the chiefe President and moderator there? True it is, that he out of his owne zeale & graue vvisdome, did first attentiuely heare them, then sometimes spake himself specially to appease the contentious wranglings of the Ar­rian Heretikes, and their fauourites of whom many were there pre­sent, and the ouer forward and feruent zeale of some Catholikes: but this argueth no superintēdency or presidency, but only Chri­stian discretion and charity, to helpe forward an orderly exami­nation, and peacible determination of those controuersies. But (saith M. Abbot) the Bishops acknowledged him to be their supreme judge, in that they referred their controuersies and quarrels to be ended by him. Nothing lesse; for vve referre many babling matters, to be ended vnto our honest neighbours: And as M. Abbot himselfe re­hearseth out of Eusebius, about the Bishops of Aegipt, That Con­stantine interposed himselfe as an arbitratour of their controuersies, not as Iudge; euen so did some of the Councel referre their quarrels to him as an Arbitratour. And most like that they who so did, vvere vnruly Arrians or very vndiscreete Catholikes: whereof who but an indiscreet person or wrangling Heretike can take hold? Againe, vvhere Eusebius reporteth, that Constantine did as an arbitratour, seeke to make attonement betweene the Aegiptian Prelates, he addeth: that he did it with very great respect: Eos vt Patres, imò vt Dei Prophe­tas omnino honorifice reuerens; Reuerencing them very honourably as his Fathers, yea more, as the Prophets of God; not domineering ouer them as his inferiours: and prescribed to them some such thing, as did belong to the good of Gods Church, to wit, that they would leaue off their dis­sention, and quietly obey vnto the decrees of the Nicene Councel.

Lastly, M. Abbot perceiuing very wel that he had hitherto but trifled, and spoken little to the purpose, he addeth: And that M. Bishop may know, that Constantine held himselfe the supreme judge ouer Bishops, let him heare Constantine himselfe concerning them. Theodor. lib. 10. cap. 19. If we haue holy Bishops of right beliefe, and men indued with humanity, we shal be gladde; but if any audaciously and vnaduisedly, shal grow vnto the commending of those pestilent heresies, his insolency shal be repressed by the execution of Gods seruant, euen by me. These vvordes of the Em­perour, (supposing them for the time to be spoken to Bishops) though they come nearer to a probable shew of some kinde of su­premacy, [Page 188] then his sitting in the vpper end of the Hal in a golden Chaire, and his curteous exhortation to peace, and now and then helping out this man or that man with his matter; yet doe they not reach home. For the execution of punishment inflicted vpon Bi­shops, by the decree of Councels or the Ecclesiastcal Canons, may be, and to this day is committed vnto the lay Magistrate, without any feare of making him thereby the supreme judge in causes Ec­clesiastical: It rather proues him to be the minister or seruant of the Church in those cases. But what wil you say, if those threats of the Emperors were not giuen out against Bishops or any Clergy-men at al, but only against lay-men? then M. Abbot must needs confesse, that he giues not M. Bishop to vnderstand, that the Emperor is supreme judge ouer Bishops, but that M. Abbot is one of the most audacious, perfidious, and cosening vvriters that euer set pen to paper; vvho blusheth not, euen thereto vaunt of his forces, and to assure euen his aduersary of an inuincible argument, where is no shadow in the world of any probable proofe for his part: let any ind [...]fferent man but turne to the place, and he shal finde without any doubt, those vvordes of threat to be spoken only to the cittizens of Nicomedia. Their Bishop Eusebius, and Theognis Bishop of Nicea, were (for being though wily, yet obstinate Arrians) by the decree of the Ni­cene Councel deposed from their Bishopricks, and other chosen in their places: wherevpon the most Christian and wise Emperor, vvriteth vnto his subjects the cittizens of Nicomedia (vvhom he heard to be too much addicted to their Arrian Bishop and his here­sies) to beware of him; and hauing touched his faults, and just pu­nishment inflicted vpon him therefore by the Councel, cōmeth to the wordes which M. Abbot peruerteth. The wordes of the Empe­rour are these: I am vestrum est, ea fide in Deum aciem mentis vestiae in­tendere, in qua vos semper mansisse constat, &c. Now it is your parts (O yee cittizens of Nicomedia) to serue God in that faith, in which you haue alwaies continued, and to performe al offices of Godlinesse. And if it so happen, that we may alwaies haue Bishops excelling in integrity of life, in sound doctrine and charity towardes al, we ought truly to rejoice: but if any man among you, be so hardy and audacious, that he shal enterprise to commend and praise those plagues of the Church (Eusebius & Theognis) his insolency shal presently be punished, by the worke and diligence of Gods seruant, euen by me. This is vvord for word out of the Authour: so [Page 189] that the Emperours threat of punishment, was only to the citizens of Nicomedia, not to any Bishop or Clergy-man. Which if it be compared with M. Abbots corruption, either you must take him for a very grosse pate and more then poore-blinde, that could not discerne to whom, or of whom the Emperour spoke; or else so fer­uently set to deceiue others, that he cared not to straine courtesie with his Authours, and to belie them a little, so that he might for a vvhile, til it were discouered, be taken for one that had found out some special proofe, that made much to the purpose.

ROBERT ABBOT. Page 192.

THEREFORE Constantine accepted of Appeales, vvhen they were made to him from the judgement of Bishops, and either heard matters himselfe, or appointed those that should heare them; And so we find that Foelix a Bishop,August. E­pist 162. By the commandement of the same Emperour, had his cause heard, and was acquited before his Proconsul or Lieutenant. And where the Donatists said, That a Bishop should not haue his purgation before the Lieutenant, S. Augustine answereth: As if (saith he) the Bishop himselfe had so taken course for himselfe, and the Emperour had not commanded that the matter should be inquired off, to whose charge (whereof he was to giue account to God) that matter did spe­cially belong. And so doth he send for the Bishops, Socrat. lib. 1. Hist. cap. 22. Zozom. lib. 2. cap. 27. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 2. that by his comman­dement were assembled in a Councel at Tyrus, to giue account to him, of that they had done there, and in his hearing to shew him, how truly and sincerely they had carried themselues in their judgement: whereby as by many other arguments, it is manifest to al men, that Constantine held himself to haue a supremacy ouer Bishops, and to be Iudge of their judgements, and that M. Bishop seeketh meerely to abuse his Ma­jesty, in alleaging the example of Constantine against him.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

LIKE vvil to like quoth the Deuil to the Colliar, as it is in our old Adage. M. Abbot is so blindly bent to his errours, that for vvant of more worthy Presidents, he wil not sticke to flie for suc­cour, to both Donatists and Arrians, old rotten and reprobate He­retikes. Who were they that appealed from the judgement of Bi­shops, to the Emperour Constantine? vvere they honest Godly men, whose example a good Christian may follow? nothing lesse. Heare S. Augustine, August. E­pist. 166. out of whom you craftily cul certaine wordes to deceiue your reader. Your Ancestours (saith S. Augustine to the [Page 190] Donatists) brought the cause of Cecilianus before the Emperour Con­stantine: put vs to proofe of this, and vnlesse we proue it doe with vs what you can. The Donatists then, were the men that appealed from the Bishops judgements to the Emperour: but though they vvere o­therwise wicked Heretikes, yet in this point perhaps they did not amisse saith M. Abbot, a deare child of the Donatist. Yes marry did they: witnesse first Constantine himselfe, who hearing of the Dona­tists appeale, was maruailously moued with it, as testifieth Optatus Bishop of Mileuitan, that liued in the middest of them; these be his wordes:Lib. 1. cont. Parmen. Donate the fire of the Donatists, thought good to appeale from Bishops to the Emperor, &c. to which appeale the Emperor Constantine answereth thus. O rabida furoris audacia, sicut in casu Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem apposuerunt! O madde pange of fury, they haue put in an appeale, as the Heathens are wont to doe! Obserue how this good Emperor liked of their appeale, esteeming them madde men and like to the Pagans, that did make it. Another vvitnesse shal be S. Augustine, and in that very Epistle out of which M. Ab­bot doth sucke his poison: for he doth most sincerely deliuer the whole circumstance of this matter;Epist. 162. these be his wordes. Constan­tine the Emperour gaue the Donatists another hearing or judgement at Arles in France; not that it was then needeful, but condescending to their peruerse stubbornesse, and coueting by al meanes to suppresse their impu­dency. Neither durst the good Emperour so admit of their seditious & false complaints, that he himselfe would judge of the sentence of those Bi­shops, who sate at Rome; but assigned them other Bishops (as I said) from whom they yet againe appealed to the Emperour himselfe: Wherein how be detested them you haue heard, and I would to God they had at last, vpon his judgement made an end of their most outragious animosities. And as he yeelded to them so farre forth, as to judge of that cause af­ter the Bishops (a sacris Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, minding afterwardes to aske pardon of the holy Bishops; because he did it that the Donatists might haue no excuse left them, if they did not obey vnto his sen­tence, vnto whom they themselues appealed) so they would once at the lenght yeeld to the truth. There you see first, how the Donatists con­trary to law and custome, appealed to the Emperor: which S. Au­gustine doth in other places also most formally teach. Secondly, that the Emperour did vehemently dislike of their appeale, and put it off from himself to Bishops, of whose causes and after whom, [Page 191] he knew & did professe, that it did not appertaine to him to judge: Yet finally, to stoppe the impudent mouthes of the Donatists, and to leaue them cleane vvithout al excuse of their obstinate stubbor­nesse, he cōdescended to heare the cause himselfe after the Bishops; not that he thought himselfe to haue any right so to doe, but mea­ning to craue pardon of the sacred Bishops, for that he had inter­medled in their matters, further then he ought to haue done. Al this is taken out of S. Augustine vvord by word, in that very place vvhich M. Abbot alleageth for himselfe. Is not he then a very con­scienslesse, and most perfidious man, that would thus vnder the co­lour of some broken wordes, beare his reader in hand, that the Em­perour Constantine tooke himselfe in his owne right, to be the su­preme judge of Bishops, and that euen by the testimony of S. Au­gustine, who so plainly in the same place relateth the cleane contra­ry? But Foelix (saith he) a Bishop, by the commandement of the same Emperour, had his cause heard, and was acquited before his Lieutenant. True, but how came it to passe, that the good Bishop was cōuented before them? not by any his owne seeking or liking, but through the most important sute of the Donatists,August. ibid. & Epist. 166 Qui quotidianis interpella­tionibus, taedium Imperatori fecerunt, dicentes illum esse traditorem: Who with their daily out cries, were tedious to the Emperour, affirming Foelix to be a traitour. Whereupon, because the Donatists would not ad­mit of any ordinary judge of Bishops, vvithin or without Afrike, the innocent Bishop was content to referre his cause to be heard by any vvhomsoeuer; for so it followeth in the very next vvordes of that same Epistle of S. Augustine. For they (that is the Donatists) had made the Emperour arbitrator, and judge of that cause, who first sued to him, afterwardes appealed vnto him, and yet in the end would not stand to his judgements; but seing that he gaue sentence against them, they like frantike fellowes, cried out against the same as vnlawful, which vvas their owne seeking, and then affirmed contrary to their for­mer opinion and practise, that a Bishop was not to haue his trial and purgation before a secular Iudge. Whereupon S. Augustine inferreth: If he be blame-worthy, whom a temporal Iudge acquited, when he himselfe sought after no such Iudge; how much more are they to be blamed, who would needes haue an earthly King to be judge of their cause? Iudex eli­gitur Imperator: The Emperour was by the Donatists chosen for their Iudge, but the Emperour giuing sentence against them, he was by them [Page 192] condemned: thus S. Augustine. Are not these shuttle and giddy hea­ded Heretikes, sure cardes for M. Abbot to build the Princes supre­macy vpon? a sandy and slippery foundation, yet meete for such a peece of worke. But S. Augustine doth say, That the Emperour cau­sed the matter to be diligently enquired of, to whose charge (whereof he was to giue account to God) that matter did specially belong. I answere, that the Emperour hauing taken the matter into his handes, by the importunate sute of the Donatists, and by the consent of the other party, was afterwardes bound in honour and conscience, to see it throughly sifted out, and most vprightly determined. But this furthereth nothing M. Abbots pretence of the Emperours suprema­cy; vvhen first the Emperour himselfe acknowledgeth most inge­niously and perspicuously, that he judgeth in such cases against his wil, and as it were vnder the correction of the Bishops. And S. Au­gustine as manifestly teacheth; that neither Foelix nor any other Catholike Bishop, required the Emperour for their judge of their owne free choise, but that being thereunto constrained by the im­pudency and head-strong wilfulnesse of the Donatists, who would be judged by no other: Neither yet vvould they finally yeelde to the Emperours owne judgement, which they so earnestly sued for, against the Canons of the Church. Were not these head-strong Donatists a most perfect patterne of heretical obstinacy, and fit men to be propounded for an example to follow by M. Abbot? if any man desire to see more of S. Augustines minde in this matter, let him reade his 48. and 166. Epistles, and the first Chapter of his third booke against Iulian the Pelagian; vvhere he cutteth those Pelagian Heretikes short, who hauing beene once condemned by a Councel of Bishops in Palestine, vvould haue appealed to the Emperour, and did then alleage the Example of the Donatists for their President,Lib. 3. cont. Iulian. cap. 1. as M. Abbot now doth. Not so (saith S. Augustine) your cause hath bad a competent and sufficient trial before many Bishops, neither are you to be dealt withal any further, concerning the right of ex­amination and trial; it only now remaineth, that you quietly accept of the sentence pronounced of this cause: so that in S. Augustines judgement, the competent, lawful, and ordinary trial of Ecclesiastical causes, is before Bishops, from which none but Heretikes doe appeale and flie. And touching the Donatists, whose example the other Here­tikes alleaged,Ibidem. this holy Father saith: They were so violent, and with­al [Page 193] so stronge, that we were forced to follow them appealing to the Empe­rour: for they ranged and raged with such fury, almost al Afrike ouer, that they would not suffer the Catholikes to preach, or to liue in peace by them; but by fire, sword, and forrage, put the whole country in garboile and com­bustion: wherefore the Bishops were compelled for the suppressing their fury, and for to bring them to reason, to conferre with them before the lay Magistrate. Thus much of M. Abbots former instance of the Do­natists. Now to his other borrowed from the Arrians, who were assembled in a very wicked conuenticle at Tyre, to condemne the most innocent Prelate and Saint of God, Athanasius; vvho besides also was Patriarke of Alexandria, the chiefe seate of al the East, and therefore rather to judge ouer them, then to be judged of them: yet those most malitious Arrians, to wreake their teene on him, in­uented most strange crimes of Rape, Murder, and Treason against the man of God, and had false vvitnesses in readinesse, to testifie vvhat they would desire; yet were they so prudently encountred, and al their most wicked plots so plainly discouered, by the grace of God, and S. Athanasius most vigilant industry, that they fel at last to conspire his death by open violence. Al which being rela­ted to the Emperour, he wrote a most sharpe letter to those bloudy conspiratours, and willed them to come to the place, where he then made his abode, there in his presence and hearing, to shew whither that which they had done there, were equal and just. He doth not say (as M. Abbot falsly reporteth) that the Bishops were to giue him account of that they had done; but according to Athanasius request,Socrat. lib. 1. Histor. c. 22. vvhich was as it is set downe in the same letter, Vt eo accederetis, quo nobis praesentibus, de injuria qua passus fuerit, (necessitate coactus) posset expostulare: That the Councel might be remoued to the Emperours Court, to the intent that Athanasius (compelled by necessity) might expostulate and complaine in the Emperours presence, of the injury done vnto him. First note, that the holy Patriarke compelled by necessity of the Arrians fury, repaired to the Emperour. Secondly, that he desi­red the matter might be heard, though in the Emperours presence; yet by the Bishops assembled in that cōuenticle: for he had reason to thinke, that they vvould not for very shame suffer the matter to be so partially and furiously handled, if that good Emperour were present and did but looke on them. Thirdly note, that there vvas no matter of faith in question, but capital crimes and temporal af­faires [Page 194] of the state objected against Athanasius, wherein the lay Ma­gistrate hath more special interest. Briefly, here is no mention of the Emperours judging ouer Bishops, but only of a sending for them to come to him, & to handle so waighty a matter before him, which any temporal Prince (for aught I see) may demand and also command, of Bishops that be his owne subjects, vvhen cause of the temporal state is touched.

Out of the premises it followeth most euidently, that M. Abbot hath not one plaine word, to proue the Emperour Constantine to be supreme judge in Ecclesiastical causes, but relieth vvholy either vpon the example of reprobate Heretikes, or vpon his owne infe­rences and enforcements, drawne out of some darke sentences, so shamelesly alleaged for the most part, that they are cleane contrary to the plaine testimony of his owne authors in the very same place; vvhereas we haue that most renowmed Emperours owne formal and expresse wordes, professing himselfe to haue no power to judge ouer Bishops and Church affaires; and that also fortified by the sound record of most graue, holy, and learned Fathers, who liued some in his owne daies, and some very neare thereunto. Let then any man judge (if he be not too too partial) vvhether I gaue his Maje­sty wrong to vnderstand, when I enformed him, that Constantine the great (that glorious ornament of our country) vvould not take vpon him to be supreme gouernour in causes Ecclesiastical: Or vvhether M. Abbot, doe not goe about exceedingly to abuse his most excellent Majesty, that with such bables, foule shifts, and manifest lies, would perswade him the contrary. Hitherto of the Emperours authority in calling of Councels, and ouer Bishops, so farre forth, as M. Abbots objections out of S. Leo ministred just cause.

Now ere I passe vnto the next Successor of S. Peter and S. Paul. which M. Abbot would force to speake in defence of their new Go­spel, I must according to custome shew in part, what this Authour of his S. Leo, doth teach in fauour of the Catholike cause; that the indifferent reader may judge, whether he were rather a Protestant or a Papist, as they tearme vs. And because S. Leo is both ancient (for he liued about 1200. yeares past) and was also a most holy man, by whom God did miraculously vvorke, euen in his life time: A­gaine, for that he was very skilful both in the holy Scriptures, and al learned Antiquity Greeke and Latin, as may be seene by his Ser­mons [Page 195] and Epistles, specially by the last Epistle written for the in­struction of the Emperour called also Leo; where he citeth S. Hil­lary, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Latines; S. Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyrillus Patriarkes of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzene, S. Basil, and S. Iohn Chrysostome, Greeke Doctors: And finally, for that his workes be without al exception, euen by the consent of the Prote­stants, yea of such credit vvith them, that they are gladde vvhen they can snatch a broken sentence out of him, in fauour of their do­ctrine; I wil therefore somewhat more largely cite his sentences, in defence of the present Roman religion, because they cannot choose but be of great value with al euen-minded men. And the better to satisfie M. Abbots demandes, I wil frame the order of S. Leos testi­monies much thereafter. 1 Of the Pope and his Pardons, S. Leo taught very much and most plainely, as hath beene related in the begin­ning of this matter. 2 Of the Masse and of Transubstantiation he speakeh as perspicuously in very formal tearmes, commanding;Epist. 79. ad Dioscor. n. 2. That two Masses be said euery festiual day in great parishes, where the people cannot conueniently meete al together at one: Ne quaedam pars populi sua deuoti­one priuetur, si vnius tantum Missae more seruato, sacrificium offerri non possit, nisi qui prima diei parte conuenit; Lest some of the people be depri­ued of their deuotion, if the custome of one Masse a day be obserued, and the sacrifice may not be offered, but at their meeting that come first in the morning. In those daies when al men were so deuout to heare Masse, that no body would willingly omit to heare one Masse at least eue­ry holy day, there was (I weene) no hundred markes to be forfeited for euery Masse they heard. And were they then true Protestants (thinke you) who so zealously coueted to be present at the sacrifice of the Masse? Moreouer, S. Leo was so wel assured of the 3 Real pre­sence of Christes blessed body in the Sacrament, and knew it to be so clearely acknowledged, euen of the vulgar and common sort in those daies, that he tooke it for a ground to confute the Eutichian heresie. For hauing first declared, that those Heretikes (by affir­ming our Sauiour not to haue taken the true flesh of man) did de­stroy his passion and resurrection, he adjoineth:Epist. 22. ad Clerum. In what darkenesse of ignorance, in what drowsinesse of slouth, haue these Eutichians (I might as wel say Protestants) lien, that they could neither by hearing learne, nor by reading vnderstand, that which in the Church of God, is so vniformely voiced and spoken off by euery man, that it is not with-holden [Page 196] from the tongues of Infants? to wit: the truth of the body and bloud of Christ among the Sacraments of the Christian faith, &c. the substance and summe of S. Leos reason is, that our Sauiour gaue his true flesh in the holy Sacrament to be eaten of vs; therefore he tooke the true flesh of man, otherwise he could not haue giuen it vs to eate: ergo, Eutiches was deceiued, who denied Christ to haue taken the true flesh of man, affirming him to haue taken only some shadow or similitude of it. And because I am in the matter of Sacraments, 4 I vvil joine S. Leos testimony for the vertue of Baptisme, In quo (saith he) foluitur quicquid peccati est, Epist. 84. ad Aquileiensem Episcopum. cum quo nascitur: Therefore is one baptised, that whatsoeuer there is of sinne in him, it may be loosed. And after in the same Epistle: Infants doe die to original sinne, and el­der folkes to al manner of sinne in Baptisme; vvhich confutes the Pro­testants opinion, that original sinne liueth and raigneth in al men after baptisme. 5 Now for the Sacrament of Confession and Satis­faction, he is so formal, that he hath left no euasion, to the most nimble-witted Protestant. Publike confession, by reason of some inconueniences that thereupon ensued, he prohibited; but priuate and that which the Protestants cal auricular confession, he alloweth and commendeth:Epist. 78. nu. 2. ad vniuer­sos Episcopos Campaniae. these be his wordes. I decree, that this manner of penance which is so exacted of the faithful, that a prefession of euery kinde of sinne be written in a role, and rehearsed publikely, be wholy abro­gated; when as it is sufficient, that the guilt of consciences be in secret confession declared to Priests alone. For albeit that fulnesse of faith seeme laudable, which for feare of God doe not stagger to blush before men: ne­uerthelesse seing that some mens sinnes be such, that it is not expedient they should be published, least their enemies should take hold on them, and prosecute them in law; let that custome be abolished, least many be there­by frighted from the remedies of penance: for that confession is sufficient, which is tendered first to God, then also to the Priest, &c. Againe, in an­other place:Epistola. 89. The manifold mercies of God, doth so succour mans frailty, that not only by the grace of baptisme, but by the medicine of penance also, the hope of eternal life is recouered; that they who had lost the gift of rege­neration, condemning themselues by their owne judgement, might attaine vnto remission of their sinnes: the aide of Gods goodnesse being so disposed, that pardon from God cannot be obtained, but by the supplication of Priests. For the Mediatour of God and Man, the man IESVS Christ, hath giuen this power vnto the Prelates of the Church, that they may both enjoine [Page 197] satisfaction to the penitent, and that they may also admit them, being by the same holesome satisfaction purged, through the gate of reconciliation, vnto the communion of the Sacraments. Where he further teacheth; That they who die without this gift of pardon, shal neuer be saued: and doth also greatly blame them who deferre their confession til toward the point of death: when (saith he) there is scarce space either for the confes­sion of the penitent, or for the reconciliation of the Priest. It vvas not then (vndoubtedly) treason in S. Leos daies, to be reconciled by a Priest; seing he so often and so much recommended it to al Chri­stian people, and held it the only gate to re-enter into Gods fauor, for al such Christians as were fallen from the grace they had before receiued in the Sacrament of Baptisme. 6 That Bishops, Priests, Deacons, yea and Subdeacons should not marry, and if any married man vvere chosen a Subdeacon, that he should refraine from the company of his wife, S. Leo is very plaine: thus he decreeth.Epist. 82. ad Anastasium Thes. num. 4. It is free for men that be not of the Clergie to marry, but to shew the purity of perfect continency, carnal copulation is not graunted, so much as to Sub­deacons: that they who haue wiues, be as though they had them not; and they who haue them not, doe continue single. And if in this order, which is the fourth from the head (with the Protestants it is no order at al) it is meete that chastity be kept; how much more is it to be obserued in the first, second, and third? that no man be esteemed worthy, either of the place of a Deacon, or honour of a Priest, or excellency of a Bishop, who is disco­uered not to haue yet bridled himselfe from the pleasure of wiuing: This of the continency of Priests. Wil you heare S. Leos opinion of the 7 Vowes of religious men and women, which the false Father Abbot scornefully tearmeth Monkish?Epist. 90. ad Rusti. Norb. cap. 12. The profession of a Monke (saith he) vndertaken by a mans owne free choise and desire, cannot be forsaken with­out sinne; because that must be performed, which we haue vowed to God. Wherefore, he that forsaking the profession of a single or solitary life, is turned souldier, or fallen to marriage, is to be purged publikely by the sa­tisfaction of penance: for albeit warre-fare may be harmelesse, and mar­riage honest; yet is it a transgression and offence to haue forsaken the better choise. It followeth in the next number:Ibid. ca. 13.8. Maidens who not constrai­ned by their parents command, but of their owne accord haue made profes­sion of Virginity, and receiued the habit; if afterwardes they desire to marry, they doe sinne, though they were not yet consecrated: Ibidem 14. but if after both profession and consecration, they should fal to marry, it cannot be [Page 198] doubted but that they should commit a very hainous crime. For if mans decrees, cannot be infringed without punishment, what shal light vpon them, who haue broken the couenants of the diuine mistery? How forci­bly doth this chast doctrine of S. Leo, batter and beate flat to the earth, the voluptuous loosenesse of runnegate votaries, and giues checkmate to the Protestants, for vpholding the same as wel done? That you may yet further perceiue, what an euil Protestant and a perfect Papist S. Leo was; he commendeth highly the Emperour Mar­tianus his vertue and Godlinesse, for receiuing with worthy honour the 8 holy Relikes of blessed Flamianus departed, who a little before was Pa­triarke of Constantinople. And for 9 praying to Saints you haue heard before,Serm. 5. de Epiphania. how he encouraged al men, Eorum ambire suffragia, earnestly and as it were ambitiously to sue for the aide of their praiers. Againe, he exhorteth his auditours, to celebrate vvith him the Saturday fol­lowing the Vigils of the most happy Apostle S. Peter: Ser. 8. de Ie­junio decim. Who (saith he) with his praiers, wil vouchsafe to helpe our praiers, fastings, and al­mes-deedes. Behold he made no question, but that S. Peter both knew their desires and deserts, and would also further them vvith the aide of his effectual praiers. In briefe then we haue, that the most learned and holy Pope S. Leo the first, taught praying to Saints, and worshipping of their Relikes: the vowes of Monkes and professed Virgins: that Priests and al in holy orders should not marry, but liue con­tinently: that Priests haue power to reconcile and to forgiue sinnes: and that euery man who hopeth for any pardon of his sinnes at Gods handes, must particularly confesse them in priuate to a Priest, and by due satisfaction purge himselfe from them: that in the Sacrament there is the same true flesh of Christ which was crucified, and did arise from death: that Masse is to be said euery holy day, wherein the sacrifice of Christs body is offered: that S. Peter was the supreme Pastour of Christes Church, and that the Bishop of Rome is his lawful successour therein, hauing supreme authority ouer both East and West Church. These with such like points, (which may by diligent perusing his most eloquent and diuine workes, be gathered,) doe most perspicuously demonstrate, the Church of Rome in his time (vvhich vvas neare 1200. yeares agoe) to haue held the selfe same language, concerning matters of faith, vvhich the same Church of Rome at this day speaketh. And that M. Abbot in seeking to proue the contrary, did but shew himselfe either ve­ry ignorant in his workes, or ouer studious, not to take his Author [Page 199] right as his manner is, but to picke some matter of cauil out of him, thereby to blinde and deceiue the simple reader. Now to the next.

ROBERT ABBOT.

PELAGIVS the Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, admit­ted a married man to be Bishop of Syracusa, only putting in a caution, that he should not dilapidare the Church goodes, and transferre the same to his wife and children:Dist. 28. de Syracusana. The danger whereof he signifieth, was the cause of that constitution, which did forbidde a man hauing a wife and children to be preferred to a Bishopricke; otherwise a man is not repelled for hauing wife & children (saith the Glosse) because the Apostles permitted the same. But now the Church of Rome,Glossa ibidē. wil by no meanes admit men to be Bishops or Priests: not for that they would auoide the dilapidating of the Church goodes (for that is a thing common with the Popes themselues,Platina in vi­ta Iohan. 16. To apply al to satisfie the greedinesse and couetousnesse of their familiars, their bretheren, their nephewes, vnder which name commonly goe their bastards:) but because they asscribe to marriage, as the old Heretikes did,Bellarm. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 19. pollution and vncleanenesse, which cannot stand with the sanctity and holinesse of the Priestly function.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

IF M. Abbot did not euery vvhere almost, shew himselfe to be a shamelesse man, and one that careth not how corruptly, so he may somewhat colourably cite the ancient Fathers sentences; this passage were alone more then sufficient, to proue him to be no bet­ter then a cosening counterfeit. In these few lines there are foure euident vntruthes vttered by him. The first is, that a man is not re­pelled from being a Bishop for hauing wife & children, but only for feare of dilapidation of the Church goods. This is most euidently false: for though the feare of spending the Church goods vpon prophane v­ses, be one cause vvhy it is not expedient that a Bishop or Priest should be maried; yet the more principal reason thereof, is the pu­rity of the single life, and the freenesse of it from al such vvorldly affaires and temporal troubles, as are necessarily linked vvith the care of prouision for wife & children: This you heard before out of S. Leo, who was predecessor to Pope Pelagius the first, by more then an hundred yeares. These be also the reasons of S. Augustine and S. Hierome, vvho vvrote thereof vvhole volumes against the Heretike Iouinian: and were giuen first by S. Paul himselfe, when [Page 200] he teacheth; that1. Cor. 7. vers 31. he who is without a wife, is careful for the thinges that pertaine to our Lord, how he may please God: but he that is with a wife, is careful for the thinges that appertaine to the world, how he may please his wife, and is diuided. AndVers. 32. Vers. 34. the woman vnmaried and virgin, thinkes on the thinges that pertaine to our Lord, that shee may be holy both in body and spirit. See the more special groundes of the single life of clergy-men: wherevpon euen by the confession of M. Abbot himselfe,Page 42. A law was made in the Church of Rome by Pope Siritius (who was 150. yeares before Pelagius,) that al Priests and Deacons should either be chosen single men, or else promise to abstaine wholy from the company of their wiues; which is also decreed in the second Councel of Carthage, holden about the same time, where the holy Bishops there assembled doe say:Canon. 2. That we may keepe that which the Apostles did teach, and Antiquity herselfe obserued; giuing al men to vnder­stand, that the single and chast life of the Clergy, vvas taught by the Apostles, and obserued in most pure Antiquity. It being then so notorious and wel knowne a thing, that whosoeuer would be a Bishop must needs refraine from the company of his wife; no cau­tion was required for that by Pope Pelagius, because there was no question or doubt of it: And M. Abbot dealeth deceitfully, to ar­gue out of the not mentioning of that, vvhich was vnderstood of al men as necessary to be presupposed, and is in most of the Ca­nons of the very same distinction, Distinct. 28. expresly deliuered; and also in two other vvhole distinctions going next before. His second false tricke is in the citation of the glosse, and that a very foule one; for he chops it off in the middest, leauing out that which wil marre al his market. The glosse saith (vpon that caution against dilapida­tions) that it is to be vnderstood, when be that is chosen to be a Bishop, doth loue his wife and children so tenderly, that it is to be presumed he would for their sakes, dilapidare the Church goods, &c. otherwise a man is not repelled for wife and children, to wit, for that point of dilapida­tions whereof the glosse there speaketh: This to be the sence, any vnderstanding man vvould easily perceiue, if the glosse had gone no further. But it addeth (as it were to meete with M. Abbots cauil) Dum tamen longa continentia praecesserit: A man that hath a wife may be admitted to be a Bishop, putting in good surety that he wil not dilapi­dare the Church goods; yet with this prouiso, That he hath long be­fore liued continently, that is, refrained wholy from the company of [Page 201] his wife; as it is before said in the Canon Priusquam, of the same di­stinction: See how expresly the glosse excepts that which M. Ab­bot auoucheth it to affirme. His third false tale is, That the Church of Rome now, wil by no means admit maried men to be bishops & priests, which is not true: for in those very cases vvherein they vvere at any time admitted before, they vvould be admitted now, that is; If there were want of other able men, and some such eminent learning and vertue in a maried man, as were not to be found in a single, then he might be made both Priest & Bishop, so that he and his wife would liu [...] continently: for there is no Canon of the Church to the con­trary. His fourth lie is a luculent and bright one, That we (forsooth) asscribe pollution and vncleanenesse to marriage, as the old Heretikes did: for neither Cardinal Bellarmine vvhom he quoteth, nor any other Catholike, doth teach the act of matrimony to be the worke of the Deuil, or damnable sinne, as the Manichees and some other Here­tikes did. Nay, he declareth there plainly, that it may be without any sinne at al, though most commonly concupiscence beare to great a sway in it; both preuenting the rule of reason, and some­what exceeding the measure of it, asLib. 14. de Ciuitat. c. 17. Item, lib. 5. cont. Iulian. cap. 8. & 10. S. Augustine testifieth: and doth make a man more dul and heauy to spiritual exercises, and not so pure & holy as the office of a Priest doth require, asHier. lib. 1. cōt. Iouinian. S. Hie­rome andChrysost. l. 6 de Sacerdot. S. Chrysostome doe witnesse. And that a man thereby is made lesse holy and pure, both in body and spirit, S. Paules owne vvordes doe intimate;1. Cor. 7. vers. 34. The woman vnmarried, thinketh how shee may be holy both in body and spirit: so that within the compasse of not many lines, M. Abbot lets flie two cast of lies, and yet as it were not content vvith so few, he interlaceth three other lies to furbish and smooth vp the rest.

The first is, that now a daies married men are not repelled from Bishop­ricks to auoide dilapidations: which is false. For that is one cause as I shewed before, and is also touched euen by that most renowmed Father Bellarmine, euen in the same place cited by M. Abbot, De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 19. in his fifth reason: vvhere he teacheth; That the marriage of Bishops and Priests, doth hinder much that hospitality and tender care of the poore, which men of the Church ought to haue: for the care of prouiding for wife & children, doth wholy extinguish or greatly diminish their good house-keeping and prouiding for the poore, as the lamen­table experience of our very time doth sufficiently instruct vs. [Page 202] What if some Popes or other Clergy-men, haue beene too forward to satisfie the greedy couetousnesse of their carnal friends, that is their owne fault, contrary to the prouident order and law of the Church? and if the corrupt nature of man, be so inclinable to fauor them that be next in bloud to them, was it not right vvisely ordai­ned by our Church, that Clergy-men should haue no wiues and children? for that men naturally doe loue them most dearely, and vse al meanes to prouide for them. But how carelesly herein doe the Protestants carry themselues, vvho doe encourage, and as it were push their Clergy-men forward, to haue wiues and children? vvho being thereby clogged with the cares of this world, bidde adieu to al courteous and plentiful hospitality, and leaue the poore to shift as they can for themselues: for they haue more then enough to doe, to prouide for their owne wiues and children. The second lie is shuffled into the parenthesis, taken out of Platina, to vvit: That vnder the name of nephewes, commonly goe their bastards; vvhich is not in his authour, but a most malitious slander deuised of his owne head, and auouched without any testimony; and therefore to be contemned. The third is, in that he maketh Platina, to af­firme it to be a common thing with the Popes, which he only noteth for a special fault in some few. Is this man worthy (thinke you) the sacred title of a Diuine, or of the common name of an honest man, vvho doth in manner nothing else, but sow lies together, and that sometimes so thicke, that for euery line neere hand, there is onelie or other? vvas his meaning (trow you) to giue instruction to the ignorant, and satisfaction to the learned (as often he vaunteth,) or rather to blinde the simple, and to feede the vaine folly of the ouer credulous Protestant?Prouerb. 10. Qui nititur mendacijs (saith the vvise man) hic pascit ventos, Idem insequitur aues volantes: He that relieth on lies, doth feede the windes, that is, may please vaine and light heades; He doth also follow birdes flying in the aire, that is, doth feede the humour of hawty, wauering, and vnsettled spirits; but can neuer giue contentment or satisfaction, to any graue, modest, and di­screet man, who doth flie from a crafty and subtle liar, as from the very off-spring of that Serpent, which with lying deceiued our first mother Eue. But goe on vvith your lies, seing it wil be no otherwise.

ROBERT ABBOT.

THE Emperours of Rome Theodosius and Valens, according vn­to the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome,Petri Crinit. de honest. di­sciplina. lib. 9. cap. 9. Vpon care of preseruing the religion of the high God, did forbidde the making, grauing, or painting of the Crucifix: and commanded it vpon penalty to be abolished, wheresoeuer it was found. But now, not the making [...]nly, but also the vvorshipping of the Crucifix, is a matter of high religion in the same Church of Rome.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

VERITAS non quaerit latebras: Truth is not ashamed of her selfe, nor coueteth to hide her head in corners, vvhen shee may with safety be suffered to shew her face publikely. That decree of the Christian Emperour Theodosius is extant, and to be seene in the ve­ry corps of the ciuil law: vvhat needed then M. Abbot to runne vnto a late obscure authour called Petrus Crinitus, Peter with the long haire, to seeke that which is of so good record, in so famous a volume? thinke you that it is without some mistery, that he being thirsty, would leaue the fresh fountaine, and runne to drinke of the dirty puddle? Latet anguis in herbae, There is a padde in the straw. A strange longing he had, to finde out some cauil against any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and because that could not be, by the true and ful report of the Catholike Emperours decrees, he would needs fly to some broken relation of he cared not whom, to blinde his vnwary reader vvithal. The decree then as it vvas made by the Emperour, and standeth Authentikely in the Code, maketh much for the honour of the Crosse: for he commanded, That the signe of the Crosse should not be ingrauen, Lib. 1. Codi. tit. leg. Cùm sit nobis. or painted on the paue­ment: Ne sacrum signum pedibus calcaretur, that the holy signe of the Crosse might not be trodden vnder feete. Which said decree of Theodo­sius the elder, the Emperour Tyberius the second (one of his Godly successours) vnderstanding wel, vvhen he espied a Crosse cut in marble lying on the ground, he commanded it to be lifted vp, say­ing:Paul. Diaco­nus, lib. 18. Rerum Ro­manarum. We ought to blesse our fore-head and breast with the Crosse of our Lord, and we treade it vnder our feete. In what high estimation, the signe of the Crosse was, vvith that most bright mirrour of Empe­rors Constantine the great, and how gloriously it was placed in their Diademes, Pallaces, and publike places, no man can be ignorant that is acquainted with their Hystories. And somwhat I haue said [Page 204] thereof already, in the question of Images; therefore I doe here omit to speake any more of a matter so euident. I might here by the way, blame M. Abbot, not only for his deceitful dealing; but also because he forgetteth vvhereabout he goes: for his drift here is to teach, that S. Peter and S. Paules successours the Bishops of Rome, did of old teach another doctrine, then these of later yeares doe now; of vvhich number of Bishops, Theodosius the Emperour was none: but many such faults as this, I let passe vvittingly, or else I should neuer make an end. And vvhereas he addeth; That these Emperours did forbidde the making of the Crosse, according vnto the do­ctrine of the ancient Church of Rome: Obserue first, that it is so said on­ly, without any proof; and besides, it is auouched very impudent­ly, as being flat repugnant, vnto the knowne and notorious pra­ctise of Constantine the great, their late and most famous predeces­sour. Now to the next.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Greg. lib. 9. Moral. ca. 1. & 14.GREGORY Bishop of Rome taught: That al the merit of our vertue, al our righteousnesse, is but vice and vnrighteousnesse, if it be stricktly examined; it needeth therefore praier after righteousnesse (saith he) that whereas being sifted it would quaile, it may by the only mercy of the Iudge stand for good. Bernard. in Annot. 1. De lib. Arbit. & Grat. In fine. Trident. sess. 6 cap. 16. Yea and Bernard, by the same do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, saith; That mens merits are not such, as that eternal life is due vnto them of right, or that God should doe wrong, if he did not giue the same: they are the way to the Kingdome (saith he) but not the cause of obtaining the Kingdome. But now theRhem. Test. Annot. in 2. Tim. 4. v. 8. ad Hebr. 6. vers. 10. Church of Rome, attributeth so great perfection of righteousnesse to good workes, as that they fully satisfie the law of God, and worthily deserue eternal life: yea, they affirme them to be so farre meritorious, as that God should be vnjust, if he rendered not heauen for the same; charge­ing the justice of God, not in respect of his promise, but in respect of the merit and desert of the workes.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

NOW that M. Abbot is driuen to flie to that most holy and re­nowmed Pope S. Gregory the great, for defence of their do­ctrine, he is like to speed wel (no doubt:) for he was the first foun­der of the Catholike religion amongst vs English-men, and a great maintainer of it al the world ouer, as shal appeare to the eie of euery vnpartial man, that wil but reade that little, which shal by me here­after [Page 205] be produced out of him. First touching the merit of workes, we beleeue the same that S. Gregory taught, to wit; That al the me­rit of our owne vertue, al our owne righteousnesse (that is, al that vertue and righteousnesse, which we haue by our owne nature or strength) is rather vice and iniquity, then vertue: And therefore that vve had neede most humbly to sue and pray to God, for mercy and for­giuenesse of our sinnes and for the assistance of his heauenly grace, which is the roote and fountaine of al good workes and merits. M. Abbot therefore mistakes S. Gregory grosly, if he thinke him to de­ny any true merit or righteousnesse to be in a vertuous Christian: for though he say that our owne (to wit, that which we doe by ver­tue of our owne natural power) be nought vvorth; yet he teach­eth most expresly, that good workes done by the helpe of Gods grace, doe merit life euerlasting. Thus he hath left vvritten vpon that verse of the Psalme: I haue meditated in thy workes. Gregor. in Psal. 141. He that ac­knowledgeth the riches of this world to be deceitful, and doth through the loue of heauenly thinges, contemne earthly; that man doth meditate vpon good workes: which when this life doth passe away, shal remaine, & yeeld the reward of eternal life. For we liue not here profitably, Nisi ad comparandum meritum, quo in aeternitate viuatur: But to get merits, by which we may liue eternally. And vpon these wordes of the 101. Psalme: Their seede shal be directed for euer. Our workes are therefore called seedes (saith he) because like as we gather fruit of seede; euen so doe we expect reward of our workes: for the Apostle saith, Gallat. 6. Whatso­euer a man wil sow, that shal he reape. He therefore that in this life soweth the seede of good workes, shal in the life to come reape the fruit of eternal recompence. And in the same booke of his Morals, (out of vvhich M. Abbot snatched his darke wordes) S. Gregory declareth clearely:Greg. lib. 4. Moral. c. 42. That as there is among men a great difference of workes in this life, so in the next there shal be as great distinction of dignities: that how farre here one man exceedes another in merits, so much shal be there sur­mount the other in rewardes. If then according to S. Gregories plaine doctrine, (grounded vpon the Royal Prophets, Dauid, and the A­postle S. Paul,) good workes be the seedes, vvhich bring forth life e­uerlasting: If the merit of this life, be that, wherewith we must liue eter­nally hereafter: If according to the difference of merits in this life, we shal receiue distinct dignities in the life to come; can any man of judgement doubt, but that he most perspicuously taught, both that there be [Page 206] true merits in vertuous and good workes; and also that according vnto the different degree of merits, distinct dignities of glory shal be rendred in heauen?

The most sweet and religious father S. Bernard, is haled into this ranke of S. Peters successours, against al due order; because he was no Bishop of Rome: but our prophane Abbot saith, that the holy Abbot Bernard herein agreeth vvith the ancient Church of Rome. How may we know that? Is it because that godly and de­uout man, did in al points imbrace and follow the ancient Roman faith?L. 2. de Cons. ad Euge. In Vita. lib. 2. c. 3. & 6. Item lib. 4. cap. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 5. & Serm. 66. in Cant. lib. Sententiarū non procul ab initio. then it is a cleare case, that the Bishop of Rome is supreme gouernour of Christes Church: that the sacrifice of the Masse is a most true & holy sacrifice, and that the same body that was borne of the blessed Virgin Mary, is really and substantially there present: that it is flat he­resie to deny either praier to Saints, or praier for the dead: that euery one must confesse his sinnes to a Priest: that the vowes of Monkes and re­ligious persons, are most pretious jewels and ornaments of a Christian soule; vvhereof he was so earnest a Patrone and perswader, that in hisIn Vita. life-time he instituted 160. Monasteries. Briefly, there is no branche of the present Roman faith, which may not be confirmed out of his godly and learned workes: Wherefore, if S. Bernard a­greed vvholy with the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome; so doth the Church of Rome that now is. But if M. Abbot wil say, that in this point of merits only, he jumpeth vvith the auncient Church, though in none of the rest; should he not rather haue pro­ued it to be so, then to haue taken it as granted? Yes verily, vnlesse he vvould be esteemed for such a trifler, as ordinarily doth petere principium, begge that which he should principally proue. To the purpose then I say, that neither the ancient Church of Rome doth deny the merits of good workes, as may be seene in that question, nor yet S. Bernard: for when he saith, That our merits doe not in ju­stice deserue heauen, he vnderstandeth that, of our merits taken by themselues, without Gods promise and appointment of heauen for the reward of them; the which secluded & excepted, God should not doe any body wrong, if he gaue not heauen for the same: but Gods ordinance & promise presupposed, and the grace of Christ, by which the merit is wrought, then it doth euen in S. Bernards opi­nion, of right deserue heauen, and God should doe wrong not to repay it with heauen. And this in effect doth S. Bernard himselfe [Page 207] teach, in the second place cited by M. Abbot, vvhere he saith: That it is just that God pay that which be oweth, De Lib. Arbi­trio, In fine. but he oweth that which be promised; the promise was indeede of mercy, but now to be performed of justice: which justice, though it be also principally Gods, because it proceedes from his grace; yet it hath pleased God, to haue vs to be partners of that his justice, that he might make vs merit ours of his crowne. In eo enim sibi justitiae consortem, & coronae statuit promeritorem, cum operum quibus erat illa repromissa corona, habere dignatus est coadjutorem: For therein did God appoint man to be copartner of his justice, and meritour of the crowne, when be vouchsafed to haue him coadjutour of those workes, vnto which that crowne (of glory) was againe and againe promised. So that God is the Authour of merits, both by giuing man grace to doe them, and by ordaining them to such a reward: Otherwise (saith S. Bernard) those which we cal merits, might be more properly called the way to the Kingdome, not the cause of raigning. Obserue that he saith, vnlesse you take them otherwise then he had before spoken of them. But we must beare with M. Abbot, for snatching here and there a sentence out of the Fathers so abruptly; otherwise he could make no shew for his part out of them, because they vvere so ful and wholy Roman Catholikes.

Besides, the misconstruing of S. Gregories wordes, and the cor­rupting of S. Bernards, M. Abbot falsifieth both the Councel of Trent, and the Annotations of the Rhemes Testament: for the Councel of Trent hath not simply, that good workes doe fully satisfie the law of God; but with this qualification, Pro huius vitae statu: As farre forth as the state of this life doth permit. And whereas M. Abbot fableth, that in those Annotations the justice of God is charged, not in respect of his owne promise, but in respect of the merit and desert of the workes; it is a palpable vntruth, as euery man may see, that wil but turne to the place: for there are these expresse wordes.Annot. in 2. Tim. cap. 4. vers. 8. Heauen is the goale, the marke, the price, the hire, of al striuing, running, labouring, due both by promise, and by couenant, and right debt: vvhere you see as wel Gods promise and couenant, as the worth of the workes to be mentioned. Which is also set downe distinctly in that very Cha­pter of the Councel of Trent, vvhich M. Abbot cited, in these vvordes: Eternal life is to be propounded to them that worke wel, Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 16. and trust in God, both as a merciful grace promised to the sonnes of God through Christ; and as a reward or hire by the promise of God, to be rendred to their [Page 208] good workes and merits. Thus you see, how roundly and familiarly M. Abbot is wont to auouch vntruthes, and that (which testifieth a good conscience in the man) euen clearely contrary to his owne knowledge: for in the very same both Chapter of the Councel, and Annotation vpon the Testament, which he alleageth, there is to be seene the plaine affirmation of that which he denieth, vvhich doth conuince him, to be one of the most carelesse men of his cre­dit, that euer set pen to paper.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Citat. in Or­thodoxo con­sensu de sacra Eucharistia, cap. 1. ex Ly­turg. Georgij Cassandri. THE same Gregory affirmeth, that Missa the Masse, was so called, for that they were to be dismissed or sent away by the Deacon, that did not receiue the holy communion; for that they that should not be pre­sent at the celebration of the Sacrament, were commanded to goe forth: therefore saith he, vnlesse at the voice of the Deacon, after the manner of our Ancestors, they that doe not communicate, be willed to goe forth, the seruice which is called the Masse, is not rightly performed. But now the Romish Masse is thought to be rightly performed, albeit no man communicate but the Priest, and vvithout any dismissing of them that doe not adde themselues to the communion, the people (as was said before) being only the spectatours and lookers on.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT is very penurious, and wants matter, that comes forth with such idle stuffe as this, not taken out of S. Grego­ries owne vvorkes neither, (for no such fond and vnlearned thing is there to be seene,) but on the report of one George Cassander, a man of smal credit, and therefore deserueth no answere. Besides, these wordes, Ite Missa est, are not pronounced in the Masse by the Deacon or Priest, vntil the communion be wholy past, euen at the very end of the Masse, when the people are licensed to depart; as may be seene in al Masse bookes, and the ancient expositours of the Masse: vvherefore they could not serue to dismisse any before the holy communion. Lastly, why (on Gods name) must they al be sent away, that wil not communicate themselues? shal they receiue any harme, by their beholding either the blessed Sacrament, or o­thers receiuing of it deuoutly? vvere it not better they assisted the communicants there, continuing in praier, then to walke abroade idly? or is there any reason vvhy the communicants should be of­fended vvith their presence, that no way seeke to disquiet them, [Page 209] but rather honour them, for their greater feruour in deuotion, and assist them with their praiers? Idle and irreuerent gazers on, we al­low not off, nor like of their presence at any time of the Masse; but I see no cause at al, why other orderly and deuout people, should be driuen out of the Church at the time of communion.

ROBERT ABBOT.

THE same Gregory affirmed, That whosoeuer called himselfe,Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 30. Item, lib. 4. Epistola. 32.36.38. or desired to be called the vniuersal Bishop, was the fore-runner of An­tichrist, and did propose to himselfe to follow him, who despising the legion of Angels, that were placed in society with him, did endeauour to grow vp to the toppe of singularity, that so he might seeme to be vnder none, and himselfe alone to be aboue al. He calleth it a new name, a name of errour, a fond name, proude, peruerse, rash, wicked, prophane: which (saith he) none of my Predecessours consented to vse, by which no man hath presumed to be called, that was in truth a holy man.Decret. Gre­gorij de foro comp. c. Licet. But soone after the time of Gregory, the Bishop of Rome tooke vpon him that hateful name, and hath since continued the same, challenging the whole vvorld to be his Dyocesse, and is growne to that height of pride, as that he doubteth not to proclaime: Extrauag. de Maio. & O­bed. ca. Vnam Sanctam. That it standeth vpon the necessity of saluation, for euery soule to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THIS is a pretious argument with the Protestants, and though it hath beene an hundred times (I weene) sufficiently answered by ours; yet they doe as freshly propose it, and as eagerly follow it, as if it were not to be satisfied: whereas in truth it is but a meere sophistication, A vocibus ad res (as the learned tearme it) from the word vniuersal, vnto the supreme authority of gouernement, thus: The Patriarke of Constantinople cannot be called an vniuersal Bishop, nor any Bishop of Rome hath consented to take that name of vniuersal Bi­shop vpon him: ergo, no Bishop of Rome hath beene supreme gouernour of Christes Church. To vvhich fallacy it is most easie to answere: First, that albeit the Patriarke of Constantinople, could not so cal himselfe in a lawful & good meaning, but proudly and wickedly; (because he had his jurisdiction limited vvithin the boundes of his owne Patriarkship, & had nothing to doe with any other churches that vvere vvithout it, so that his power was in no sence vniuersal, that is, spred ouer al the world): yet this name might in some good sence notwithstāding, haue beene giuen vnto the Bishop of Rome, [Page 210] as S. Gregory himselfe in one of the same Epistles vvhich M. Abbot citeth, doth intimate. For vvriting to the Patriarke of Alexandria he saith:Lib. 4. E­pist. 36. Your Holinesse knoweth, that by the Councel of Chalcedon, (vvhich vvas one of the foure first general Councels, most highly esteemed off by S. Gregory) this name of vniuersallity was offered to me, as Bishop of the Apostolike See; for (as he testifieth Epist. 32. of the same booke) that name was in honour of S. Peter Prince of the A­postles, attributed by many in that Councel, vnto the Bishop of Rome: yet (saith he) none of my Predecessours consented to vse it; because ve­rily if one Patriarke be called vniuersal, the other are made no Patriarkes at al. Briefly then to dispatch this great matter: that name vniuer­sal (as it was challenged by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople, who had no right to it in any good sence) was presumptuous, peruerse, and prophane; in vvhich consideration S. Gregory so tearmed it. Neither vvould he, nor any of his predecessours vse that name, though in that sence, that they had charge and command ouer the vniuersal Church, it might haue beene attributed to them: yet be­cause it was subject to another construction, to wit, that the Bishop of Rome was the only, truly, & proper Bishop of euery Diocesse, and other named Bishops were not true and proper Bishops there of, but the vniuersal Bishops Vicars, Suffraganes, and Substitutes; therefore they vtterly auoided that name, as matter of jealousie and scandal, choosing the humble stile of seruus seruorum Dei: The seruant of Gods seruants. For the further satisfaction of the learned reader, I wil proue out of S. Gregory, in the very same place quoted by M. Abbot, both that he wrote against the name of vniuersal Bi­shop in the later sence: And that notwithstanding he refused that name, yet that he acknowledged and taught, the Bishop of Rome to haue supreme authority ouer al the Church of Christ.

Touching the first, the wordes before alleaged out of his 36. E­pistle,Lib. 4. E­pist. 36. doe demonstrate so much, to wit: If one Patriarke be called v­niuersal, the other are made no Patriarkes at al; vvhich can haue no o­ther sence, then that the calling of one Patriarke or Bishop Vniuer­sal, doth signifie him so to be a Bishop in euery place, that no other besides him, can be truly and properly called Bishop, but must be his Vicar and Subdelegate. The like saith he in his 34. Epistle to the Emperesse:Lib. 4. E­pist. 34. That his brother and fellow Bishop Iohn, striued to be called Bishop alone. And in the 7. booke, and 69. Epistle to Eusebius [Page 211] he saith: Si vniuersalis est, restat vt vos Episcopi non sitis; If one Bishop be vniuersal, it remaineth that you be no Bishops. This then is most certaine, that S. Gregory spake against the name of Vniuersal Bishop, taken in this sence; that he was so a Bishop, as no other but he could be Bishop in any place: Marry, if we vnderstand by it, one man to haue the general charge of al the Churches in the vvorld, yet so as there be also Bishops and Archbishops his brothers, who haue the particular and proper gouernement of their seueral Diocesse; then S. Gregory telleth vs plainely, that S. Peter and his Successours the Bishops of Rome, were such: these be his wordes.Lib. 4. E­pist. 76. It is manifest to al that know the Gospel, that the charge of the whole Church, was by our Lordes owne mouth committed to S. Peter, Prince of al the Apostles. And againe in the same Epistle: Behold, Peter receiued the keies of the Kingdome of heauen; the power of binding and loosing is giuen to him; the charge and principality of the whole Church is committed to him: vvhich is also repeated in one of the Epistles cited by M. Abbot. Lib. 4. E­pist. 32. And that by S. Peter, this vniuersal charge and authority was left vnto the Bishops and See of Rome, no man can vvitnesse it more manifestly, then S. Gregory hath done. First, hauing proued out of the word of God S. Peters supremacy, he adjoyneth:Lib. 6. E­pist. 201. Therefore though there were many Apostles, yet for the principality it selfe, the only seate of the Prince of the Apostles hath preuailed in authority. As farre as the See Apostolike is euidently knowne to be set ouer al Churches, by the authority of God: So farre amongst other manifold cares, that doth greatly occupy vs, when for the consecration of a Bishop our sentence is ex­pected. Againe,Lib. 2. E­pist. 69. Lib. 7. E­pist. 64. For whereas he (the Patriarke of Constantinople) acknowledgeth himselfe to be subject vnto the Apostolike See (of Rome) I know not what Bishop is not subject vnto it. Moreouer, What thing so­euer shal be done (in that Councel) without the authority and consent of the See Apostolike, it is of no strength and vertue. Whereas on the other side he saith: Those thinges that are once ratified, Lib. 7. E­pist. 69. by the authority of the See Apostolike, neede no further strength or confirmation. If any man desire to see, how S. Gregory himselfe practised that soueraigne au­thority ouer al the parts of the Christian world, let him but reade his Epistles, and he shal finde it most perspicuously;Magdeburg. Centur. 6. In Indice verbo Gregorius. euen as their owne great writers of the Centuries doe testifie, directing them to the places in his workes, where they shal finde the same. How de­voide then was M. Abbot of al good conscience and honest dealing. [Page 212] that vvould vnder the colour of his writing against the name of vniuersal in that sence, perswade the simple, that S. Gregory vtterly misliked of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome? Now because that S. Gregory hath beene alwaies highly esteemed, and greatly respected of both Latin and Greeke Church, for his singular holy­nes and learning; and was besides the principal cause vnder God, of the conuersion of vs English-men vnto the Christian faith; I wil note out of his workes summarily, what was his opinion of ma­ny of the questioned points of faith, betweene the Protestants and vs, because M. Abbot citeth him against vs: that euery one may see, vvhat religion was first planted amongst vs English-men, and con­tinued for a thousand yeares.

Of 1 the Supremacy, and 2 Merit of good workes, hath beene spoken already. Concerning 3 the sacrifice of the Masse, it was daily offered vp to God in his age, by most holy Personages: witnesse these his vvordes.Homil. 37. in Euang. Most deare bretheren, many of you haue knowne Cassius the Bishop of Maruiensis, whose custome was to offer vp to God daily sacrifice, so that almost no day of his life passed, in which he did not offer to God al­mighty the propitiatory Host, whose life also was very conformable there­vnto; and then declareth, how in a vision he receiued a commandement from God, to hold on and to continue to doe as he did: And at the feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, thou shalt (saith God) come to me, and I wil repay thee thy reward. Againe, he relateth of the most blessed Pope Aga­pitus, that hauing a dumbe and lame man presented vnto him by his friendes, who professed their confidence in the power of God, and authority of S. Peter, he presently bent himselfe to praier; And beginning the solemnities of Masse, Lib. 3. Dia­log. cap. 3. he offereth vp sacrifice in the sight of almighty God: which being ended he went from the Altar, tooke the lame man by the hand, and the people beholding of it, he presently set him vp­right vpon his feete; and putting the body of our Lord into his mouth, his tongue that before was dumbe, then beganne to speake. Besides, of him selfe thus S. Gregory saith:Homil. 8. in Euang. Lib. 4. Dia­log. cap. 55. Because we are (by Gods grace) this day (of Christes Natiuity) to celebrate Masse three times, we cannot long speake of the Gospel. And further, He caused the sacrifice of the Masse to be offered thirty daies together, for the soule of one Iustus a Monke, vn­til he was by the oblation of that comfortable sauing Host deliuered from paines. This may suffice for his testimony of the sacrifice of the Masse, that it is a true propitiatory sacrifice, and to be daily offered [Page 213] both for the quicke and the dead.

Now touching the 4 Real presence, of which S. Gregory writeth in this manner: Christ liuing now in himselfe immortally, Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58. is yet sacrificed for vs in this mistery of the holy oblation: for his body is there receiued, his flesh is distributed to the saluation of the people; his bloud is not now shed by the handes of Infidels, but is powred into the mouthes of the faithful. Item, he saith vpon these wordes:Homil. 14. in Euang. (A good sheepe-heard giues his life for his sheepe) Christ is that good Pastour, who gaue his life for his sheepe, that he might turne his body and bloud into the Sacrament, and fil those sheepe which he had redeemed, with the foode of his owne flesh. Moreo­uer, expounding these wordes of Iob: Who wil grant vs that we may be filled with his flesh? The Iewes (saith he) and the beleeuing Gentils, doe both desire to be filled with Christs flesh: the obstinate Iewes in striuing to extinguish it, by spilling of it; but the good Gentils in coueting to feede their hungry mindes with his flesh in the daily sacrifice. This I hope be plaine enough for the Real presence.

Now to the 5 Inuocaton of Saints, and the worshipping their Relikes and Images. S. Gregory perswades vs to pray to the Saints, both be­cause they are Patrones very gratious with our judge IESVS Christ, and we very sinful creatures, that without the fauourable helpe of others, are most like to be condemned.Hom. 32. su­per Euang. In fine. Wherefore (saith he) sue to those blessed Martirs, that they may helpe you with their praiers; get them to be Protectours of your guiltinesse: They looke to be requested, and as it were seeke that they may be sought vnto. In the same place he shew­eth, vvhat miracles were wrought at their tombes, and what gifts God bestowed on them that came to pray there: The sicke men (saith he) doe come and are cured; perjured persons presenting themselues there, are vexed by the Deuil; men possed with euil spirits, be there deli­uered: How gloriously then doe they liue, there where they liue, (that is in heauen) if they liue so miraculously here where they are dead? He pro­poundeth this question, how it comes to passe, that Martirs doe many times shew greater fauours, and worke greater miracles, in places where their bodies lie not? and answereth in these wordes: Where holy Martirs rest in their bodies, 2. Dialog. cap. vlt. no doubt but that they can doe many miracles, as they doe vnto them that with a pure mind seeke for them; but because weake mindes might doubt whether they be present to heare, there where their bodies be not, it is necessary that there they worke greater maruailes, least weakelings should doubt of their presence: but they whose [Page 214] mindes be fastned vpon God, haue so much the more merit, for that they know them not to lie there in body, and yet not to faile to heare them. Doe you note how he reputeth it to be a weakenesse of faith, to doubt vvhether the Saints in heauen doe heare our praiers or no? vvhich very doubt he resolueth in proper tearmes in another place, where treating of the knowledge vvhich the soules departed haue, doth say of the blessed soules in heauen:12. Moral. cap. 13. Seing that the soules of the Saints doe inwardly behold the brightnesse of God almighty, we must in no case beleeue, that there is any thing without it, which they are ignorant off.

That 6 Churches were dedicated in the honour of Martirs, and holy daies kept in remembrance of their deathes, he vvitnesseth in twenty places. That 7 Masse was also said daily in eorum veneratione, to their worship, Lib. 7. Epist. cap. 29. That 8 Candels were lighted in the ho­nour of S. Paul, to testifie that he with the light of his preaching filled the world, Lib. 12. Epist. 9. See the last Epistle of the same booke, vvhere he ordaineth that lights be taken to serue the high Altar of S. Medard. Now for the loue and reuerence, vvhich we ought to cary to their holy relikes, let this serue. A most religious Princesse vvho had in her owne Pallace built a Church in the honour of S. Paul, made sute vnto S. Gregory, to haue S. Paules Head, or Hand­kercheefe, to sanctifie and inrich the same: to vvhom S. Gregory vvrote this answere;Lib. 3. E­pist. 30. that he was very willing to pleasure her, yet as sorry that he could not doe it in that sort. For (saith he) the bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul, doe in their Church glister and lighten with so many miracles and terrours, that no man dare approach neere them, not so much as to worship them, without great dread: but he trusted shee should not want the vertue of those holy Apostles (whom with al her hart shee loued) to protect her. And touching the hand-kercheefe which shee deman­ded, it did lie with the body, and could not be touched more then the body it selfe: yet that her most excellent grace might not be wholy frustrate of her religious desire, he would send her some part of those chaines, which S. Paul carried both about his necke and handes, and by which many mira­cles were wrought, if with filing be could get off any thing. For when ma­ny that come hither doe craue that blessing, that they might haue of that dust, which is filed off those chaines; the Priest comming with the file [...] doth for some presently get off something: whereas for other, he drawing the file on the chaines a long time, nothing at al wil off it. Further, to a Noble man of France he sent the blessing of S. Peter, and a little [Page 215] Crosse, within the which was inclosed some such filing of S. Peters chaines; Which for a time (saith he) bound S. Peters necke, Lib 2. E­pist. 72. but shal loose your necke from sinne for euer. Some relikes also of S. Laurence Grid-yron were inclosed in the foure corners of that same Crosse; That by the helpe of that whereon his body was broiled, your minde (saith he) may be kindled in the loue of God.

Touching 9 the Images of Saints, he not only approueth them to be made, but teacheth them to be set in Churches, Lib. 7. E­pist. 119. that they who can­not reade, may by beholding of them, learne to imitate some of their ver­tues. Moreouer, he exhorteth al men to worship them, by kneeling before them; yet with this caueat, that they doe not yeeld them any such adoration as is proper to God. What a protectour he was of 10 Purgatory & praier for the dead, Lib. 7. Epist. ad Secundin. Lib. 4. Dia­log. cap. 20. may be seene in these places vvhere he saith; that we must beleeue that there is a Purgatory fire, to cleanse lighter offences after this life, before the day of judgement: And proues it both by Christes wordes,Math. 12. vers. 32. If any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost, it shal not be forgiuen him, neither in this world nor in the world to come; And out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 3. vers. 15. He shal be saued, yet so as by fire. And in the beginning of the third penitential Psalme, expounding these wordes of the Prophet; O Lord rebuke me not in thy fury, nei­ther chastise me in thy wrath, he adjoineth: This is as much as if Dauid had said, I know that after this life some shal feele the fire of Purgatory, others shal receiue the sentence of eternal damnation: But because I e­steeme that transitory fire of Purgatory, to be more intollerable then any tribulation of this life, I doe not only wish not to be reproued in the fury of eternal damnation, for I feare also to be purged in the wrath of thy tran­sitory correction. In this exposition he agreeth vvith S. Augustine vpon the same Psalme, euen as he did in the first with the same pro­found Doctor Lib. 21. de Cinit. cap. 24. Et lib. 6. contra Iouintanum. cap. 9. Further he teacheth to pray for the soules departed, Lib. 4. Dialog. cap. 50. And to offer sacrifice for them, Ibid. cap. 55. and else where in many places.

To speake a word of the 11 single and chast life of the Clergie. S. Gre­gory saith, None ought to be admitted to the ministry of the Altar, Lib. 1. E­pist. 42. L. 12. In fine, In decretis. sa­uing such whose chastity hath beene approued before they were made Mi­nisters. Againe, If any Priest or Deacon doe marry, accursed be he. How wel he liked of the vowes and holy profession of 12 Monkes and Nunnes, may appeare by that, that he himselfe was one of them. [Page 216] And he relateth,Homil. 11. in Ezechiëlem, & Hom. 40. in Euangel. that there were 3000. Nunnes of name, in his time within the walles of Rome; whose life was so holy, and so much exercised in fasting, praiers, and teares, that he did beleeue, (had it not beene for them) none of the rest had beene able to haue subsisted so many yeares, amongst the swordes of the Longobardes. He then did not as the Pro­testants doe, thinke religious persons vnprofitable members of the common weale, by whose holy liues and deuout praiers, he estee­med the Citty to haue beene preserued.

For the sprinckling of holy Water in Churches, erecting of Altars, placing thereof Relikes of Saints, see Lib. 9. Epist. 71. For Pilgrimage to holy places, Lib. 4. Epist. cap. 44. Homil. 37. in Euang. & Lib. 2. Dialog. cap. 17. Finally, if I would stand to rehearse al that S. Gre­gory hath vvritten in the defence of the Catholike Roman faith, I should make a vvhole volume. And this briefe extract out of his owne authentike workes, vvil suffice (I hope) to demonstrate, what a jolly patron he was of the Protestants doctrine, and vvith vvhat good conscience M. Abbot and his fellowes doe alleage him, as a fauourer of their errours; which he disproued, confuted, and condemned so fully and particularly, little lesse then a thousand yeares, before they vvere hatched and thrust into the world. And must it not needes vvorke in al considerate English-mens harts, a very vehement inclination to imbrace the now professed Roman religion, to see the same point by point, professed, taught, and pra­ctised, a thousand yeare gone, by so wise, holy, and learned a Bi­shop, vvho was also as I noted before, the chosen instrument of God, principally to procure our reclaiming from Idolatry, and the seruing of false gods, vnto the true and sincere faith of IESVS Christ? That faith which he taught, was planted first amongst vs English-men,See the Ca­tholike Apo­logie out of Protestants. as the most learned among the Protestants doe con­fesse; the same hath also euer since (vntil of late) beene wholy re­tained of al our most holy Ancestours: is it not then a great shame for vs to degenerate so farre, and to fal so fondly from it? I trust in the mercies and goodnesse of God, that we shal once haue grace to perceiue, vnderstand, and amend it.

ROBERT ABBOT.

GREGORY the ninth, Bishop of Rome, though liuing in later time of great corruption; yet by the ancient doctrine of the Catholike Church could say: thatGreg. Ep. ad Germ Archi-Episc. Cōstat. apud Math. Paris. in Henrico tertio. the not knowing of the Scriptures [Page 217] by the testimony of the truth it selfe, is the occasion of errours; and there­fore that it is expedient for al men to reade or beare the same. But now the doctrine of Rome is, that it is pernitious for the people to med­dle vvith the Scriptures, that reading and knowledge thereoff, is the breeding of error and heresie; and as dogges from holy things, so the people must be secluded from the reading and vse of them.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT seemes to be fallen into a dangerous consumption, and to draw fast vpon a desperate estate, or else he vvould neuer vse such silly salues as this, to prolong the life of his forlorne cause. From Gregory the first he leapeth ouer the heades of an hun­dred Popes his Successours, and lighteth next vpon Gregory the ninth, that liued aboue six hundred yeares after him, whom also he citeth not out of his owne workes, but from the report of another; and when al is done, he hath not a word out of him that wil greatly helpe their cause. For what saith he, that we say not? we hold with him that the want of knowledge of the Scriptures, is the cause of heresie: for he that knoweth and vnderstandeth wel the holy Scri­ptures, can neuer fal into errour or heresie. Besides vve denie not, but that it is expedient for al men, either to reade the Scriptures, or to heare them: to reade them themselues if they be men of judge­ment, and indued with a lowly spirit, carrying with them this rule of S. Peter; 2. Pet. 1. vers. 19. That the Scriptures as they were not written by a priuate spirit, so they must not be vnderstood by a priuate interpretation: vvhere­fore in al darke and doubtful places, they must not trust to their owne wit, but make their recourse vnto the Catholike Church, (Ioh 14. v. 26. Ioh. 16. v. 13. 1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. Which is directed by the spirit of God into al truth, and therefore called the pillar and ground of truth) for the true sence and meaning of them. Al the rest, both Men, Women, and Children, we would haue to heare the holy Scriptures read vnto them, and expounded by their lawful Pastours, and approued Preachers, who are chosen and sent to feede their soules, with that heauenly foode of the word of God: So that Gregory the ninth, differeth nothing from Paul the fift, the present Pope of Rome, who is fully of the same opinion: And M. Abbots audatious assertions to the contrary, are but meere slanders. For we hold it not pernitious for al sortes of people to reade the Scriptures, vnlesse it be in such false translations, as the Protestants haue made; but haue our selues translated them into the vulgar [Page 218] tongue, that al Godly wel minded people, of any reasonable capa­city, may diligently and deuoutly reade them at their good opor­tunity.

M. Abbot vvas wont heretofore, to alleage some authour or o­ther, to giue the better countenance to his lies; but now he is faine to face them out himselfe, without the helpe of any other: and ha­uing put his special confidence in lying, as they did of vvhom the Prophet speaketh;Esai. 28. Posuimus mendacium spem nostram, We haue put our hope in lying, he thrusteth them out lightly by huddles. False then it is first, that we teach the people to be secluded from the reading of Scripture, as dogges are from holy thinges: for vve would haue none other debarred from reading of them, but wauering, wilful, and peruerse fellowes,2. Pet. 3. vers. 16. Who (as S. Peter teacheth) abuse the holy Scri­ptures, to their owne destruction, and to the seducing of others. Second­ly, it is a lie in graine, to auouch that we teach the knowledge of the Scriptures to breede errour and heresie, vnlesse he meane the corrupt and peruerse knowledge of them, which is rather to be tearmed the ignorance of them: for the true knowledge of them deliuereth vs from al errour and heresie, and settleth vs in the sound doctrine of the Catholike Roman Church. True it is that many now a-daies, vvho haue some smattering in the vvordes and verses of the text, hauing itching eares and wauering minds, are the sooner lead away through their little skil in the Scriptures, and ouer-great presum­ption of their owne wits: for hearing Heretikes cite for proofe of their heresie, some texts of Scripture which they know to be Gods vvord, and hauing neither sufficient learning to answere them, nor grace to aske counsel therein of the true Pastors of Christs Church, vvho would rightly informe them, become a pray to the rauening vvolues. Againe, the very experience of this age doth sufficiently informe an vnderstanding man, that the ouer common reading of Gods word by the more rude and vnruly sort, hath rather ingen­dred a corruption of manners, then bredde any amendment there­of: for euery peeuish scripturist, puffed vp with the opinion of his owne learning, wil rather take vpon him to be a teacher of others, then a practiser of them himselfe. And often very preposterously, Women wil teach Men, Children their Fathers, Sheepe their Pa­stours: in a word, many wil be jangling about matter of religion, and very few studious to liue religiously. These disorders I graunt [Page 219] doe not spring directly out of Gods word, but out of our corrupt nature, too too prone to presumption on our owne skil: And there fore, let any reasonable man judge vvhether they did not more vvisely, who vsed to bridle this itching appetite of reading in the curious, and thought it better to binde them to follow the aduise of their spiritual guides, which haue charge of their soules; then our new bretheren, who allow euery Man, Woman, and Child to read vvhat bookes of Scripture they list, and to wrangle about them so commonly? S. Paul insinuateth, that al places of Scripture are not fit for al sortes of men; but in some parts,1. Cor. cap. 3. vers. 2. There is milke for suck­lings; and in others, Strong meate for the more perfect: And our Sa­uiour Christ IESVS spake much in parables, vvhich are not for e­uery ones capacity. A sword is a good weapon, but put it into the hand of a madde man, it wil doe more harme then good: so if some men get a smattering in holy Scriptures, they wil vse it ful madly. Wherefore the Catholike Church, though shee wish euery child of hers to know so much of the Scriptures, as vvil doe them any way good: yet shee knowes it to be holesome and very necessary, that a moderation be vsed therein, according to the discreet aduise and judgement of Godly and prudent Ghostly Fathers.

ROBERT ABBOT.

HIEROME and RVFFINVS by the doctrine of the Church of Rome,Hier. in Pro­log. Galiat. & in Praefat. lib. Salomonis. Ruffin. in expositione Simboli. excluded from Canonical Scripture the same bookes that we doe; the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the rest: they say plainly, Non sunt in Canone, non sunt Canonici; They are not Canonical, nor in the Canon. The Church readeth them for instruction of manners, not to giue any authority to any Ecclesia­stical doctrine. But now the Church of Rome, wil haue them to be receiued and beleeued for Canonical Scriptures, and of equal and like authority withal the other bookes.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Obserue first, that M. Abbot forgetting himselfe (vvhich is a foule fault in a liar) and leauing his owne prescript order, is now fallen cleane from S. Peter and S. Pauls successours, the Bishops of Rome. Secondly, that he neuerthelesse holds his old custome in lying. I winke at that petty lie, that he thrusteth in Baruch among the rest, vvhich his Authors doe not; but may not dissemble this greater: for whereas he saith, Hierome and Ruffinus by the doctrine of [Page 220] the Church of Rome, exclude from Canonical Scripture the same bookes that we doe; therein he fableth: for though they so did, yet did they it not by the doctrine of the Church of Rome. For Innocentius the first, Pope of Rome; vvhom S. Augustine alleageth, stiling him a Saint, and ranking him with S. Ireneus, S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose, in these wordes:August. lib. 1. cont. Iulianū, cap. 4. Cùm hijs etiam ipse considet, etsi posterior tempore, prior loco; In time somewhat after some of them, but in dignity of place before them. This holy and learned Bishop of Rome I say, vvho flourished in S. Hieromes daies, (or else S. Augustine vvho was in manner his equal,Epist. 3. ad Exuper. cap. vltimo. could not haue cited his testimony) doth ex­presly declare those very bookes to be Canonical Scripture. I trust his declaration that ruled that See of Rome, wil rather be ta­ken for the doctrine of the Church of Rome, then any other mans besides. Againe, Pope Gelasius the first, who liued not long after him (which also is one of M. Abbots chosen patrons) did in publike assembly,In Decret. de Libris sacris in 2. tomo Cō ­ciliorum. (assisted also vvith 80. other Bishops) define the same bookes to be Canonical Scripture: who can then doubt, but that the Church of Rome, in S. Hieromes and Ruffinus daies, tooke those bookes to be Canonical Scripture? wherefore it was but M. Abbots addition to the text, to affirme that Hierome and Ruffinus, accor­ding to the doctrine of the Church of Rome did so say. Besides, the third Councel of Carthage holden at the felfe-same time,Cōcil. 3. Car­thag. cap. 47. doth declare the said bookes of Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, &c. to be Canonical Scri­pture; affirming also, that therein they followed the sound judge­ment of their Ancestours.Lib. 2. de Do­ctrina Christ. cap. 8. & Lib. 18. de Ciui­tat. cap. 36. S. Augustine in sundry places of his workes, doth by name declare the bookes of Wisdome, Ecclesiasti­cus, Tobias, Iudith, and the two bookes of the Machabees to be Ca­nonical Scripture; and seemeth to expound S. Hieromes sentence in these wordes: The bookes of the Machabees, the Iewes indeede doe not receiue; but the Church of God taketh them for Canonical Scriptures. Whence we after the auncient,Lib. 7. Eti­molog. cap. [...]. learned, and holy Bishop Isidorus, doe collect this distinction: The Canon of the Scriptures is two­fold; the one of the Hebrewes, the other of the Christians: that of the Hebrewes vvas compounded long before Christes daies, in which these bookes of Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, &c. are not compre­hended, because they vvere written in later times, and not in the Hebrew tongue.Prolog. Ga­liator. Of this Hebrew Canon speaketh S. Hierome in that Prologue, as it wil be manifest to al that shal but reade it; for [Page 221] he saith first, That the Hebrewes haue but 22. letters, and according to the same number but 22. bookes in their Canon: then reckoning them vp by name, inferreth; therefore the booke of Wisdome, &c. be not in the Canon, to wit, that Canon of the Hebrewes whereof he there spake: vvhich also appeareth more euidently by his answere to Ruffinus, vvho objected against him as a shameful reproach, that he rejected certaine Chapters of Daniël, because they were not in the Hebrew, though they were in the Septuaginta. S. Hierome ex­cuseth himselfe, saying:Lib. 2. cont. Ruffinū, ver­sus finem. That therein be shewed the opinion of the He­brewes, but did not deliuer his owne sentence. And as he there saith, That he who would calumniate that his doing, should shew himselfe a sycophant: so he doth thereby giue al others to vnderstand, that he vvho would after that faire warning, build any Catholike conclu­sion vpon his relation of the Hebrewes opinion, should proue him selfe a foole, in trusting to so sandy and slippery a foundation. And yet further, in his Preface vpon the booke of Iudith he teacheth, That the Hebrewes did not take that booke of Iudith for Canonical; yet the first Nicene Councel (vvhich is the most authentike of al general Councels) did account it in the number of holy Scripture: so that in S. Hieromes opinion also, though these bookes were not in the Ca­non of the Hebrewes; yet they may be very sincere Canonical Scripture with the Christians, vvho haue the spirit of discerning and judging of such Canonical bookes, as wel as the ancient He­brewes had. But S. Hierome saith in the later place, That the Church doth not vse them to establish Ecclesiastical doctrine. I answere, that the Churches of Afrike did vse them euen in his owne time, and the Church of Rome, (which is the principal of al Europe at the least) as hath beene proued before: so that his vvordes must needes be restrained vnto some Churches in Asia, where he liued for the most part; or it may be said, that the Church had not then when S. Hie­rome so wrote, generally declared them to be Canonical, though very shortly after, euen before his dying day, they were in the most principal places of the Church, both declared and receiued for Canonical. That the Church had sufficient author [...]ty, by declara­tion to make bookes of Scripture Canonical, that before were not generally taken for such, the Protestants themselues must needes confesse; because they take for Canonical, the Epistle to the He­brewes, and diuers others, with the Reuelation of S. Iohn, which [Page 222] vvere doubted off by many of the learned Christians in the primi­tiue Church,Lib. 3. Hist. Eccles. c. 10. & 19. as witnesseth Eusebius.

ROBERT ABBOT.

VIGILIVS borne at Rome, and Bishop of Trent, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that then was, affirmeth: That the body of Christ when it was vpon the earth, Vigil. cōt. Eu­tich. lib. 4. was not in heauen, and that now because it is in heauen, it is not vpon the earth. But now the Councel of Trent and Church of Rome perswade vs, that the very body of Christ though it be in heauen; yet is really and substan­tially here vpon earth also, vpon the Altar, and in the Pix, and in the Priests belly, and in the bellies of as many as are partakers of the Sacrament.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

In vita S. Si­sinnij.THIS large amplification is shortly answered. Vigilius though a holy Catholike Bishop, as his praying to Saints doth de­monstrate; yet was none of S. Peters successours: neither doth he speake any thing against Christs real & substantial presence in the Bles. Sacramēt, if his wordes be taken in his owne meaning, to wit; that Christ since his ascention is not here in that māner and fashion, as he did conuerse vpon the earth with his Disciples, that is in the forme of man. Which I gather out of Vigilius his owne wordes; for he saith, that Christ is departed from vs in the forme of a seruant, and so according vnto that forme of a seruant, in the habit and likenesse of a man he is not present with vs: but the very same body vnder the forme of bread, is in as many places, as the blessed Sacrament is consecrated. See for this more in the question of the Real presence.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Hier. in Ca­talogo.TERTVLLIAN being for enuy of the Clergy of Rome, fallen into the heresie of Montanus, and thereupon oppugning the same Church, declareth what the said Church then taught concer­ning fasting,Tertul. de Ie­jun. aduersus Psythicos. of purpose to dispute against it. They say (saith he) that men are to fast indifferently at their discretion, not by commandement, euery one according to his owne time and occasion; that the Apostles did so obserue, imposing no yoke of standing fasts, and such as should in common be kept of al, &c.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

FROM the Pastours of the See of Rome, M. Abbot is declined to the enemies of the same Church: doth he not fairely obserue [Page 223] his owne order and promise? But vvel M. Abbot, if Tertullian for enuy of the Clergy of Rome fel into heresie, let your charity to­wards the Roman Clergy, helpe to draw your selfe out of the same sinke of heresie. But where was your judgement, to cite an author vvriting out of the corrupt humour of enuy (as you confesse your selfe) for an vpright & indifferent reporter of his aduersaries cause? Did euer enuy yet learne to speake vvel? Why did you not rather alleage some sound Catholike Authour, for the reporter of Catho­likes opinions? What? is it because as Vultures and Rauens doe ra­ther flie to rotten carrion and dead stinking carcases, then to any sound bodies; so they that seeke to deuour poore sinful soules, doe make choise of tainted and corrupt authors, out of their contagion to infect and destroy others? Simile simili gaudet, Like wil to like. Nay vvhat if M. Abbot be not satisfied with the badde vvordes of Ter­tullian (vvhich proceeded out of enuy and malice) but doth yet by chopping and changing of them, make them farre worse then they be in the authour? is he not then to be esteemed as a most corrupt mangler of antiquity? Tertullian to make his owne error seeme the lesse, proposeth odde trifling arguments against it, which he could answere with more ease, and that after an odious manner, as the ad­uerse party is wont to doe; that he might make the Catholikes out of loue with them: yet doth M. Abbot relate the same in great gra­uity, as the most sincere & substantial proofes of the contrary par­ty, sauing that now and then (after his old fashion) he falsifieth his authour too.

Now to the vvordes of Tertullian: the first are craftily cropped off by him; for Catholikes neuer said so absolutely, That they were to fast at their owne discretion, and not by commandement: for Tertullian confesseth there, that Catholikes held themselues bound to fast the Lent, and on Wednesdaies and Fridaies; therefore they could not say that they were to fast only at their owne discretion. True it is, that they answered him and the Montanists, that they vvere not bound to keepe any of their new deuised fasting-daies, nor to fast after the manner that they prescribed, and that by the commande­ment (as they said and lied) of the Paraclete or holy Ghost; from such fasts they proclaimed themselues free: vvhereupon he mali­tiously reported, that they said they might fast when they list, and were not bound to fast by any cōmandement. Secondly, whereas [Page 224] Tertullian saith in the name of Catholikes, That the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing fasts, and such as should be commonly kept of al; Nisi eo tempore quo oblatus est sponsus (by which he meaneth specially the Lent, wherein the memory of Christes death is celebrated:) and afterward mentioneth the Catholikes halfe-fasts, (as he tearmeth them) of Wednesdaies and Fridaies; M. Abbot to make them speake like good Protestants, dasheth al that cleane out of the text, leauing them to say, that the Apostles appointed no fasting daies at al, nei­ther Lent nor Fridaies: So what by Tertullians odious relation, and M. Abbots false addition or substraction, there is a pretty peece of cosenage, to gul the simple and vnwary reader. The wordes then of Tertullian, being first such as proceeded from enuy, and then al­so much mangled afterward, and peeced togither at M. Abbots pleasure, I hold it not necessary to stand vpon them; but doe come vnto M. Abbots inferences, and goodly buildinges vpon such a deceitful foundation.

ROBERT ABBOT.

SEE (M. Bishop) how like a Protestant, the Church of Rome spake in those daies: would you not thinke that Luther, or Cal­uin, or Beza were the Authour of these wordes? How lightly doe you regard these arguments from vs, which the Church of Rome 1400. yeres agoe, vsed to the very same purpose that we now doe? But the Church of Rome hath learned now to sing another songe: shee condemned the heresie of Montanus then, but now shee main­taineth it. I auouch it M. Bishop, that concerning fasting, neither you nor al your fellowes, are able to acquite the Church of Rome of the heresie of Montanus.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I See (M. Abbot) how like the Protestant humour is, vnto the di­stempered spirits of old time. I thinke verily, that Luther, Cal­uin, Beza, and such late plagues of Christendome, doe yet more deceitfully and falsly report Catholikes opinions and arguments, then euer Tertullian did. How lightly these arguments which you afterward enforce, are to be regarded, shal shortly appeare. The Church of Rome hath not changed one note of her old songe con­cerning fasting, neither shal you with the helpe of al your compa­nions, proue vs to be Montanists in this point of fasting. I being the simplest of a thousand amongst the learned on our side, vvil [Page 225] quickly cleare our party from that imputation: And contrariwise I doubt not, but to proue you and yours, to be the disciples of loui­nian and Aërius, old condemned Heretikes in this point of fasting. Let vs lay vvordes a-side and come to arguments.

ROBERT ABBOT.

1 THE Montanists appointed certaine and standing daies for fa­sting, and for the forbearing of certaine meates: so doe the Papists. 2 The Montanists did not take any creature or meate to be vncleane, but did only by way of deuotion as they pretended, for­beare at certaine times: and the Papists also doe the same. 3 The Montanists being vrged vvith that place of S. Paul to Timothy, of them that cōmanded to abstaine from meates, answered; that that place touched Marcion and Tatianus & such others, vvho condem­ned the creatures as euil and vncleane; not them, vvho did not re­ject the creatures, but only forbeare the vse of them at sometimes: the same answere giue the Papists. 4 The Montanists tooke that their fasting to be a seruice & worship of God: so doe the Papists. 5 The Montanists thought that their fasting did merit at gods hands, that it was a satisfaction for sinne, that emptines of belly did much auaile vvith God, and made God to dwel with man: the same ef­fects doe the Papists teach of their superstitious fasts. Looke what arguments the Papists vse for their fasting; the same Tertullian v­sed for the Montanists. Looke what cauils and calumniations the Papists vse against vs, of feasting in steed of fasting, of Epicurisme and pampering the belly; the same Tertullian being a Montanist, vsed against the doctrine of the Church of Rome: vvhereas nei­ther that Church then, nor vve now, doe reject the true fasting which the Scripture teacheth, but only those opinions of fasting, vvhich the Montanists first deuised, and the Papists haue receiued against the Scripture; to forbeare continually by way of religion, such and such daies, from such and such meates, with a minde there in and by their very forbearing, to doe a worship to God, to satis­fie for sinne, to merit and purchase the forgiuenesse thereoff, and to deserue eternal life.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

BEFORE we come to joine issue, let this maxime of arguing be obserued: He that vvil proue one to be the proper disciple of any Sect-master, must doe it by producing the proper and peculiar [Page 226] doctrine of the same sect, and not by alleaging such points of do­ctrine, as are common to that sect vvith many others. For exam­ple, if I would proue a Protestant to be an Arrian, I must not thinke to performe it, by prouing that they beleeued in one God as the Arrians did, or that they flie to the touch-stone of the Scriptures, as the Arrians did, refusing Traditions; and that they relied much on the power of temporal Princes, setting the Bishop of Romes au­thority at naught, &c. for none of these be proper branches of the Arrian sect, but common to them with others. Marry, if I could proue them to affirme the Sonne of God touching his diuinity to be lesser then his Father, or after his Father, or not of the same sub­stance vvith his heauenly Father; I must needes be taken then to speake to the purpose: Euen so, if M. Abbot doe insist vpon those points of the Montanists errors, which were proper to themselues, and not common with others, prouing vs to maintaine the same; I then wil graunt, that he acquiteth himselfe like a braue champion. But if he doe make al his instances, in such general circumstances of fastinges, as the Catholike Church then did maintaine, as vvel as the Montanists; Yea that the Protestants themselues doe in part vphold and defend, as wel as the Catholikes: then euery man must needes acknowledge and take him for a wrangling Sophister, and a vaine bragging writer, that crakes of wonders and performes no­thing. Let vs now descend to his particulars, and try what sharp­nesse of wit, and soundnesse of judgement he sheweth therein.

1 The Montanists (saith he) appointed certaine and standing daies for fasting, and forbearing of certaine meates: so doe the Papists. I graunt: vvhat? be they therefore Montanists? then the Protestants be also Montanists, because they appoint certaine and standing daies of fastes, as Friday, Saturday, the Imber, and Lent-fasts, and many feasts eues; vvhich daies they appoint for the forbearing of flesh. Is not this a proper peece of Montanisme, that is common to so many? Nay, the Apostles themselues did the like, as Tertullian in the same place graunteth: vvere they also therefore Montanists? see how M. Abbot beginneth to shame himselfe? To the next. 2 The Montanists did not take any creature or meate to be vncleane, but did only by way of deuotion forbeare at certaine times: and the Papists doe also the same; vvhich I also graunt. And doe not the Protestants agree vvith them in the former part, thinking no meate to be vncleane? [Page 227] Now in the later they doe vvorse; for they forbeare flesh at cer­taine times, not of deuotion to chastise their bodies, and to please God, as the Montanists pretended: but for worldly pollicy, of fa­uouring the increase of flesh, for the vpholding of the trade of fisher-men, and to please their Prince. Here let any Godly man be judge, whether of these two endes of pleasing God or the Prince, be more Christianlike, and whether of them doe more sauour of the spirit of God? he shal no doubt finde, that herein it is much bet­ter to concurre with Tertullian, then consort with the Protestants. And that the best learned in the primitiue Church so thought and so taught, I haue proued in the Question of fasting. 3 The Monta­nists being vrged with that place of S. Paul, that it was the doctrine of Deuils, to command to abstaine from meates, answered; that it touched Marcion and Tatianus, who condemned meates as vncleane in their owne nature: the same answere doe the Papists giue; which I acknowledge vvillingly. What? are they thereby become Montanus disciples? then vvas S. Augustine, as a great Papist, so no smal Montanist: for he doth in most expresse tearmes so expound that place; these be his wordes. The Apostle doth in these wordes properly point at, Aug. cōt. A­dimant. Ma­nichaeū, c. 14. 1. Tim. c. 4. not them who therefore abstaine from such meates, that they may thereby bridle their owne concupiscence, or spare another mans weakenesse: but those, who thinke the flesh it selfe vncleane. Doe you see how S. Augustine inter­preteth those wordes of S. Paul, euen as we doe? who also answe­reth to euery of the Protestants objections against set fasting aboue a 1000. yeares before they troubled the world. In like manner doth S. Hierome, in the very wordes that M. Abbot sets downe for ours: thus he writeth.Lib. 1. cont. Iouin. ca. 41. The Apostle doth condemne them that forbidde to marry, and command to abstaine from meates, &c. true, but he aimed at Marcion and Tatianus, and such other Heretikes that command perpe­tual abstinence, as though the creatures of God were abhominable: but we commend euery creature of God, and doe only preferre fasting before ful­nesse, &c. So that by this exposition of S. Paules doctrine, vve are not proued Montanists, but doe imitate therein the principal pil­lars of the ancient Roman Church, S. Augustine and S. Hierome; and doe therein also, wipe away a sluttish imputation of Iouinian, reuiued and set a foote againe by the Protestants: that forsooth,Lib. 1. cont. Iouin. cap. 3. We teach the doctrine of Deuils condemned by the Apostles, and doe fal into the opinion of the Manichees, because we command to abstaine on fasting [Page 228] daies, from some kinde of meates, which God created to receiue, &c. but of this more exactly in the Question of fasting. Now to the rest of M. Abbots text. 4 The Montanists tooke that their fasting to be a seruice and worship to God: vvherein they were not deceiued; for it is writ­ten in the word of God,Luc. 2. That Elizabeth a blessed widdow, departed not from the Temple, by fasting and praier seruing night and day: seruing, in Greeke Latreuousa, that is, doing seruice and worship to God, as by praier, so by fasting. Againe, by fasting, watching, and other bodi­ly austerities, we doe (according to the common exposition of the auncient Fathers)Rom. 12. exhibit our bodies to God, a liuing bost (as the A­postle speaketh) holy & pleasing God, and a reasonable seruice: It must needes then be a very holy, and most acceptable seruice and vvor­ship of God, that is resembled by S. Paul, vnto a liuing and pure sa­crifice. Canon. 5. And in the Councel of Nice it is said, That we may offer to God the pure and solemne fast of Lent: they thought then it was a ser­uice of God. I omit here to bring any further proofes, because this is not the place to stand vpon the matter of fasting, but only to an­swere to M. Abbots naked objections: vvhereof the fift is (as M. Abbot saith) that 5 the Montanists thought by their fasting to merit at Gods hand. Good reason had they for that, if they did so teach, and that the rest of their doctrine had beene answerable to it; for our bles­sed Sauiour doth teach the very same expresly in these vvordes:Math. 6. When thou doest fast anoint thy head and wash thy face, that thou ap­peare not to men to fast, and thy Father who seeth thee in secret wil repay thee. Whereupon that graue and holy Father S. Ambrose saith: Where be these new Masters that doe exclude the merit of fasting? Epistola. 82. ad E [...]cl. Here, here Sir, saith M. Abbot. If they were new sect-masters in S. Am­brose time, that denied the merit of fasting, then surely the ancient Church of Rome did maintaine the merit of fasting. Againe, Epi­phanius (a more credible reporter of Montanus errors, then his owne disciple Tertullian) hath left written:Haeres. 48. cōt. Montan. That many of the Montanists, did remoue the reward of vertue, and crowne of glory from fasting: where fore M. Abbot doth wrongfully attribute that vnto them. Besides, S. Augustine doth affirme:De Ecclesiast. dogm. ca. 68. That to equal marriage with virginity, and to beleeue that they who doe abstaine from wine and flesh to chastise their bodies, doe thereby merit nothing, is not the part of a Christian, but of a Iouinian. It is then more then manifest, that the ancient Church of Rome did vphold the merit of fasting, and that they were of old, [Page 229] esteemed no better then Heretikes that denied it.

To come now to the last fained concord betweene vs and the Montanists: They taught (as he auoucheth) fasting to be a satisfaction or expiation of sinne, and a special meanes to appease Gods wrath towards vs; which if they did, they had good warrant in the word of God for it For the children of Israël1. Reg. 7. fasting with Samuël, appeased God, and obtained victory of their enemies: so did they againe and againe, in the time ofHester. 4. Iudith. 4. Hester and Iudith. TheIonae. 3.Niniuites turned away the wrath of God by fasting: Daniël also (asSer. de laps. Lib. de Vtilit. Iejunij, ca. 3. S. Cyprian witnesseth) by fasting promeruit Deum, appeased his wrath & did winne his fauor. S. Augustine proposeth the delicate Protestants objection, & shewes vs how to answere thereunto: What (say they) is God so cruel, that he taketh pleasure to see thee torment thy selfe? Answere, (saith that most learned Doctor) I put my selfe to paine, that God may spare me; I punish my selfe that he may succour me, that I may please his eies, that I may de­light his sweetnesse: for the Host is hampered and vexed, that it may be laid vpon the Altar, &c. Briefly, vve haue by the euident warrant of Gods vvord, and by sound testimony of the Nicene Councel, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine (no Montanists, but most holy & juditious Prelates of the ancient Catholike Church); that by fasting God is truly serued, his just indignation against vs is ap­peased, satisfaction is made for the temporal paine due to sinne, and the increase of his grace and heauenly glory, is thereby also merited. Whence it followeth finally, that when M. Abbot assaied by these common accidents and circumstances of fasting, (vvhich were as wel defended by the ancient Church of Rome, as by the Montanists) to proue the present Church of Rome to be turned Montanist; his soare eies were piteously troubled with such a de­fluxion either of enuy or ignorāce, that had wel-nigh blinded him. But if the discreet reader for his further satisfaction, desire to know wherein lay the proper error of the Montanists concerning fasting (for they held besides, diuers other pointes of erronious doctrine) I answere in briefe, out of the Ecclesiastical history:Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. Epistola. ad Marcellū de fide nostra & dogmate hae­retico. Montanus de­creed new lawes of fasting, vvhich did consist partly in the time, and partly in the manner of fasting. S. Hierome recounting the principal points of Montanus heresie: as that they held but one per­son in the Deity, and that al second mariages were wicked; commeth to the third point of fasting, and saith: We Catholikes doe fast one [Page 230] Lent or fourty daies once in the yeare, according to the tradition of the A­postles, at a conuenient time: They (that is the Montanists) make three Lents in the yeare, as though three Sauiours had suffred for vs; not that we may not fast any time in the yeare, except betweene Easter and Whit­sontide, but that it is one thing to doe so voluntarily, and another vpon necessity: So that the fi [...]st nouelty of their fast was, that euery man vvas bound to fast three Lents euery yeare. Other daies perhaps they might haue proper to themselues, vvhich I haue not read off; but the manner of their fast, Tertullian in the place before cited, doth signifie: that it was to hold out their fast vntil the Sunne were set, without tasting of any thing, and then to vse that Cherophagia mentioned by M. Abbot, that is; to eate only dry meates that had no juyce or nourishment in them: Al vvhich must needes be done according to their doctrine, by the commandement of the Para­clete or holy Ghost, vvhich dwelt in Montanus; and was powred out vpon his disciples (as they fabled) farre more pientifully, then vpon Christes Apostles. These indiscreete lawes then of fasting, that few vvere able to indure, enacted also by him that had no au­thority to make lawes; and peremptorily published in the name of the holy Ghost, to be obserued of al vnder paine of damnation, vvere Montanus errours touching fasting. Let M. Abbot if he can, shew out of Philastrius, Epiphanius, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, or any other approued Authour (who haue registred Montanus here­sies, either in his owne name or vnder the name of Cataphriges, be­cause he was a Phrygian borne, and there his heresie did most rage) that his errours about fasting were, That he thought fasting to please G [...]d, to be meritorious or satisfactory; and then he shal beginne to speake to some purpose. But any auncient sincere Authour truly taken and reported, wil not serue his turne: they must be Heretiks or writing at least in an heretical vaine, as Tertullian then did, or else, they wil [...]fford him no helpe or comforr. The Montanists indeed, the more easily to intrappe Catholikes in their snares, might per­haps pretend the same end and spiritual fruites of fasting, vvhich the Catholikes liked wel off, as al Heretikes doe mingle and blend many truthes with their errours, the better to colour their trumpe­ry and deceit: like vnto Wolues that put on Sheepe-skinnes, that they may thereby the sooner catch them vvhom they seeke to de­uour, before they be aware of them. But as S. Augustine aduiseth [Page 231] very prudently, The sheepe must not therefore cast off his owne skinne, because the wolfe doth sometime put it on: no more must Catholikes forsake any branch or good circumstance of fasting, because the Montanists vsed them.

If any man be desirous to know the true founders of the Prote­stant doctrine against fasting, they are of record in right good au­thours, but noted by them for very vvicked Heretikes. Aërius (saith both Epiphanius and S. Augustine) vnto the Arrian heresie ad­ded some other errours of his owne, to wit: That we ought not to pray and offer sacrifice for the dead; and that certaine standing fastes were not to be commanded, but that men might fast when they pleased, least other­wise they should be vnder the law. Is not this the first part of the Pro­testant plea and opinion, that there must be no standing and ordi­nary fastes? Ioyne hereunto one branch of Iouinians heresie:Hieron. lib. 1. cont. Iouin. cap. 2. That there is no difference, betweene abstaining from meate, and receiuing of the same with thanks-giuing, that is, al is one before God: and no more me­rit or satisfaction in fasting then in eating; and then you haue the ful doctrine of the Protestants, patched vp out of the rotten reproued ragges of two old condemned Heretikes, Aërius and Iouinian. The old Roman faith, vvhich to this day doth remaine inuiolable, wal­keth in the middest of these two extremities: shee leaueth it not to euery mans discretion, to fast when and how he pleaseth, as Aërius vvould haue had it (for then there vvould be little fasting with ma­ny, as daily experience teacheth vs;) but cōmandeth certaine stan­ding times of fasting, prescribing also one vniforme manner to be obserued of al, who be of age and in health; which is done accor­ding to the tradition of the Apostles, with that moderation of both time and diet, that shee is as farre on the other side, from the pre­sumptuous and vndiscreet prescription of the Montanists, as may be. We can better defend our selues from Montanus errours, then M. Abbot can doe the Protestants from one principal point of them; vvhich was (as S. Hierome reporteth,) that they at euery sinne almost, Epist. 49. ad Marcellum de dogmate Montani. did shut vp the Church dores, that is, did deny that there was in the Pa­stours of the Church, power to absolue them from those sinnes: And were so sterne and rough (as S. Hierome saith) not that they themselues did not commit more grieuous offences, but because there is this difference betwixt the Montanists & vs, that they are ashamed to confesse their sinnes as men; but we whiles we doe penance, doe more easily merit and deserue pardon: [Page 232] vvhere you see, that the ancient Roman Church (of which S. Hie­rome was an eminent Doctor) did dissent from the Montanists ab­out the Sacrament of confession. The Montanists then, as the Pro­testants now, did not beleeue that Priests had power to forgiue many sortes of sinne, and therefore vvould not goe to confession: Contrariwise the Catholikes then, beleeued as we doe now, that Priests could pardon al sortes of sinne, and therefore went to con­fession, and did such penance as vvas injoyned them, thereby to deserue pardon of their sinnes.

ROBERT ABBOT.

TO this heresie of Montanus, the Church of Rome hath added the practise and defence of sundry other heresies, which were condemned of old by the same Church.Epiphan. Haeres. 78. Antid. Idem Haeres. 79. Collyrid. The Collyridians were adjudged Heretikes, for worshipping the Virgin Mary, and offe­ring vnto her: Epiphanius calling it a wicked and blasphemous act, a Deuilish worke, and the doctrine of the vncleane spirit, affirming that shee vvas not giuen vs to be worshipped: that because men should not admire or thinke to highly of her, therefore he spake to her in that sort in the Gospel; Woman what haue I to doe with thee? that if God vvould not haue the Angels to be worshipped, much lesse a vvo­man: that the Sonne of God tooke flesh of the holy Virgin, but not that shee should therefore be worshipped, nor to make her a God, nor that we should offer in her name: That shee should be in honour, but yet let no man worship her (saith he) let them not say we doe honour to the Queene of heauen. Yet the Church of Rome that now is, wor­shippeth the Virgin Mary, praieth and offereth to her vnder the name of the Queene of heauen.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

Hierem. 13.WHEN the Aethiopian doth change his tanned skinne, and the Leopard his speckled case, (as the Prophet speaketh) then (and not before I vveene) vvil the Aethiopian blacke soule of this Tanners sonne, leaue off to abuse the holy Fathers writinges, and to deceiue his credulous readers. Epiphanius a most holy man and a very learned Bishop, in recounting & confuting the heresies that vvere sprong vp in and before his time, commeth at length vnto the erronious opinions, which some held of the most blessed Vir­gin Mary, the glorious mother of God: which were in two extre­mities. For some named Antidicomarianitae, that is enemies to the [Page 233] sacred Virgin, because they spake against her perpetual virginity: whose blasphemy he checketh in the 78. heresie, which is the first chapter cited by M. Abbot. Wherein that holy Father doth most highly commend her, stiling her an immaculate Virgin, worthy to be made the pallace of the Sonne of God; A holy, pretious, most excellent, and admirable vessel, comprehending him that is incomprehensible; The Princesse of Virginity; The Mother of the liuing and the cause of life, pre­ferring her before S. Iohn the Euangelist, S. Iohn Baptist, and Helias: Adding finally, That though shee were a woman and not in nature chan­ged, yet for her sence, vnderstanding, and other graces, Honore hono­rata; which according to the phrase of Scripture signifieth, To be honoured with singular honour: yea, With as great as the bodies of the Saints, or what else he could name more to her glory; That it was affected madnesse, in lieu of worshipping that holy Virgin, and honourable vessel with Hymnes and glory, to inueigh and raile against her. Where you see, that the reuerend Bishop Epiphanius doth intimate, that it is the part of euery sober Christian to worship the holy Virgin Mary, vsing these formal words: Virginem sanctam, & vas honoratum colere; To worship the holy Virgin, and honourable vessel. If M. Abbot then had not beene starke blinde with malice, and madly bent to delude and beguile his vnwary reader, he vvould neuer haue presumed to al­leage Epiphanius vvordes, against his owne declaration and mea­ning. But what then meant he, when he said, that the blessed Vir­gin was not to be adored? (vvhich M. Abbot Englisheth alwaies, vvas not to be worshipped:) marry you shal heare out of his owne discourse. Euen as some Heretikes (saith he) declining on the left hand, blasphemed the Sonne of God, saying that he was not equal to his Father in nature; Other walking too much on the right hand, extolled him so farre forth, that they affirmed him to be both Father and holy Ghost. In like manner, as there be some Heretikes that dishonoured the holy Virgin Mary: so there were some other foolish women, that would haue made her a God, offering vp to her sacrifice, and instituting women Priests to doe her ser­uice. Whose doating folly, Epiphanius reproueth in the next cha­pter, teaching first: that it was not lawful for any woman to offer sacrifice, or to baptise. Secondly, that neither the blessed Mother of God, nor any other creature was to be adored, that is, worshipped vvith that honour which is due to God alone: but he deliuereth in most expresse tearmes, that shee is to be worshipped with another [Page 234] meaner kinde of worship, that is due vnto excellent holy men, and the sacred seruants of God. Most goodly (saith he) is the blessed Vir­gin, holy, and to be honoured, but not so farre forth as to adoration: that is, shee is to be honoured, but not with diuine honour; vvhich he otherwise repeateth thus: Let the holy Virgin Mary be honoured, but let the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost be adored. And yet more plainly explicating himselfe by that tearme of adoration; Let not the Vir­gin be adored so, as we take her for a God, or offer vp sacrifice in her name: Wherefore, nothing wil appeare more manifest to him that plea­seth to reade that reuerend Authour, then that there he reproueth them only, vvho gaue Diuine and Godly honour vnto the imma­culate virgin Mary, making her a God, and offering sacrifice to her. But that shee is to be worshipped with another sort of honour, due vnto the best seruants of God, he doth both in that and in the for­mer Chapter, teach most plainly twenty times: which is the very doctrine of the present Church of Rome, vvhich holdeth God a­lone to be worshipped with diuine honour called Latria; but the Saints in heauen, and holy Personages on earth, with a holy wor­ship due to their gifts and graces of heauenly Wisdome, Fortitude, and Holinesse, which God hath indued them withal.

This matter of worshipping Saints, S. Augustine that most lear­ned Doctor, and firme pillar of the Roman Church, hath fully and distinctly deliuered 1200. yeares agoe, in these most memorable vvordes:August. lib. 1. cont. Iu­stum Manich. cap. 21. Christian people with religious solemnity doe celebrate the me­mory of Martirs, aswel to stirre vp an imitation of their vertues, as to be made partakers of their merits, and to be holpen with their praiers; yet so, as we doe erect Altars only vnto the God of Martirs, though in remem­brance of the Martirs. For what Prelate or Priest seruing at the Altar, in the place of their holy bodies, hath at any time said, we offer vnto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? but that which is offered, is offered to God, who hath crowned the Martirs, and is offered at the memorial or relikes of them whom he hath crowned; to the end that by the admonition of those places, there may arise greater deuotion to inflame our charity, both to­wardes them whom we may imitate, and also towardes him, by whose helpe we may be enabled so to doe. Therefore we doe worship the Martirs, with that reuerence and respect, with which holy men (whose harts we thinke ready to suffer as much for the truth of Christ) are in this life worshipped; yet with this difference, that we doe more deuoutly worship the Saints, of [Page 235] whose vertues we are assured, and who doe now triumph in heauen, then we doe those that are yet combating in the field of this life: but with that worship which in Greeke is called Latria, (and hath no one proper Latin word, it being a certaine worship properly due vnto the God-head) neither doe we worship, or teach to be worshipped, any other then God alone. And whereas the offering of sacrifice, doth properly appertaine to this kinde of worship, (whence their act that offer it to Idols is called Idolatry) we doe not in any case offer any such thing, or command any such offering to be made vnto Martirs, nor to any other; and if any man fal into that errour, he is reproued by this sound doctrine, that he may be amended or auoided: hitherto S. Augustine. Now let the vpright reader consider wel of this sacred and sound doctrine, deliuered by the best learned in the pure estate of the primitiue Church, and then judge vvhether the present Roman Church, doth teach any other vvorshipping of Saints at this day. We worship Saints in heauen, vvith a kinde of holy and religious vvorship, for their holy and religious vertues: so did the good Christians in S. Augustines daies, With a religious solemnity, and with greater deuotion, then they did the Godliest and most holy men aliue. We doe teach vvord by word after S. Augustine; that with that kinde of worship which is proper to God alone, (vvhich for vvant of a proper Latin word we cal Latria) God only is to be wor­shipped. Another kinde of vvorship, (which for distinction sake we cal Dulia of Doulos, that in Greeke signifieth a seruant) we doe exhibit as due to Gods seruants, which is infinitely lesse, then that vvhich we giue vnto the soueraigne Lord and Master of Men and Angels. Now because the worship due by sacrifice, is a recogni­sing of his soueraigne dominion ouer vs, to vvhom we doe offer sacrifice, and of our subjection to him as to our soueraigne Lord; therefore to God alone sacrifice is to be offered: Yet as you haue heard out of S. Augustine, Sacrifice is principally to be offered at the relikes and memorial of Martirs and Saints, and in their remembrances; that we may thereby be made partakers of their merits, holpen with their praiers, and also inflamed with a feruent desire of following their excellent vertues: Note by the way the antiquity of the Christians offering sacrifice, of communicating the merits of Martirs to others, of the helpe of the S [...]ints praiers. Now if any vvould offer sacrifice to the blessed Virgin Mary, or attribute to her any other part of that honour, vvhich is proper to God alone, we would be as ready to [Page 236] checke and reproue them, as Epiphanius then was to confute the foolish female Collyridians.

To returne to M. Abbot: vvhere were his wits when he cited out of his authour these wordes, The holy Virgin is to be in honour, yet not to be worshipped? for had he but marked wel those wordes, he might easily haue perceiued, that Epiphanius did not mislike with al kinde of worship that was giuen to that most blessed Virgin, seing that he vvould haue her to be honoured, which is a higher kinde of reue­rence then ordinary worship is; for to be honourable, is more then to be worshipful, as euery man meanely seene in titles doth know: vvherefore M. Abbot cannot be excused from a foule fault, in that he hath translated the Latin word adorare and adoratio, into bare and naked worship; for in that place it is taken for Diuine and Godly worship, as al the circumstances of the place doe conuince. And then yet more sottishly doth he ground al his objections, vpon his owne corrupt translation of the same word: for if he had englished the word adoratio sincerely, for diuine honour, as in that place it signi­fieth, he had not had any colour of this slander; for then he must haue said thus: The Collyridians were adjudged Heretikes for adoring or worshipping with diuine honour the Virgin MARY, and so of the rest. But we Catholikes doe not giue to her any diuine honour, neither doe we offer sacrifice vnto her, or vnto any Saint, as M. Abbot fa­bleth, but to God alone: see more of this in the Question of the Sa­crifice. True it is, that we cal that blessed Virgin Queene of heauen, treading therein in the steps of the most ancient, learned, and God­ly Fathers, S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Bazil, S. Chry­sostome, and others, vvhose wordes I haue cited in the Question of worshipping of Saints. And the reasons why shee may be called Queene of heauen, be diuers: first, shee is Mother to the King of heauen IESVS Christ; and the Kinges Mother is ordinarily salu­ted Queene. Secondly, euery true Christian indued with the spi­rit of God,Rom. 8. Is Sonne and heire to God, and coheire of Christ: dying then in that happy estate, no doubt but they shal enter into posses­sion of the Kingdome of heauen, and consequently be Kinges or Queenes thereof. Thirdly, the Spouse of the King of heauen may in good sence be called Queene of heauen; but euery good soule (much more the most sacred Virgin of Virgins) is the Spouse of Christ: vvhich is confirmed by the Royal Prophet, where he de­scribeth [Page 237] as it were the blessed Virgin MARY, standing at the right hand of her Sonne in his Kingdome, and intituleth her Queene;Psalm. 44. Astitu Regina à dextris tuis, The Queene did stand at thy right hand. Lastly, the principal and chiefest person of any honourable socie­ty, may according to the vsual phrase of al men be stiled Prince, or if it be a vvoman, Princesse or Queene: vvherefore the most holy and glorious Mother of God, holding the highest place in heauen of any pure creature, both according vnto the auncient Fathers judgement, and in very reason (the dignity of a mother, being to be preferred before any subject or seruant) may very rightly ob­taine the name of the Queene of heauen. And thereupon also doe vve more specially reuerence and respect her, and repose greater confidence in her burning charity, and in the help of her most gra­tious praiers; knowing also right wel, and most willingly confes­sing, that as the Queene of any country receiueth al her grace, riches, and preferment from the King: so the blessed Mother of God, Queene of heauen, hath receiued through the merits of her best beloued Sonne, from the bounty of his heauenly Father, al her most singular priuiledges; and is therefore of al other pure crea­tures, most bound and beholding vnto both Father and Sonne. With that Queene of heauen,Hierem. 44. of which the Prophet Hieremy (cited by Epiphanius) doth make mention, the blessed Virgin hath no af­finity or resemblance, besides the name; for with the Prophet it signifieth no liuing creature, but either the Moone or some eminent Starre in the firmament, vnto vvhich certaine doating Idolatrous vvomen did offer sacrifice, in the Prophet Hieremies daies: See how faringly M. Abbots peeces of comparisons, match the one vvith the other.

ROBERT ABBOT.

CARPOCRATES and his minion Marcellina, Irenae. lib. 1. cap. 24. Aug. ad Quod vult. 39. Theod [...]r. in 2. ad Collossen. were condemned for Heretikes, for worshipping, as other Images, so namely the Image of Iesus Christ: yet now the Papists doe the same, and notwithstanding vvil be accounted Catholikes. The Councel of Laodicea approued by the old Church of Rome, did forbidde to pray to Angels, or to vvorship them, and they that did so were ac­counted Heretikes: But worship and praier to Angels, is a part of the Catholike doctrine, with the Church of Rome that now is.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT is such a trusty marchant, that nothing can be ta­ken vp vpon his credit: therefore euery wiseman had need to looke to his fingers. Nay, he seldome dares put downe the Fa­thers sentences, as they lie in their owne workes; but culs certaine vvordes out of them, and patcheth them together after his owne fancy, to collogue and deceiue his trusty reader. These be S. Au­gustines owne wordes, in the place cited by him: Marcellina (not Carpocrates) did worship the Images of Iesus, of Paul, of Homer, and of Pythagoras. And that you may certainly know, of what kinde of worship he meant, he addeth; Adorando, & incensum ponendo, by a­doring and offering incense to them, that is, by giuing them diuine ho­nour: so that double vvas her foule fault and folly. For shee both adored together the holy Images of IESVS and S. Paul, vvith the prophane statues of heathen Poëts; and againe, gaue to them god­ly honour: both vvhich points vve Roman Catholikes doe con­demne. As also that third (cōdemned in the Councel of Laodicea) concerning Angels; which was of leauing our Sauiour Christ Iesus, to commit Idolatry to the Angels, preferring the Angels before him:Canon. 35. See the Canon, and you shal finde M. Abbots legerdemaine.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Concil. Gang. cap. 4.THE Councel of Gangra approued likewise, condemned the Eustachians for Heretikes, for taking exceptions against ma­ried Priests; and to that purpose set downe this Canon: If any man except against a Priest that is maried, as by reason of his mariage that he ought not to minister, and doe therefore forbeare from his oblation or ce­lebration; accursed be he. But the later Church of Rome excepteth vvholy against married Priests, and namely Gregory the seauenth forbadde al lay men, to be present at the celebration of any such Priest as were married:Math. Paris. in Willelm. 1. An example very strange (saith Mathew of Paris) and very vnaduised, as many thought.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HATH not M. Abbot a prodigious strange eie-soare, that can neuer see the principal point of the matter vvhich he allea­geth?Concil Gang. cap. 4. these be the vvordes of the Canon by him cited. Quicunque discernita Presbitero qui vxorem habuit, quod non oporteat eo ministran­te, de oblatione percipere, Anathema sit: Whosoeuer shal except against a Priest who hath had a wife, holding that one ought not to receiue of the [Page 239] oblation or sacrifice when such a one celebrateth, accursed be he. First, note how he mangleth the vvordes, thrusting in (by reason of his marriage) and darkning the matter of the sacrifice, by adding to it celebration, which is signified in the other wordes, eo ministrante: but the principal verbe vpon vvhich al dependeth, is egregiously peruerted by his translation. For the state of the controuersie be­twixt vs is, vvhether a Priest maried and keeping company vvith his wife, is to be admitted to celebrate & minister the Sacraments? We say no, they say yea: and for confirmation of their saying doe alleage this Canon; which maketh nothing at al for them, because it speaketh only of a Priest that had a wife in times past: Qui vxorem habuit, that had a wife, not that hath a wife. Such men that vvere once married after their vviues death, we doe admit to be Priests, and to offer sacrifice; condemning the Eustachians, or vvhosoe­uer else vnder pretence of their former mariages, doth seeke to de­barre them from that sacred function: Marry, such sensual or weake men, that cannot, or wil not refraine from marriage or com­pany of their wiues, vve doe wholy exclude from the celebration of the holy misteries. And verily, ignorantly and sawcily doth Mathew of Paris, or any other late writer, reprehend Gregory the seauenth, for forbidding al men to be present at their Masses. For it argueth great and grosse ignorance in al learned antiquity, to ac­count it a strange thing, that Priests keeping company with their wiues, should be repelled from the Altar: vvhen not only Gregory the great, Leo the great, and Epiphanius, vvhose sentences I haue before recited; but also euen by M. Abbots owne confession, Pope Stritius with the Clergy of Rome, and S. Hierome, did teach the ve­ry same, little lesse then a thousand yeares before Mathew of Paris daies, to omit sundry other ancient Fathers and decrees of appro­ued Councels: so that it was no strange example, or vnaduised act, to forbidde such fleshly fellowes to celebrate Masse, neither could any but loose libertines be offended at it.

ROBERT ABBOT.

THE Valentinian Heretikes and Heracleonites,Irenae. lib. 2. cap. 18. Epiph. Hae­res. 36. August. de Haeres. 16. were condem­ned by the old Church of Rome, for vsing expiations and re­demptions, by anointing men vvhen they were about to die: yet thereof hath the Church of Rome, now framed to themselues their Sacrament of Extreme vnction.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE are but a few lines, and yet not free from some lies. The Church of Rome hath her Sacrament of Extreme vn­ction, registred in the holy Scriptures (as M. Abbot knoweth wel enough,) in these wordes.Iacob. 5. vers. 14. Is any man sicke among you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray ouer them, anoiling them with oile in the name of our Lord: and the praier of faith shal saue the sicke, and our Lord lift him vp; and if he be in sinnes, they shal be remitted him. Where we see a set holy ceremony, which was instituted by Christ, and published by his Apostle S. Iames, to be vsed ordinari­ly by the Priests for remission of sinnes; which doth conuince it to be a true and proper Sacrament. A fond fiction then was it, to say that it was after the Apostles time inuented by Heretikes, and that the Church of Rome hath borrowed it of them; vvith which foolish de­uise of theirs it hath also very smal affinity: for their dreame was, that by the pronouncing of certaine vnknowne Hebrew vvordes, ouer the head of the sicke, their soule was made inuisible, and in­comprehensible,Epiph. Hae­res. 36. euen vnto the infernal spirits, as M. Abbots owne authour witnesseth. Briefly, they differed in forme of wordes, in substance of matter, and in the state and intention of the Minister. They vsed certaine Hebrew vvordes; Messia, Vphared, and such like, vvhich are set downe by Epiphanius: We these, God of his most pittiful mercy, and by this holy anointing, forgiue thee thy sinnes. They vsed oile or some other ointment mixed with vvater: We oile alone blessed by a Bishop. Any lay person of their brother-hood, might minister their drugs: Our Sacrament is to be administred by a Priest only. Their intention was to make the soule inuisible to the infernal spirits: But ours is (according to the doctrine of the Apo­stle) to purge the sicke from the relikes of sinne, and to giue him comfort and strength to resist the assaults of the ghostly enemy. There being so great difference, in al the essential points of these two anoilinges, judge what a wonderful inginer M. Abbot did take himselfe to be, when he conceited, that he could (by his fine pen shal I say, or brazen fore-head) make them seeme al one to the simple.

ROBERT ABBOT.

IT vvas heresie in the Pelagians with the old Church of Rome, to affirme in this life a possibility perfectly to fulfil the law of [Page 241] God; and S. Hierome as touching this point,L. 1 2. 3. ad­uers. Pelag. expresly disputeth against them: but now it is heresie with the Church of Rome, to affirme and teach the same that Hierome did, as M. Bishop after­wardes giueth vs to vnderstand. The same Pelagians were accoun­ted Heretikes, for saying that a man in this life might be anamarticos, without sinne, and that by baptisme he becommeth so: but now the Church of Rome teacheth the same. And M. Bishop in plaine tearmes telleth vs,Page 32. That there is no more sinne left in the new baptized man, then was in Adam in the state of innocency: to vvhich state of baptisme, they also equal a man vvhen he is shriuen to the Priest, and of him hath receiued absolution from his sinnes. I reserue the Pelagian doctrine of Free-wil and Satisfaction, to their due place, vvhere God-vvilling it shal appeare, that therein also the now Church of Rome, approueth those points as Catholike and true, for which the ancient Church of Rome condemned them. Yea so farre is the Pelagian heresie in request vvith the Papists, as that Faustus a Bishop of France, at that time a maintainer thereof,Bignae. Bi­bliot. sacrae Tom. 2. Osor. de Inst. lib. 9. is by some of them recorded for a Saint, and his booke vvhich he hath vvritten in behalfe thereof, is called Opus insigne, A notable worke. And by some other the doctrine of S. Augustine against the Pelagi­ans, concerning Predestination, is repugned; which of old vvas acknowledged by the Church of Rome, to be the Catholike do­ctrine of the Church.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

M. ABBOT comes now to make an end of his slanders and false imputations, against the present Catholike Roman Church, after the same sort as he hath heretofore vsed, to wit; with wrested and vntrue reportes of the old Heretikes opinions, and the ancient Fathers refutations of them. The Pelagians did teach indeed, that it was possible to keepe Gods Cōmandements, but therefore they were not accounted Heretikes; for the same doth both S. Augustine and S. Hierome (that writ against them) approue and confirme in many places: I wil touch some of each of them. S. Augustine ha­uing alleaged certaine texts of holy Scripture to proue the same, doth conclude thus: By these and innumerable other testimonies, De Peccatis, Meritis, & Remissione, lib. 2. cap. 6. I can­not doubt, either that God hath commanded man, any thing that is impossi­ble for him to doe; or that it is impossible for God, to helpe man to fulfil whatsoeuer he hath commanded him: and therefore a man holpen by God, [Page 242] may if he wil be without sinne. De Grat. & l. Arbit. ca. 16. And in another place: It is certaine that we may keepe Gods Commandements if we wil. Againe, Grace is giuen vs, not because we did good workes before, but that we may be able to doe them; De Spirit. & Liter. ca. 10. that is, (as he expoundeth himselfe) Non quia legem impleui­mus, sed vt legem implere possimus: Not because we did (before we re­ceiued grace) fulfil the law, but that we may be able afterward to fulfil the law. Can any thing be more manifest, then that (according vnto S. Augustines opinion) a man indued with Gods grace, may keepe al his Commandements, and fulfil the law? The very same doth S. Hierome confesse, in that very Treatise cited by M. Abbot, adding this reason: We confesse that God giueth vs Commandements possible to be fulfilled, least God should be authour of injustice, if be ex­acted of vs to doe that which cannot be done: so that the present Church of Rome, doth herein follow S. Augustine and S. Hierome, a noble paire of most learned Patrones of the ancient Church of Rome: And doth nothing lesse then agree with Pelagius, in his errours ab­out that matter, which were two. The first, That without the helpe of Gods grace a man may keepe al Gods Commandements. The second, That a man could keepe al the Commandements so perfectly, that be needed neuer to sinne so much as venially. Which two erronious branches of Pelagius doctrine, we doe condemne as roundly, as did the most holy Fathers; and consequently that a man comming to yeares of discretion, is anamarticos, without sinne: for if the justest man aliue, say that he is without sinne, (that is some venial sinne) he is euen thereby made a liar, (as S. Iohn witnesseth) and therefore a sinner. Al this Pelagian doctrine, the present Church of Rome doth as wel reproue, as did the former: Marry, to affirme (as M. Abbot doth) that Pelagius was of old cōdemned, for affirming children to be made without sinne by baptisme, is (sauing your reuerence) a starke lie, con­fronted and confuted by S. Augustine in formal tearmes: these be his wordes.De Peccatis, Meritis, & Remissione, lib. 10. ca. 9. They (that is the Pelagians) wil not beleeue that baptisme doth cleanse Infants from original sinne: vvhat a notable tale then was it to say, that the Pelagians vvere therefore accounted Heretikes, because they held men by baptisme to become vvithout sinne? vvhen they flatly denied baptisme to cleanse them from sinne.

That which I said of the state of man newly baptised, that there was no sinne left in him, is S. Augustines and S. Hieromes doctrine, word for word: thus saith S. Augustine. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 3. Baptisme doth wash away [Page 243] al sinnes, vtterly al, of deedes, wordes, and thoughts, whether they were originally contracted, or afterward committed, either of ignorance or wit­tingly. The same he repeateth treating of the Creede:De Simbol. ad Catech. lib. 3. cap. 10. Omnia pror­sus delicta delet sanctum baptisma, & originalia, & propria, dicta, facta, cogitata, cognita, incognita, omnia dimittuntur: vvhich he doth incul­cate in many places. I wil cite but one more, which containeth al­so an explication of that other Pelagian proposition, how a good Christian may be without sinne: these be his wordes.L. cōt. Iulian. ca. 13 & 15. Cōt. duas E­pist. Pelag. lib. 10. c. 14. Multi bapti­sati fideles sunt sine crimine, sine peccato autem in hac vita neminem di­xerim, &c. Many of the faithful baptised, are without crime, (that is, without mortal sinne) but I wil say no man to be without sinne, (to wit, venial) how much soeuer the Pelagians doe rage against vs for so saying: not that anything of sinne doth remaine, which is not forgiuen in baptisme; but because in vs remaining in the frailty of this life, there ceasseth not to be committed some-thing, that is daily to be pardoned to them that pray faithfully, and doe the workes of mercy. In this one sentence of S. Au­gustine, there is declared first: that al manner of sinne is wholy par­doned in baptisme, and that therefore a man newly baptised, is as free from al sinne, as were our first parents in Paradise, as I said. Se­condly, that though many of the better sort of the baptised, doe continue without mortal sinne, yet none at al without some kind of sinne; the blessed Virgin MARY only excepted:De Natur. & Grat. cap. 36. Of whom (saith S. Augustine) for the honour of our Lord, I wil haue no question when the matter of sinne is handled. S. Hierome is as cleare for the vertue and efficacy of baptisme, as in many other places, so specially in his Epistle to Oceanus: vvherein he proueth by many texts of holy writ, That al manner of sinne is drowned in the water of baptisme, Hieron. in E­pistol. ad O­ceanum. not one being left to swimme out aliue: And doth cal it the heresie of Cain, To hold the woundes of our sinnes to be so venimous and incurable, that the medicine of Christ in baptisme cannot heale them. Thus much out of learned Antiquity, to shew how ignorant M. Abbot is therein, who thought that he had hit me home, and giuen me some great blow vvhen he produced these my wordes: M. Bishop in plaine tearmes telleth vs, that there is no more sinne left in the newly baptised man, then was in Adam in the state of innocency: vvhereas you now see, that the best learned among the auncient Fathers, had 1200. yeares before maintained the same doctrine, against the Pelagian Heretikes

Concerning the Sacrament of Penance, we in deede teach the [Page 244] very same touching the ful and absolute purgation from sinne, and the eternal punishment due to the same, which euery true penitent making his humble confession, doth obtaine by the absolution of his ghostly Father: which is no late inuention of ours, but we lear­ned it out of these our Sauiours owne vvordes;Iob. 20. vers. 23. Whose sinnes you forgiue on earth, they shal be forgiuen in heauen: Al antiquity hauing vnderstood thereby, that Christ gaue to his Apostles as Pastors of his Church, ful power to pardon sinnes, and by them vnto al other Pastors that should lawfully succeede them, vntil the worldes end. This matter I haue handled in a Question by it selfe, to which I re­ferre the reader, that desireth to heare more of it in particular.

As M. Abbot reserues the Pelagian doctrine of Free-wil and Satis­faction to their due place, so doe I; where it shal appeare, that there­in the now Church of Rome, doth no more approue those points then it doth these, which he hath here touched: but that therein he is as fouly deceiued, and goes about to deceiue others, as here he hath done. And if one Doctor Bignee hath beene so much ouerseene, as to commend a fauourer of the Pelagian heresie, let it be inqui­red of the learned, what thanke the present Roman Church doth yeeld him for his labour: for I haue heard, that it hath laid a cen­sure and touch of reproach, vpon the same his worke called Bibli­otheca Patrum. Lastly, concerning the doctrine of Predestination, I reade not that the Pelagians were called in question about it, nor yet for Satisfaction; vvherefore, M. Abbot must first out of some good Authors, shew their errours therein, before he goe about to slander vs vvith the imitation of them: but as I am vvel assured of the later, so I thinke he wil not in hast performe the former.

ROBERT ABBOT.

I Omit many other matters that might here be added, perswa­ding my selfe that I said enough to trouble M. Bishop, in the pro­uing of that that he hath so propounded, that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, in her most flourishing estate, taught in al points of religion, the same doctrine that now shee holdeth, &c. only for conclusion, let me aske him what Bishop of Rome there was, for the space of a thousand yeares, that practised or taught that concerning Pardons, which is now practised and taught in the Church of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome hath any authority to giue such libels of pardon, or that it is in him to giue faculties, and [Page 245] authority to others to graunt the like, vvith reseruation of special causes to himselfe? or that he can for saying such and such praiers, or for doing this or that, release a man from Purgatory, for so ma­ny hundred or thousand yeares? vvhat Bishop of Rome was there, that did proclaime a Iubilee, vvith promise that al that would come to Rome to visit the Churches that yeare, should haue ful and per­fect forgiuenesse of al their sinnes? or that did charge the Angels, (as did Clement the sixt) that vvhosoeuer should die in his journey thitherward, they should bring his soule into the glory of Paradise?Balaeus in Clem. sexto. which of them did take vpon him to Canonize a Saint? vvho euer beleeued or taught, as it is now receiued in the Church of Rome, that the Bishops blessing is the forgiuenesse of venial sinnes?Sextus in proem. in glossa. Rhem. Test. in Math. 10. vers. 12. Other innouations I wil passe ouer to further occasion; but concerning these matters in this place, I would pray M. Bishop to let vs be satis­fied, how the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, haue in al points taught the same, that the Church of Rome teacheth now. The truth is, that as the name of Theseus shippe continued a long time, vvhen as it was so altered by putting in of new plankes and boordes, as that it had nothing left of that that was in it, when it was first built by Theseus: so the Church of Rome stil continueth her name, and would be taken to be the same, albeit by chopping and changing shee is come to that passe, that shee hath in a manner no­thing left of that doctrine, for vvhich shee vvas first called the Church of Rome. But M. Bishop taketh vpon him to proue the contrary, let vs now examine what his proofes are.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

YOV doe wisely to omit many other matters, that you might haue added, if they be like vnto these vvhich you haue already put downe: for they are proued to be nothing else in manner, but fal­sifications of the ancient Fathers vvritinges, or fond illations of your owne, bolstered out with a huge and shamelesse troupe of vn­truthes; the more one omitteth of such baggage and paultry stuffe, the more it maketh for his credit: Wherefore, if M. Abbot had let al this alone, no doubt but he should haue saued much of his reputati­on, which by such vnchristian like and vnhonest dealing, he is like to leese with the indifferent & juditious reader. If he perswade himselfe, that he hath put me to some paines and trouble, to trace out the vntruth of his allegations, he is not deceiued: for he produceth [Page 246] them so corruptly, with such additions, substractions, misconstru­ctions, and euil applications, that euery place he cites, must needes be turned vnto in the Authours owne workes, before a man can re­pose any trust in him, or shal know what answere to make. I pray you (good Sir) if there be any sparke of Christian sincerity left in you, let this admonition serue to intreate you, not to put your ad­uersary or reader to such trouble any more: Either for loue of the truth, or for feare of Gods judgements, and rebuke of honest men, forbeare to misreport your Authours. If it be a shame to bely the Deuil, vvhat impudency and impiety is it to bely most reuerend, holy, and learned Doctors; and which much increaseth that hai­nous crime, thereby to blinde Christian people, and to draw them along with him to the bottomelesse pit of hel? It hath (I willingly confesse) more troubled me to spend my spare time in discouering vntruthes, and dishonest shifts & trickes, then it should haue done to haue bestowed it in substantial arguing, and in round debating of questions in controuersie, with short and sound arguments. But (I hope) by this, the vpright reader hath seene, that M. Abbot was so farre off from troubling me to proue, The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate, to haue taught the same do­ctrine that the present Church of Rome no teacheth; that he hath rather furthered it, by ministring vnto me so fit an occasion: yea (omit­ting others which I could choose my self for my better aduantage) I haue not refused, to verifie and make good the present doctrine of that Church, euen by the testimony of those very authours, of vvhich M. Abbot himselfe made choise, as of men that spake most against it. If then by their verdict, who are thought by our aduer­saries, to be most estranged from vs, our cause is confirmed and proued to be most just and veritable; vvho is so carelesse of his owne saluation, that had rather follow a lying Master leading to perdition, then to imbrace so manifest a truth drawing towardes saluation? May I not here justly exclaime with the holy King and Prophet, and say:Psalm. 4. O yee Sonnes of men, how long wil you be so heauy harted? why are you so farre in loue with vanity and seeke after leasing? he that is the true light (Iohan. 1. who doth illuminate euery man that commeth into this world,) of his infinite goodnesse and mercy, lighten your vnderstanding and incline your harts, that you may perceiue and receiue that ingrafted word, that truth of Christ, preached by his [Page 247] Apostles, approued by the most honourable Senate of the ancient Fathers, beleeued al the world ouer; that hath also continued euer since inuiolably: vvhich only and none other can saue your soules.

Now for a conclusion and vpshot of this matter, M. Abbot would faine know, What Bishop of Rome for a thousand yeares after Christ, had authority to giue any such libel of pardons, as are now giuen; or that could graunt to others any such faculty, with reseruation of special causes to himselfe, &c. I answere, if these be the greatest difficulties, that with-hold him from approuing the doctrine of the present Roman Church, he may vpon very smal consideration be reclaimed, and brought to reforme his errours. For to S. Peter himselfe, who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, was giuen euen by our Sauiour Christ IESVS, ful power and authority to pardon whatsoeuer he saw fit to be pardoned:Math. 16. vers. 19. To thee I giue (saith he) the keies of the Kingdome of heauen, whatsoeuer thou loosest or doest pardon vpon earth, shal be pardo­ned in heauen. And if S. Peter might loose any sinne how hainous soeuer, much more might he release some part of the temporal paine which was due to sinne, vvhich is properly to giue a libel of pardon: the like power had S. Paul, who did in the person of Christ,2. Cor. 2. vers. 10. Cyprian. l. 3. Epist. 15. Pardon the incestuous Corinthian, by cutting off some part of his penance, vvhich otherwise he had beene to suffer for his former sinnes, vvhich were then forgiuen. S. Cyprian, and the Bishops and Clergy in those auncient daies of the primitiue Church, did vse to pardon and release the penance injoyned to grieuous offen­dours, after their repentance, at the intercession and request of the Confessors, and designed Martirs, as hath beene before declared. The most authentike Councel of Nice doth declare,Cōcil. Nicen. cap. 12. that it is law­ful for Bishops to deale more mildly and fauourably vvith them, vvhom they saw to performe their injoyned penance seriously; vvhich was to graunt them a pardon.Leo. Epist. 77 ad Nicetum, num. 6. The very same doth Leo the great (vvho was Bishop of Rome aboue 1100. yeares past) teach most plainly, willing the Bishop to release of the due penance in­joined, what he thought good; which is properly to giue indulgence or pardon. I omit here Pope Siluester his predecessour, and S. Gre­gory the great one of his successours, because I haue before alleaged them: not doubting but that these few, so auncient, so graue, so learned, vvil suffice to satisfie and instruct him that is willing to learne. And as for communicating the same authority to others, vvho [Page 248] can reasonably doubt of it? considering that the power of absol­uing from sinne, (which is farre greater then the other) is imparted to al both Bishops and Parish Priests. I haue also before proued most manifestly,Leo. Epist. 82 ad Anastat. Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 6. ad Episcop. Arelat. that both S. Leo and S. Gregory most worthy Bi­shops, did, as delegate their authority vnto other Bishops, so re­serue vnto their owne hearing and judgement, the causes of greatest dif­ficulty: vvherefore, M. Abbot if he wil hearken vnto reason, cannot choose but hold himselfe therein fully satisfied.

He recuiles backe to Indulgences, and multiplieth his demands about one and the same matter; like to a Cooke that hauing but one sort of meate to serue in, doth mince it into many mammocks, and then make thereof sundry dishes: Can the Pope (saith he) for saying such or such praiers, or for doing this or that, release a man from Purgatory, for an hundreth or a thousand yeares? What a question is this? if the Pope can distribute indulgences, as hath beene before proued, no doubt but he can the rather doe it, by injoyning the party that receiueth them, to say vvithal some praiers, or to doe some other good vvorkes; for thereby the party doth the better deserue to be made partaker of the other grace: But can he release a soule out of Purgatory, for a thousand yeares? Yes marry can he, and that too not for some certaine number of yeares, but for euer and e­uer. The reason is; for that the soules there, are members of the same body that we are, and there capable of the same graces of par­don, vvhereof also they stand in very great neede, according to the truth of Christian doctrine, howsoeuer the Protestants doe erro­neously thinke the contrary: reade the Question of Purgatory. And touching the present purpose, among many other pardons graunted by S. Gregory the great, there is to be seene vntil this day, one Altar by him erected, in the Monastery of S. Andrewes in Rome, where he was himselfe first Nouice and afterwardes Abbot; where at vvhosoeuer said Masse for a soule in Purgatory, shal deliuer one there-hence.

Concerning the Iubilee, which is free and ful pardon graunted once in fiue and twenty yeares, vnto euery one that shal visit sea­uen Churches in Rome that yeare, some fifteene times or therea­bouts; what new difficulty can there be about that? yea it is as the most renowmed pardon that is graunted, so the most reasonable: for it can be obtained but once in fiue and twenty yeares, and then [Page 249] exceeding hardly, by vnder going a long, costly, and painful jour­ney to the citty of Rome, and by exercising there al the workes of piety and mercy; as fasting, praying, and giuing of almes, making general confession, and receiuing the blessed Sacrament, and often visiting of many Churches and Altars. Those most godly meanes of training men to true repentance and satisfaction for their former faults, and amendmēt of their liues, if the Protestant religion were acquainted withal, there would be among them some checke and stoppe of their vvicked courses. But if they vvil needes sinne on themselues, and neuer giue ouer nor amend vntil Gods judgments fal vpon them: yet let them not be offended at vs, that doe aduise al men to labour in time for such indulgences, that they may escape the due punishment of their sinnes, either in this vvorld or in the next. Is it not also most probable and likely, if those good soules (vvho to doe some satisfaction for their former euil liues, and to serue God more deuoutly in those holy places, where some of the holy Apostles, and an innumerable company of valiant Martirs and holy Confessors liued and died) doe die by the way in that Godly purpose, that they are carried by Angels to heauen, as Lazarus was in­to Paradise? we pray to God to command such by his holy Angels to be brought into Abrahams bosome, as may be seene in the Masse for the dead. But Balaeus in Latin, and Bale the Irish Apostata in English, M. Abbots worthy authour reporteth, that Clement the sixt himselfe, did command the Angels to carry them into Paradise. No great regard is to be had vvhat such a lying lewd fellow relates, and so I thinke him vnworthy any other answere. Touching Canonization of Saints we hold, that the Bishops of the prouinces vvhere their vertuous liues and most godly deathes (cōfirmed by miracles) are best knowne, did alwaies from the beginning of christian religion, declare and testifie to the Church, that they were to be esteemed of al men for Saints. Since, it hath beene found most expedient, that the vvhole course of the life and death of such (being by most dili­gent inquisition tried out, and taken in the places of their aboade) be afterwardes sent to Rome, there to be also throughly examined first, and then accordingly to be declared Saints, by the highest Pastor of the Church; that no man of any other country, might afterwards doubt of their so approued sanctity. To M. Abbots que­stion I then answere; that euen by the order of S. Peter and S. Paul, Clemens l. 8. Constit. c. 39. [Page 250] S. Stephen was Canonized for a Martir, and a festiual day kept in remembrance of his glorious death: The like order was obserued for the Apostles and other Martirs. And from that time downe to this time, I could proue (if neede were) Canonization of Saints, not only by the Bishops of Rome, but by the testimony and pra­ctise, of the best Bishops and Doctors of the Christian religion: vvhat ignorance then in al antiquity, doth this man bewray, by this impertinent demand?

More impudent yet is this his next: Who euer beleeued or taught, as it is now in the Roman Church, that the Bishops blessing is the forgiue­nesse of venial sinnes? He citeth in the Margent the Annotations in the Rhemes Testament, vpon the 10. of S. Mathew and 12. verse; vvhich being looked into, doth conuince M. Abbot of vnspeakable impudency.Lib. 9. in Lucam. L. 22. de Ci­uit. Dei, c. 8. He saw there S. Ambrose alleaged formally, to con­firme that the Bishops blessing doth remit venial sinnes. He could not choose also but see S. Augustine and others quoted in the Mar­gent, in commendation of the Bishops blessing, vvho else where (vvith the Councel of Carthage) reproueth the Pelagian Here­tikes,Epistola. 90. for holding that the Bishops blessing was giuen to the people in vaine. Seing then, that both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, with other more auncient Fathers and Doctors of the Church, did (grounding themselues vpon Christes owne word and promise) teach that the Bishops blessing vvas of great vertue; and that it doth namely forgiue venial sinnes, by the verdict at least of S. Ambrose that most holy and learned Bishop, whose antiquity, grauity, and sanctity, is more to be respected, then a thousand of such light prophane Abbots: was it not (I say) incredible and most shameful audacity to demand, who euer beleeued or taught that, when he saw before his eies, such worthy Authours alleaged for it? this passeth so farre al ordinary audatious impudency, that I know not how to stile it. Other innouations he wil of courtesie passe ouer to further occasion, but for these jolly points (whereof the greatest is scarce worth a pinne) he requireth satisfaction; vvhich being so readily and easily giuen him, he wil belike become a new man, if he could once be perswa­ded to giue ouer lying, and trusting to his artificial colouring of lies: In the meane season, this which I haue said, wil (I hope) serue to satisfie the indifferent reader, that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, in her most flourishing estate, haue in al points taught the same [Page 251] doctrine, that the present Church of Rome doth now teach.

And it is one of M. Abbots truthes (that is to say, a most bright glistering vntruth) that as Theseus shippe was in continuance of time, by putting in of new plankes wholy altered; so is now the doctrine of the Church of Rome. For I haue before most euidently proued, out of authentike recordes of the ancient Bishops of Rome; that they beleeued and taught the Real presence, and sacrifice of the Masse, Praying to Saints, Worshipping of their Relikes and Images, Purgatory and praier for the dead, Auricular confession, Workes of satisfaction and supererogation, Merit of good workes, the Vowes of religious per­sons, the Popes supremacy: Briefly, al the points in controuersie betweene the Protestants and vs, as may more at large be seene, in the reformation of M. Perkins Deformed Catholike: vvherefore, the similitude of Theseus shippe (which M. Abbot borrowed of a Ca­tholike, treating of another subject) vvil not serue his turne, but may be more aptly returned vpon themselues; vvho bragge and beare the world in hand, that they haue reformed al the errours of the Church, and brought it vnto the purity of the Apostles times: vvhereas in truth, they haue plucked vp most of the plankes and boordes of Christes shippe, by oppugning most of the articles of the Christian faith: and doe what in them lieth, to build vp a rot­ten Thesean shippe of old condemned errours, to steale away the golden fleece of Christes true shippe, that is: to pil and poul the true Catholike Christian, of that white fleece of innocency which he receiued in baptisme, or recouered by reconciliation, to saile af­ter Theseus towardes Paganisme, and the infernal gulfe of hel.

Now because M. Abbot hath here indeauoured, to staine the pure and cleane sanctity of our religion, with the spots and yron-mooles of errors and heresie; I wil to requite his paines, giue a touch vnto some special points of erronious doctrine (noted by the best Au­thours for such, in expresse tearmes) vvhich the Protestants haue as it were raked out of the dunghil of rascal and reprobate miscre­ants, and doe now a-fresh deliuer the same nothing in manner dis­guised, vnto their miserable followers, for the purity of the Go­spel. Yea some of the same are so euident and cleare, that they are constrained to defend the authours of them for learned and godly men, though by al antiquity they vvere condemned for ignorant and infamous Heretikes; and to note the most holy, and best vn­derstanding [Page 252] and juditious Fathers, as lesse skilful then these other erring companions. For example, Aërius (both a knowne and professed Arrian Heretike, and also vnknowne to the world for a­ny monument of learning or vertue, and therefore likened by Epiphanius to a Beetle and Horse-flie, only notorious for these his errours) taught first: That we ought not to offer sacrifice, or to pray for the soules departed. Secondly, That we ought not to keepe any set times, or appointed daies of fasting, but when any man wil, then let him fast, that we may not seeme to be vnder the law. For these two points specially, that Arrian Aërius vvas Cronicled for a notorious Heretike, both by Epiphanius, a most holy, learned, and auncient Grecian Bishop, and by S. Augustine, one of the most famous lights of the Latin Church; the later of whom liued 1200. yeares past: Neuerthelesse, the Protestants preferre the odde inuentions of that contemptible, obscure, and blinde Arrian, before the judgement of these most re­nowmed Doctors of Christs Church. Must he not then be a very simple, or rather sencelesse creature, that vnderstanding so much vvil notwithstanding follow them?

Againe, Iouinian was so meane a scholler, that he was not able to write his owne minde in good and congruous latin; wherefore S. Hierome vvas faine to helpe him out with it, and doth (as he tear­meth it) out of his darke vvorkes, cast serpents (as it vvere) out of their holes into the light,Lib. 1. cont. Iouin. cap. 1. that they may be seene and slaine. What vvere these venimous blinde-wormes trow you? you shal heare in that most zealous and learned Doctors owne words. Iouinian saith first;Lib. 1. cont. Iouin. cap. 2. That Virgins, Widowes, and married Women baptized, if they dif­fer not in other workes, be of the same merit: and therefore Priests and reli­gious persons, might aswel marry as liue continently. Secondly, He la­boureth to proue, that the Deuil cannot ouer-come them that be regenera­ted in ful faith. Thirdly, He putteth no difference betweene abstinence from meate, and eating of the same with thanks-giuing. Fourthly, That al who haue kept their baptisme, shal haue the same reward in heauen, and not any one a greater then another. These (saith S. Hierome) be the his­sings of the old serpent; by these sleights the Dragon cast man out of Pa­radise. And doe our Protestants by hearkning vnto these serpentine voices, thinke to recouer Paradise againe? doe they not beleeue just with Iouinian; that it is of no greater merit, to liue a professed Virgin, then to liue maried, sauing that they are so much worse then Iouinian [Page 253] vvas, as to deny the best Christian to haue any merit at al, by any state or vvorke soeuer? Be they not secondly wel assured in their owne opinion, that the Deuil cannot subuert them, and put them by their places in heauen? doe they not thirdly, in proper tearmes teach with Iouinian, that fasting is no more acceptable to God then ea­ting? And they that hold one simple justification common to al, without any kinde of merit, must needes consequently hold, that al in heauen haue the same reward; vvhich was the fourth point of Iouinians heresie. They then be so formal Iouinians, that they can­not deny it; but are driuen to maintaine,M. Abbots Page 56. that Iouinian vvas a right honest man, and vnderstood Paul better then any of them al: Hie­rome with al his Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin, was no body in com­parison of him. But what say they then to Augustine, Lib. 2. Re­tract. cap. 22. another pro­fessed aduersary of that Iouinian? who stileth him for his ignorance joined with impudency, and for the lewdnesse of his doctrine, a ve­ry monster: And further telleth vs, that the old holy Church of Rome, did most faithfully and most valiantly, resist him and his er­rours. So did also that most graue and holy Bishop S. Ambrose, Ambros. lib. 3. Epist. 81. vvith many other worthy Prelates his neighbours; condemning Iouinian and his complices for false teachers. Besides, he is yet fur­ther ranked in the rew of damnable Heretikes by the ancient, lear­ned, and Godly Authour Vicentius Lyrinensis: In Cōmonit. cap. 15. neither can the Pro­testants name any one approued authour, for a thousand yeares af­ter his daies, that held him for any better; And yet such goslinges doe they make of their followers, that they must rather follow Io­uinian, then Hierome, Augustine, Ambrose, and the old Church of Rome, and vvhatsoeuer else. He that wil take no warning, but longeth to be gulled, let him hardly hearken vnto them.

In like manner doe they vphold the Heretike Vigilantius: Hieron. cont. Vigilant. Who denied the Relikes of Martirs to be worshipped, and waxe candels to be lighted before them at noone day: and said; That whiles we liued we might one pray for another, but no mans praier after his death wil helpe any other Out of vvhich it followeth euidently, that it is in vaine to pray to Saints, that can doe vs no good. Thirdly he taught: That they did better who vse their owne goodes, and doe of their reuennues giue peece-meale some-thing to the poore, then they that sel al away, and giue it al at once to them, and become Monkes and Religious. Fourthly, That Clergie men should marry. For these points expresly, Vigilantius was [Page 254] reproued by S. Hierome, as an vnpure and an vngodly Heretike; and in one nights worke, vvas so taken downe, and (as it were) crushed in the head, that he neuer after durst once quack or reply one word. S. Hierome is therein also seconded by Gennadius, a fa­mous Authour of a thousand yeares standing, and by S. Thomas of Aquine with others, without any contradiction at al, vntil Luthers vnhappy daies: And yet the Protestants his disciples, hauing put on their brazen faces,M. Abbots Page 68. doe not only paraleel and equal him, but al­so preferre him before S. Hierome, one of the best learned among the Christians, that liued since the Apostles daies. M. Abbot very shamefully saith;Page 67. that Hierome himselfe commended this Vigilantius for a holy Priest: And to make his lie the more luculent, he puts it in the superlatiue degree, sanctissimum. S. Hierome doth indeede commend one Vigilantius, for a holy Priest: but were there no more of that name besides that wicked Heretike, whom he calleth rather Dormitantius then Vigilantius? Are there no more Abbots but one? any man that hath but halfe an eie, may see if he wil view that E­pistle, that S. Hierome spake there off a farre honester man then the other was, whom he calleth neither sanctissimum nor sanctum; but a man replenished with an vncleane spirit, Hieron. cont. Vigilant. very vnlearned, and more fit to keepe an Ale-house, then to serue in the Church. To returne then to my purpose: vvhereas he can be no true Catholike, (according to S. Augustines rule and the common opinion) that beleeueth any one point of heresie;Ad Quodvult. In fine. The Protestants doe hold nine points of heresie, condemned in three notable Heretikes, Aërius, Iouinian, and Vigi­lantius: And that so openly without any kinde of cloaking or co­louring, that they are compelled to defend the authors themselues for honest men, who notwithstanding by the verdict of al appro­ued Antiquity, lay condemned as vvicked Heretikes, for more then a thousand yeares togither.

Now I wil proceede to some of the rest of their erronious opini­ons, which though they imbrace, yet they dare not defend the au­thours of them for godly men; but with vs doe condemne their authours, though they vphold some of their errours. It is noted by the blessed Martir Ireneus, that one of Simon Magus errours was; That men were saued by grace, Lib. 1. cont. Haeres. c. 20. and not for good and just workes: the Pro­testants agree with him in this, that saluation and heauen are not gi­uen for good workes. For though they teach that good vvorkes [Page 255] be necessary, as signes and fruites of our faith: yet they wil not in any case, admit them to be any cause of saluation, but make their justifying faith, the only and whole cause thereof, by which they fal also into the heresie of Eunomius, related by S. Augustine in these vvordes. Eunomius is reported to haue beene an enemy to good workes, August. ad Quodvult. Haeres. 54. so farre forth, that he auouched the committing of what sinne soeuer, and the continuance in the same, to hinder no man, so that he were a partaker of that faith which he taught. Doth not the new deuised faith of Protestants, giue them the like assurance of saluation, though they be no lesse sure to commit and to continue in mortal sinne, euen vn­til their dying day?

The Nouatians were branded for Heretikes,Euseb. 6. Hi­stor. cap. 35. Socrat. 1. Hi­stor. cap. 7. Zozom. 1. Hi­stor. cap. 21. by the best Hysto­riographers and other approued authors of the auncient Church: for denying Priests to haue power to forgiue some sort of the more hainous crimes. Our Protestants exceede the Nouatians therein: for they hold that Priests haue no power to pardon any sinne at al either lit­tle or great, but only to pronounce them absolued, for the satisfa­ction of the congregation. And M. Abbot doth vpon meere sur­mises, goe about very ignorantly to colour their deceit;Page 187. in saying that the Nouatians denied absolution, not from any sinnes, but on­ly from the sentence of excommunication:Ibidem. for both Socrates and Sozomene doe affirme in plaine tearmes, the Nouatians to haue taught; that it lay not in the power of a Priest, but in God alone, Illud genus peccati ignoscere; To pardon and forgiue that kinde of sinne. And againe, That hope of pardon was not to be expected of the Priests, but of God who could remit sinnes. And there is no mention of any sentence of excommunication pronounced against them; but that the offendours through the enormity of their sinnes, had depriued themselues of the benefit of the Priests absolution. And because M. Abbot saith yet further, that Nouatus denied absolution to one only kinde of sinne, let vs heare how formally that most graue Do­ctor S. Ambrose hath 1200. yeares before confuted him: these be his wordes: The Nouatians say, Ambros. de Poenitent. cap. 2. that excepting some of the grieuous sinnes, they doe giue pardon vnto the lighter offences. But S. Ambrose replieth thus: So did not Nouatianus the authour of your errour. For he held that penance was not to be injoyned to any sinne at al, vpon this consi­deration: that he would not binde that which afterwardes he could not loose; least by binding, he might put them in hope of loosing. Therefore [Page 256] doe you condemne the sentence of your owne Master, because you put that difference betweene sinnes, that some of them may be forgiuen; and other some you thinke remedilesse. But God maketh no such distinction, who hath promised his mercy vnto al, and hath giuen licence vnto Priests, to pardon without any exception. Obserue how directly that auncient Father doth crosse our new Masters, in witnessing; that both No­uatianus himselfe denied Priests to haue power to pardon not only the greater, but any sinne at al: And on the other part, that God gaue vnto Priests authority to pardon al sorts of sinnes, without a­ny exception of the most grieuous.Hieron. [...] E­pist. de erro­rivus Mōtan. Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 43. Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. Guido de la­cobis cap. 2. The Montanists also as I re­hearsed before out of S. Hierome, did jump with the Nouatians in this point. Afterwardes (as heresies in tract of time grow more formal) about the yeare of Christ 600. there sprong out of that corrupted roote, certaine lewd impes called Iacobites, who did teach in terminis, That it was not necessary to confesse our sinnes to a Priest, but it would serue to confesse them only to God: Doe our Prote­stants differ from them any one jote therein?

That the Manichees among many other errours, did deny Free-wil, al Antiquity doth confesse: The same doe the Protestants, though not altogither after the same manner, nor vpon the same groundes. For the Manichees denied freewil aswel to sinne, as to doe vvel:Aug. 1. Re­tract. 15. & de duobus na­turis, cont. Manich. for they dreamed that there vvas in a man both a good soule (which they supposed to be a part of the good God); and an euil soule descended of the nation of darkenesse: Out of the forci­ble operation of the one of these two soules, they imagined al good and badde deedes of man to proceede, vvithout the free choise or consent of his owne wil. M. Abbot craftily, to cleere their party from the infamy of the one branch of the Manichean heresie, doth deny that they doe agree with them in the other. True it is, that the Protestants doe not deny vs free-wil to doe euil, as the Manichees did: yet doe they agree with them in the other part, attributing the vvhole vvorking of good vnto grace, as the Manichees did to the good soule, without any free choise or consent of ours. And albeit S. Augustine in refuting them, doe most cōmonly insist vpon their denial of liberty to doe euil,In disput. cōt. Fortunatū, in act [...]s cum Foe­li [...]e, cap 12. as being the more euident & eminent absurdity: yet doth he in sundry places intimate, that the Mani­chees held it absurd, to affirme that we had free wil to doe good.

The Donatists vvere of opinion, that the visible Church of Christ [Page 257] was perished in al other parts of the world, and only remained vndefiled in those coasts of Afrike, where their heresie bare the sway, August. ad Quodvult. & alibi. and vvere therefore by the verdict of Antiquity, declared blinde Heretikes. The Protestants as obstinately and more blindly doe auouch, that the visible true Church was for 900. yeares togither, banished out of the world, and was of late restored from that long exile, by Friar Luther and his followers; and doth yet remaine only vndefiled in those corners of Europe, where their new Gospel doth domineer: they are therefore in that point Donatists.

It was a very preposterous & shameful inuention of the Arrians, (yet of necessity imbraced afterwardes by other Heretikes) to ap­peale from the judgement of their spiritual Pastors, vnto the lay Magistrate: thus writeth S. Ambrose of the Arrian Bishop Auxentius. He being brought vnto an exigent, doth flie vnto that suttle tricke of his predecessours, to draw vs into the Emperours displeasure; Orat. tertia cont. Auxen­tium. affirming that he (being but a young-man, and a Nouice in the faith, ignorant also of the holy Scriptures, as commonly other Princes are) must notwith­standing in his Consistory determine this Ecclesiastical cause: so did the Donatists appeale from the judgement of Bishops vnto the Emperour, Epist. 48. & 162. Lib. 3. cont. Iulian. cap. 1. as witnesseth S. Augustine; And so the Pelagians would haue done, if they could haue preuailed therein, as the same most graue Father hath also recorded. And is not this (as it were) the foundation and shot­anker of al the Protestants superstitious proceedinges?

Another rotten twigge of the same Pelagians heresie it was,Aug. de Pec­cat. & Merit. lib. 1. cap. 9. To deny children to be purged from original sinne by baptisme, attributing that rather to a couenant, made long since to old father Abraham; most lear­ned Protestants be of the same minde: And al of them agree vvith Proclus the condemned Originist,Epiph. Hae­res. 64. vvho taught Original sinne to be so in seperably joined with our mortal bodies, that til death it is not cleare­ly purged of it.

The Antidicomarianitae (that is,Epiph. Hae­res. 78. enemies of the blessed Virgin Mary) were scored vp for Heretikes, for denying that most holy Mother of God to be worshipped and honoured: yet doe the Protestants stifly maintaine the very same errour.

Iconoclastae (that is, such men as denied the Images of our Sauiour and his Saints, to be set vp in Churches, yea that brake them downe and cast them out thence) vvere by 600. Bishops assembled out of al partes of Christendome, inNicenum Concil. 2. a general Councel adjudged Heretikes: [Page 258] vvhat be then our Protestants?

If I would descend lower, I should light vpon Berengarius, the great Grandsier of those, that deny the sacred body of our Sauiour to be really and substantially in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar: but because he liued not much aboue 500. yeares agoe, I doe here stay, and demand: vvhat proper points of doctrine can be left vnto the poore Protestants, if al these articles condemned in the forenamed Heretikes, were taken away from them? Remoue from them the errours of the Antidicomarianitans, Iconoclasts, and Vigilantius; and you shal bereaue them of their inuectiues against praying to Saints, and honouring them, their Relikes and Images. Loose them from the chaines of that vile Arrian Aërius; and they vvil ceasse to raile a­gainst offering of Sacrifice, and praying for the faithful soules departed. If they would shake handes and depart from the Nouatians, they vvould immediately giue ouer to speake against confession of our sinnes to Priests. If they could be cleansed from the muddy dregs of Iouinians loose and lewd opinion, then vvould they blush to pleade so earnestly for the marriage of Priests, and other religious persons: And be ashamed to affirme it, to be as acceptable to God to feede our rotten carcases, as to fast; and to solace them with the company of a yoke-fellow, as to liue continently. Their new doctrine about original sinne, free-wil, and the merit of good workes, should fal to the ground; If they vvould once giue ouer to participate therein with the Originists, Manichees, Eunomians, and Simon Magus. Vnty them from the yoke of Donatists, and they vvil fol­low no longer a scattered vncertaine and inuisible congregation; but shal happily returne vnto the vnity of that Catholike Church, vvhich hath alwaies beene visible, and hath spred her branches al the vvorld ouer. Finally, strippe them off that paradox and ab­surd position, borrowed from the Arrians, Donatists, Pelagians, and many other Heretikes, That (forsooth) the temporal Prince and lay Magistrate, is supreme judge in Ecclesiastical causes; and you vtter­ly vndoe them, spoiling them of the only assured proppe and pil­lar of al their religion.

Now the case thus standing, that most of the articles of the Pro­testant faith be such old reproued errours, if too too many be found so destitute of al grace, that they wil neuerthelesse wilfully cōtinue stil in them, and most obstinately defend them til death, though it [Page 259] cost them hel fire for their paines; yet my trust in Gods infinite bounty and goodnesse is, that many considerate and religiously disposed people (being more careful to please God then men, and more vvilling to looke vnto the saluation of their soules, then the preseruation of their goods) wil now at length vpon this faire war­ning, preferre light before darknesse, and approued verity before condemned heresie. They cannot but remember that vvhich is e­uery Sonday read in their owne seruice, out of Athanasius Creede: Vnlesse they hold the Catholike faith entire and whole, without violation of any one article off it, they shal without doubt perish euerlastingly. Of the same judgement was that very juditious Doctor, and most vi­gilant Pastor of Christes flocke S. Augustine, who hauing numbred vp many of the same, and such like heresies, doth conclude thus: Whosoeuer holdeth any one of these, he shal be no Catholike Christian. Ad Quod­vultdeum, In fine. Woe then be vnto al Protestant Christians, who beleeue not one or two of them and the like, but more then twenty of them togither; the whole frame of their new Gospel, being principally reared and grounded vpon nothing else, as hath beene euen now verified. I hope then, that many of my most deare Country-men, wil (by the forcible working of Gods grace) giue eare vnto the holsome coun­saile of that most reuerend, holy, and prudent Father S. Ambrose, Ambros. lib. de Fide. ca. 1. vvho forewarneth al Christians; To stand vpon their guarde most watchfully, and in no case to suffer such pestiferous and venimous errours to be powred into their soules or sences: one droppe whereof (saith he) wil infect and poyson the pure and single Tradition of our Lord, and his holy Apostles.

That which followeth in the first part of M. Abbots booke, be­cause it is nothing else, but as it were a flourish and light bickering against some such points of doctrine, as are afterward in their due places seuerally and more largely discussed; I wil remit vnto their proper Questions, there orderly to be handled vvith the rest of the same kinde. I wil here before I end this part, touch two extraor­dinary matters, which cannot without great digression, be taken into other Questions. The one is, my mistaking of Proclus an He­retike, for Methodius a most Catholike Bishop, as M. Abbot affir­meth: the other, of my discouery of a great secret of the Papists conspiracy against his Majesty.

These be my wordes of Proclus.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

ONE Proclus an enormious Originist, taught that sinne was not taken away in baptisme, but only couered, as it is recorded by Epiphanius: Haeres. 64. M. Perkins affirmeth in like manner, that it remaineth stil in the regenerate, though it be not imputed vnto them.

ROBERT ABBOT.

Page 49.HERE M. Bishop vnwares, hath sheathed a sword in his owne side, citing vnder the name of Proclus the Heretike, the vvordes of Methodius a Catholike Bishop, against the heresie of Proclus. He saw in Epiphanius, Sequuntur verba Procli, Here follow the wordes of Proclus: and his lips hanging in his light, he could not see but that al the discourse following, was the wordes of Proclus; vvhereas the wordes of Proclus are but a few lines in the beginning, and then followeth by Methodius, a large confutation thereof. Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth, that this authour did teach the same that M. Perkins doth: it followeth therefore by his owne ac­knowledgment, that our doctrine is approued by Methodius Bi­shop of Tyrus, and also by Epiphanius.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

I Cannot wel perceiue, how M. Abbots ignorance may serue him for a sorry excuse of this foule ouersight; else I would rather im­pute it thereunto, then charge him (as I otherwise must needes doe) with very shamelesse audacity. I know that he would not be estee­med ignorant, and he seemes to haue read both Proclus and Metho­dius vvordes; but he jumbleth them togither as though they were owne text, though they stand in seueral diuisions with Epiphanius, and some of them foure or fiue great leaues from the other. And yet me thinkes, he should not be so simple and shallow witted, as to haue read them both ouer, and not to discerne vvhere Proclus speech endeth: for Epiphanius doth most distinctly point out the beginning and the end of Proclus discourse, with such a beginning of Methodius confutation of it, that any man vnderstanding the Latin tongue, and enjoying the right vse of his eyes, cannot choose but perceiue it. For Epiphanius hauing (vnder this title: Now follow the wordes of Proclus, which Methodius doth also rehearse, as he had done before the words of Origen) put downe Proclus discourse at length, doth at the end of it make a distinction, with this admo­nition: Sequuntur deinceps ipsius Methodij verba, Now follow the [Page 261] wordes of Methodius himselfe; thitherto then vvent the vvordes of Proclus, wherein al M. Abbots helpe and reliefe is comprehended: therefore Proclus the heretike by his owne acknowledgment is his authour, and not Methodius the Catholike Bishop. Againe, the ve­ry beginning of Methodius discourse (if there were not so distinct a seperation and admonition of Epiphanius set downe) vvould con­uince, that al before vvas Proclus discourse, and that there he first beganne his owne: these be his vvordes. Cùm igitur vix desijsset Proclus, &c. Therefore when Proclus had scarce finished, and the au­ditory was long silent, as very much inclined to giue credit to Proclus speech: I seeing them so stil, beganne to lift vp my head faire and soft, and to take breath as men at the Sea vse to doe after the tempest is past; and trembling as some-thing Sea-sicke (for I must needes confesse my selfe to haue beene strooken with the vehemency of his Oration) I turne my selfe to Auxentius and say. O friend, it was not in vaine said by the Poët: If two goe joyned togither, for our aduersaries be two; wherefore I craue your helpe in this combate, that we may be also two to resist them, least that Aglaophon armed with the perswasiue speeches of Origen and Proclus, doe wrest out of our handes the true resurrection. Goe to then, let vs range our battaile against their sophismes, nothing appaled at those encounters, wherewith the feareful are daunted: and so goeth on with his pream­ble, preparing towardes the confutation of Proclus. And being ready to giue the on-set, asketh his partner Auxentius vvhether it please him to beginne: Vtrum igitur (Auxenti) tu huius viae dux esse velis, and ego praecedam? Whether wil you be the guide of the way, or shal I goe before? Who answered him, That it was meete because he beganne the speech, that he should also march before. Goe to then (saith Metho­dius) let vs for our part examine that matter euen from the beginning for­ward: hitherto Methodius. Doe not al these circumstances most e­uidently conuince and demonstrate, to him that is not more then poore-blinde, that vnto the beginning of those his speeches, Pro­clus former Oration continued? note the vvordes, When Proclus had scarce made an end. Againe, Methodius would not beginne to contend against two, that is, Origen and Proclus, til he had gotten Auxentius to joine his forces vvith him, that they might be two to two. Moreouer, after many other complements, Methodius would haue had Auxentius to haue made the first sally forth, and to haue giuen the first charge vpon Origen and Proclus, vvhich he refusing [Page 262] to doe, Methodius beganne. Now let any man judge, whether my lips hanged in my light (as M. Abbots ciuility lead him to speake) or whether his soare eies rather, vvere not strangely distempered, that he could not see Proclus discourse to haue lasted vntil that re­ply of Methodius; being so distinguished by Epiphanius, and by such apparant signes of distinction marked out by Methodius him­selfe? If neede vvere, I could proue by the coherence and corre­spondence, of the beginning and ending of Proclus speeches, that they lasted not only for a few lines in the beginning, as M. Abbot fa­bleth; but vntil the end of fiue ful leaues. For Proclus purpose was to proue, That the Resurrection could not be in the substance of this mortal body, wherein we liue; which (saith he) cannot remaine for euer without change and be immortal; but the Resurrection must be in a spiri­tual and immortal body, which yet should haue the same outward shape and proportion that our mortal bodies haue, euen as Origin hath taught: This I affirme to be the opinion and proposition of Proclus; where vnto M. Abbot also consenteth. Now this very same is his conclu­sion fiue leaues after, where he endeth his discourse, vvith a fond comparison of our mortal bodies vnto a beasts-hide filled vvith vvater. Which skinne (saith he) though the water be often changed, doth neuerthel [...]sse remaine like it selfe; so (saith that wise authour) though that which vnder a mans outward shape and forme, doth increase and diminish and be often changed; yet the outward forme it selfe of a man, alwaies continueth one and the same. Then doth he concludeful soundly; That like as now when the body is not the same, yet the same shape of outward proportion, is alwaies preserued: Euen so in the Resurre­ction, the same body in inward substance not remaining, notwithstanding the same outward forme shal remaine increased to a greater glory, and shal be shewed (saith he) not in a corruptible, but in a spiritual body, free from al corruption, like to that of IESVS himselfe in his Transfiguration: then concludeth thus. These thinges hitherto are thus to be considered: And this is in briefe the sentence of Origen. Doe you not see, how the same that Proclus propounded in the beginning vvith Origen, the same he concludeth in the end? vvherefore, al that whole discourse be­tweene those places was his owne, and no word in it of Methodius. Yea, he addeth after the conclusion (because he had made mention of Christes body in the Transfiguration) an objection out of it a­gainst his owne opinion: That as Christs body did rise againe with the [Page 263] same flesh and bones it had before; Euen so should euery other Christian mans body doe. Nay (saith he) not so: for Christs body was not concei­ued in sinne as ours are, but of the holy Ghost and of a Virgin; but our bo­dies are sleepe, pleasure, and filth: and therefore (according to the say­ing of wise Syrach) to be deuoured of wormes, and consumed: So that to the very last vvordes before (Now follow the wordes of Methodius) there is no signe of a confutation, but a plentiful confirmation of Proclus errour, vvhich was; That the same body of ours, accor­ding to the inward substance of it, shal not rise againe in the gene­ral resurrection, but only according to the outward shape. Now, one reason among the rest, that moued that doating Originist to beleeue, that the same body of ours in substance should not rise againe, was forsooth: That original sinne had so infected this body of ours, and was so fast riuited or rather incorporated with it, that it could neuer be cleansed and ridde cleane out, vnlesse the body also it selfe, were vtterly destroied and extinguished with it: vvhich he assaieth to con­firme with that sentence of the Apostle (so common in the Prote­stants mouthes) There is not in me (that is, in my flesh) any good. Now to the Minor proposition of Proclus: but in the Resurrection there must be a pure body, most cleane from al contagion of sinne; where­fore not this body of ours (which cannot be without sinne) must needes be vtterly consumed, and a new spiritual body framed. This was one prin­cipal foundation of Proclus enormious opinion, in which the Pro­testants jump with him; that whiles this body of ours liueth, sinne is neuer rooted out of it: It may be (say they, as also Proclus there said before them) checked or cropped in vs, or not imputed to vs: but it cannot whiles we liue be cleane purged and rooted out. Finally, this ve­ry argument of Proclus, which M. Abbot would father vpon Me­thodius, is in the ensuing discourse of Methodius towardes the end crossed and confuted: vvhere he teacheth out of the same Apostle, That by the law of the spirit of God, and through the vertue of Christes grace, that sinne which was in our bodies, is condemned to death; that is, ouercome, vanquished, and killed.

These arguments taken out of the most material circumstances of this discourse (as of that which goeth before it, and doth imme­diately follow after, with the principal assertion in it self, set downe both in the beginning and ending of it) must needes perswade a­ny indifferent reader, that M. Abbot vvas wonderfully carelesse of [Page 264] his credit, to thrust out such an impudent assertion, so contrary to al likenesse of truth, that any man that wil but haue the patience to reade ouer so long chapters, may most easily discouer the falshood of it. One poore colour M. Abbot found out to deceiue himselfe and others, that it was no continuation of Proclus speech: Because (forsooth) Proclus seemeth to confute Origens exposition of the coates of skinne, which God made for Adam. Origen tooke them to signifie this body of ours; Proclus not so, but only to notifie the same bodies to be then first made mortal: but this shadow of a reason is so simple, that it vvil not fray a babe. For it often falleth out, that the scholler of an erronious teacher, vvil not vvholy agree with his master; but though he follow him in the maine point of his doctrine, yet he vvil haue some one tricke or other of his owne aboue him: so Pro­clus, albeit he stood stoutly to Origen, in the denial of the Resurre­ction of the same body in substance, vvhich was the head contro­uersie; yet did he dissent from him in the exposition of the coates of skinnes, vvhich was but an appendix to the other. But this proues not Proclus discourse to be that of Methodius; nay it plainly disproues it: for Methodius giueth a third interpretation of those skinnes, differing from both the other, vvhich is also farre more litteral then the other two; to wit, That the skinnes were made by God for our first parents, to couer their nakednesse, and to keepe them from the cold.

To conclude this Section; seing there be so manifold great and plaine reasons against M. Abbot, and he hauing no better shelter for his surmise, then that silly shift vvhich you haue heard, of the diuers interpretation of the skinnes; seemeth he not to be past al shame and vvorthy to be thrust into an Asses skinne, that hereupon takes an occasion to insult against me, as though he had gotten a mighty victory?Page 52. these be his wordes. Now where were M. Bishops wits, that could thinke that these were the wordes of Proclus? Surely be read the place very early in the morning, before he had his ful sleepe; or late after supper, when he should haue beene in bedde; or else he borrowed them from some of his Masters the Iesuites, who make as little conscience what they say, as he doth. We must be content with such stuffe as he can yeeld vs: The broker can afford no other wares, then he himselfe had receiued of the marchant. See how pleasant and plentiful the man is, vpon very smal aduantage, nay vpon no aduantage at al; but only vpon the [Page 265] displaying of his owne grosse ignorance, or too too great ouer­sight. I am so farre off, from taking this vpon the bare report of others, that besides the diligent reading of the Latin translation of Epiphanius, I haue looked also into his owne Greeke text: vvhere I finde the same distinctions. First, Proclus wordes with this title, Proclou tou Autou; the wordes of Proclus himselfe: and after them an entire continuation of the same, vvithout any signe of interru­ption, for more then foure ful leaues. And then in another distinct seperation, Loipon tou Methodiou, the rest, or that which followeth is of Methodius. Betweene which two partitions, al the discourse is of Proclus owne deuise, out of which M. Abbot draweth for their defence some sentences; and being ashamed (as good cause he had) of such a shameful Patrone, he vvould gladly haue fathered that badde discourse vpon Methodius, a reuerend Catholike Bishop: see, and wonder at the blinde folly of Protestants, that blush not to maintaine Heretikes opinions very stoutly, and yet are ashamed of the name and company of the Heretikes themselues. Either let them hardly auouch those authours vvorthy to be respected, im­braced, and followed; or else hartily and happily giue ouer, for­sake, and detest those their damnable opinions, which made them vnto al holy and learned Antiquity, exceeding odious. Other­vvise they maintaining the very selfe same errours, must needes in the end proue vnto al vpright and wel vnderstanding men, in like manner infamous; and be no lesse hated and auoided of al good Christians, then their founders and masters vvere before them. Thus farre of Proclus the Originist, vvhom M. Abbot would by a strange metamorphosis, haue transformed into Methodius an aun­cient Catholike Bishop.

Now I come vnto his 34. Section, vvhere to trounch me, and vpon occasion of my speeches to traduce al English-Catholikes, he powreth out a foule turbulent flood, of vaine and currish elo­quence. These are my vvordes vpon which he runneth a very rude and jarring descant.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

AND when they shal see no hope of remedy, the state being settled,Page 225. and a continual posterity like to ensue, of the same nature and con­dition: God knowes, what that forcible weapon of necessity may con­straine and driue men to, at the length.

ROBERT ABBOT.

IN this period, M. Bishop thought to shew himselfe a politike wise-man, and contrary to his owne expectation,Who told him so? al his fel­lowes condemne him for a foole: they had but one special secret amongst them, and he hath plaid the part of Tom-tel-trouth to re­ueale it. What M. Bishop? are you such a blabbe, that you cannot keepe your owne and your fellowes counsel, but must needes out with it? And had you no other body to whom to discouer it, if you must needes so do [...], but thus bluntly to blunder it out to the King? But be of good cheare man, let not this discomfort you too much, satisfie your friendes, and assure themWhich they esteeme as much as of a straw. vpon our word, that vve knew your mindes before, we knew you were no changlinges, but vvhat you haue beene, the same you continue stil:God be thanked his tongue is no slander. trecherous, falsharted, faithlesse, waiting but for time and oportunity if power vvould serue, to compel his Majesty to your order. The state is now settled (youI said not so, but when they shal see &c. say) and a continual posterity like to ensue of one nature and condition. O this is it that grieueth you, this is it that maketh you gnaw your tongues for anger, and to fare like men at their wits end, that know not what way to take. The vnsettlednesse of the state, was the common trappe wherein they catched men, to be de­uoured of the Pope: vvhat a trouble is it now for you to cry out? O spes fallaces! O false and vaine hope!

WILLIAM BISHOP.

THIS light scoffing inuectiue of his, most fit for the grauity of such a jolly Preacher and a Doctor, I would haue buried in deepe silence, as vnworthy any serious answere, had he not al his booke ouer beene glansing and girding at those few vvordes of mine, as though they contained no lesse then high treason; hud­ling also vvith them many odious imputations, and spiteful slan­ders of vs and our doctrine. The discreet reader wil (I hope) beare with me, if I doe answere the man some-what sutable to his owne stile. The general scope of my Epistle was, to moue his Majesty to fauour the Catholike religion, at least to mitigate the rigour of his Highnesse lawes enacted against Catholikes. Among sundry other reasons which I produced to that purpose, it was one; to in­sinuate an inconuenience that might happen to follow, vpon the seuere execution of the said extreme penalties: vvherein I cannot conceiue, how M. Abbot should thinke that I meant to shew my [Page 267] selfe a more wise politike man, then in the rest; vvere it not that I finde him commonly to mistake matters very grosly, or else to speake by contraries. For who almost, is so little acquainted with the dispositions of great states, but that he knoweth, how they de­sire rather to heare of present applaudites, praises, and congratula­tions, then of any future perils, troubles, and disquietnesse? wherefore this infelicity is esteemed by the vvise, to be linked with the flourishing and most fortunate place of Princes; that they shal find very few ready to admonish them of things distastful, vvhich may happe rather to ingender melancholy, then to purchase any com­modity: most men being very couetous to winde themselues into their good liking (from vvhom descend so many promotions and profits,) by presenting vnto them pleasant and delightful objects. It had then rather beene a point of humane pollicy, to haue abstai­ned from the mention of such an vngrateful matter, and to haue tendered only pleasing arguments, as M. Abbot and his pew-fel­lowes are wont to doe; gaping after preferments, temporising, and accommodating themselues to their humour, that say: Loquere no­bis placentia. Neuerthelesse, he is not presently to be condemned of presumptuous folly, much lesse to be holden for a disloyal sub­ject; vvho out of his duty to his soueraigne, care of his countries good, and affection towardes men of his owne religion, doth in time and place, put his Prince in minde of a mischiefe, which may fortune to arise out of some seuere course intended: or else al loy­alty, and true fidelity, were to be banished out of the Court and Country. This then should in equity and due construction, haue rather beene wel taken, as proceeding at least from a good mea­ning, then either to haue beene scoffed at, or drawne vnto a most odious signification?

But my fellowes (saith M. Abbot) doe condemne me for a foole and a blabbe, because I haue reuealed the only special secret, that lay hidden among them. I maruaile what fellowes of mine he is so familiar with­al, that he hath their opinion at his fingers ends so perfectly. But giue him leaue to faine of my fellowes what him list, so that he wil stand stoutly to his owne assertion; That this is the only secret that li­eth hidden amongst vs, and that there is no other to be feared then this, vvhich I haue here vttered. This purgation of ours procee­ding from so bitter an aduersary, may serue to conuince himselfe [Page 268] and his fellow Preachers, of a thousand slanderous lies, coyned by themselues or by men of their owne sect, and then thundered out of their Pulpits, as strange projects of the Papists. But the Lord be praised, I neede not craue any pardon of my fellowes, for the disco­uering of this deepe secret of ours: for the courteous and comfor­table Gentleman M. Abbot himselfe, vvil on his true vvord quite cleere me of it. In what sort I pray you? Marry (saith he) it was no secret at al, but aswel knowne vnto al Protestants, as the moone-shine is in water. Now good Sir, though you haue made me not a little beholding vnto you, for freeing me from so mighty an imputation of a foole and a blabbe: yet you must giue me leaue to admonish you in the Lord, that it becomes not a man of your coate, so sodainly to crosse and contradict himselfe. First you say, that I bluntly blun­dered out the only special secret amongst vs: and shortly after you say againe, that it was no secret at al. The Apostle saith, that in al his preachings there was not to be found, It is, and it is not, that is, he did not first affirme any thing, and afterwardes deny the same: And in another place affirmeth,2. Cor. 1. vers. 17. Gallat. 2. vers. 18. If I build that which I destroied be­fore, I make my selfe a preuaricatour. But M. Abbot that vvas vvont to speake out of the Apostles affection, now cleane forgetting his rule, and being more mindful to display the colours of his retho­rike, then to marke what he himselfe said; in one period flourish­eth vpon one thing, and in the next inlargeth as freely vpon the flat contrary: he must therefore by the sentence of S. Paul, be ta­ken not for a true Preacher, but for a false cosening Preuaricatour. Let any indifferent reader judge, what credit one may giue to his vvordes, when it is so apparant, that he not only maketh no con­science to misreport me, my fellowes, and al sort of authours; but also cares not greatly to giue himselfe the flat lie, vvithin the com­passe of few lines, so he may make a faire shew of a number of vaine wordes.

True it is, that we Catholikes are no changlings in matters of faith, and in rite of Sacraments. The same vvhich our fore-fathers and eldest ancestours, imbraced and held euen from the Apostles daies; that, and no other, doe we inuiolably obserue and maintaine vnto this day: And what is taught among vs in one country for matter of faith, the same is generally receiued, by men of our religional the vvorld ouer. We be not (God be thanked) herein like the [Page 269] Protestants; who, as though they had taken their name of Proteus, are as changeable in articles of faith, as he is fained to haue beene various in the transforming of his countenance: In Germany be­leeuing one thing, in Heluetia another; at Geneua turning the third way, in Holland vvandering the fourth. How many coun­tries they infect with their new and prophane Gospel: so many di­uers professions of faith, and distinct formes of Church gouerne­ment they haue. These changlinges that are so farre degenerated from their predecessors piety, and doe disagree so much one with another: Yea; that doe in the same country often chop and change their owne religion; are of al constant Catholikes to be auoided, as vnstable and wauering soules, caried about with euery blast of new doctrine. But concerning dutiful obedience vnto the Prince, vvho is Gods Lieutenant general in temporal causes, Catholikes if they be com­pared to Protestants, wil be found an hundred times more loyal and constant: vvhich point because I haue touched in my answere vnto M. Abbots Epistle in the beginning of this booke, I neede not here againe handle it at large. And although some men of our re­ligion, haue now and then (as fraile and sinneful creatures) forgot­ten their duty both to God and their King: yet they haue beene so few, and that so seldome in comparison of the Protestants, that for one of ours, more then a thousand of theirs, haue within this hun­dred yeares failed therein; though we be in number, a thousand of our religion for one of theirs, if you take al Christendome ouer.

And albeit the state seeme now to be settled against the religion of our fore-fathers, and not vnlike so to continue, vntil it shal please God of his infinite mercies to alter and amend it; vvhich notwith­standing (as al the faithful know) may be very shortly, because his diuine power is infinite, and no man able to resist his vvil: yet we shal be by the assistance of Gods good grace, so farre off from biting our tongues, or the lip either thereat as M. Abbot fondly imagineth; that vve wil rather pray to God to open our lips, and to loose our tongues to magnifie his holy name, that he hath giuen vs that true Christian happinesse and honour, not onlyPhillip. 1. vers. 28. to beleeue a-right in Christ IESVS, in these daies of infidelity; but also to suffer disgrace, and to sustaine persecution for the constant profession of his holy name, and only true Catholike, Apostolike & Roman faith. They who make profession of religion to please the Princes of the earth, [Page 270] to heape vp honours and to rake riches togither, haue great cause of griefe, when they finde themselues therefore by the present state discountenanced, impouerished, and vtterly rejected: But others vvho know our blessed Sauiour as al Christians ought to doe, and the true honour, vertue, and riches of his Crosse; doe more regard of his loue, yea of one good looke of his, then of al earthly Kinges countenances, fauours, and preferments: And doe make a higher estimate of bearing his Crosse after him, and of suffering persecu­tion for his glorious name sake, then of al vvorldly ease, honours, and commodities; Imitating therein that generous and most noble minded Moyses, Hebr. 11. vers. 25. Who chose rather to be afflicted with the people of God, then to haue the pleasures of temporal sinne, esteeming the reproach for Christ greater riches, then the treasures of the Aegiptians. It doth not therefore so much trouble vs, to behold the state settled against the Catholike religion, for our owne temporal interest; who haue thereby so manifold occasions to mortifie our euil passions, to flie the temptations of the wicked world, and to endeare our selues vn­to our most louing redeemer. But very great sorow and continual sadnesse of hart haue we to consider, that Christian religion first planted in our country, and euer since vntil our fathers daies most constantly continued, is now banished thence; and with it al ho­nesty of life, al good and charitable dealing with our neighbour, is vtterly decaied and banished out of the City and Country: And in place thereof, swearing, and forswearing, drunkennesse, disho­nesty, and al manner of deceit and knauery, openly practised, countenanced, and without blushing professed. That the goodly, faire, and stately Churches (built by our Catholike Ancestors, for Catholike assemblies at the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, and for the due administration of the holy Sacraments, and true preaching of Gods word) be now prophaned and turned to places of disho­nouring of our soueraigne Creatour, and of seducing his poore creatures. That the famous Vniuersities and other Schooles foun­ded for instruction principally of Catholike doctrine and deuo­tion, be now made shops of new errours, loose manners, and im­piety. Vpon these and such like spiritual considerations, finding our poore country depriued in manner of al Gods blessings, and our deare country-men made slaues of the Deuil, and fuel for the flames of hel fire; vve Catholikes are exceeding pensiue, yet doe [Page 271] vve not therefore fare like madde men, nor gnaw our tongues for anger, as M. Abbot scornefully vvriteth: but doe in bitternesse of soule most earnestly pray vnto the Father of mercies (in vvhose handes are the harts of al Kinges) to inspire our dread soueraigne King IAMES, and the Lordes of his most honourable Councel, vvith the true knowledge of his sacred vvil and word: and to kindle in them so feruent a zeale of the Catholike Roman faith, as that they may imploy those very rare and singular gifts of nature, arte, and experience, which God hath plentifully powred vpon them, to­wardes the reclaiming of our country from the new prophane he­resies, and most wicked conuersation of these miserable times, vn­to our Ancestours sound faith, sincere honesty, and most charita­ble, and vpright dealing: (This chiefly is the heape of our heaui­nesse, this is al the harme vve wish them, this is al the treason that can be justly laid to our charge.) That vvith the aboundance of such honour and prosperity as this vale of misery affordeth them, they might also be heires of eternal happinesse, glory and felicity. And albeit for this inestimable heauenly blisse, vvhich we most hartily desire vnto our natiue soile and best beloued country, we be stiled a thousand times traitours, and euery way vsed most vn­kindly; yet we shal not surceasse by Gods grace to pray for them continually, vvho doe day and night persecute vs: yea ouer and besides, be ready also by the assistance of the same his grace, not only to bestow our best and most seruiceable daies to doe them good; but also the dearest bloud in our bodies, if it shal please our blessed Sauiour so to dispose of vs.

And is it likely? that men thus by the grace of God affected, should cry out (as M. Abbot malitiously surmiseth) O fallaces spes! O deceitful hopes! doth he not here rather notably discouer the base­nesse and corruption of his owne mind? as exceeding far dissenting from the right temper and disposition of a sound and noble Chri­stian, who should be nothing daunted, for seing the worldly state settled against him; because our great Master Christ hath assured vs of that long before hand, saying:Iohan. 15. vers. 19. If the world hate you, know yee that it hated me before you. If you had beene of the world, the world would haue loued her owne: but because you be not of the world, but I haue choosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Re­member my word that I said vnto you, the seruant is not greater then his [Page 272] Master: If they haue persecuted me, you also wil they persecute. Had not M. Abbot fouly forgotten this vvorthy lesson, vvhich Christ willed al his so wel to remember, when he imagined that there was no other remedy, but that we must needes teare our tongues for an­ger, and fare like madde men, when we saw the state setled against our religion and vs? If he had not beene such a mercinary tempo­rizer, that esteemeth the highest and greatest happinesse of Priests and Preachers, to consist principally in the fauour of great perso­nages, in fat benefices, and bodily pleasures; he would neuer haue thought (much lesse haue vvritten) that the settling of the state a­gainst vs, was like to cast vs into such a desperate & bloudy agony. S. Paul surely vvas of a farre other minde, vvhen he exhorted the Thessalonians, not so much as to be moued in tribulations:1. Thessal. 3. vers. 3. For your selues know (saith he) that we are appointed to this; as if he had said, it is incident to the true state of a good Christian, to liue in the disgrace and hate of worldlings. Vndoubtly then, M. Abbot was greatly ouer-seene, vvhen he supposed the discountenance of the state to be able to put good Catholikes to their vvits end. May he not therefore be saluted with these wordes of S. Iames? Iacob. 4. vers. 4. O adulte­rers (O base and bastardly minded Ministers) know yee not that the friendship of this world, is the enemy of God? Whosoeuer therefore wilbe a friend of this world, he is made an enemy of God. Let them there­fore, that preferre the frienship of this vvorld before the fauour of God, esteeme as highly as they list of worldly cherishings and pre­ferments: we by the helpe of Gods grace, wil be so farre off from tearing our tongues, so long as they please to persecute vs; that we wil rather (after our blessed Sauiours counsel)Math. 5. vers. 12. rejoice & be gladde when we be reuiled vntruly, and persecuted for his sake: For howsoe­uer our good meaning and desert be mistaken in earth, yet therefore very great shal be our reward in heauen. Finally, leauing the falsenesse and vanity of hope, vnto them that by pleasing worldly men seeke after vanity and false felicity, and vvho are not vnlike so to fare (as M. Abbot vvriteth) if according to their badde deserts, they were by our Sauiour Christ whipped out of his Church: we Catholikes following the Apostles instruction,Rom. 5. vers. 2. Doe glory in the true hope of the glory of the Sonnes of God. The testimony of an vpright con­science, is to vs here as it were a continual banquet: And the assu­red hope vvhich we haue, to enjoy hereafter the perpetual glory [Page 273] of Gods deare Sonnes in his heauenly Kingdome, doe yeeld vs more quietnesse of minde and true harty joy, in one day, then most of the Ministers receiue by their worldly prosperity, al their liues long.

ROBERT ABBOT.

AND now that there is no hope of remedy, God knowes (you say) what that forcible weapon of necessity may constraine and driue men to at length. Behold the faire flowers of his sweet eloquence. False Traitor, Base fugitiue: doest thou take vpon thee to threaten thy Prince? vvhat? of a preaching Priest haue we now a Herald at armes, if he cannot perswade religion, to denounce warre? is this the Catholike religion that you commend to vs? did Peter and Paul deale in that sort, to tel Princes that if they would not giue them way, God knowes what that forcible weapon of necessity might constraine and driue men to at length? vvas this the language or stile of the first Church? but what doe I aske you of Peter and Paul, or the first Church? God knowes they are stran­gers to you, and you to them, you loue to talke of them, but little doe you care to be guided by them. The first Church could say to their Persecutours:Tertul. A­polog. ca. 37. If we would deale with you not by secret reuenge but by open enmity, doe we want thereto either number or strength? we are foraigners to you, and yet we haue filled al places of yours; your Citties, Ilands, Castles, Boroughes, meeting places; your Tents, Tribes, Bands, Pallaces; your Senate and Court: what warre were we not fit for, though vnequal in power, who so willingly yeeld our selues to be slaine? but that with vs, more tollerable it is to be killed, then to kil. And so Augustine speaketh thereof: That the Citty of Christ, August. de Ciuitat. Dei, 22. cap. 6. albeit it had troupes of mighty peoples, yet did not fight for temporal life, but for the obtaining of eternal life: It did not resist; their fighting for life was nothing else, but for their Sauiours sake to despise life: thus they were able to rescue themselues and their religion; yet no forcible weapon of necessity could moue them to rebel, & to take armes against them by whom they were oppressed. And this was then thought to be the proper condition of the faith of Christ.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

FALSE Traitor, Base fugitiue, &c. Faire wordes courteous Sir, if not for honesties sake, yet for the honour of the Ministery. This man (to say the least) was surely some passionate vvomans sonne, he is on the suddaine so mutable into strange passions. [Page 274] This passage he beganne grauely, playing both the Polititian and Prophet; then counterfaiting an ouer-kinde Proctour, he cleareth me of that I neuer offended in, though he there-with condemned himselfe of forgery: so fast a friend vvould he then needes shew himselfe to me. And presently after, vpon no other occasion but the very recital of the same vvordes againe, he is in a moment so transported vvith choller, that he seemes to fare not much vnlike one of those sober fellowes in Bedlem, that haue their heads bound vp in a clout, and crieth out, false traitor, base fugitiue. Can I then in better fashion encoūter him, then with these verses of graue Seneca.

Pone vesanos precor,
Animi tumores, teue pietati refer.
Asswage I pray you the swelling waues of your minde.
Recouer your wits, and stray not so farre out of your kinde.

Gentle Sr. Robert, if you please to pacifie a little your distempe­red humours, you shal not only auoide the obloquy of the vveake bretheren, that may hap to be scandalized, to behold so sage a re­puted Doctor, and sober Preacher, to let flie such base and barba­rous vvordes: but hauing purged your braines from the foggy mistes of those grosse exhalations, you also shal be able to discerne more clearely what my wordes signifie, for you haue not forgotten (I weene) the old verse: Impedit ira animum, ne possit cernere verum. Wel then, supposing that vpon this faire admonition, you be waxen for the while more calme, and contemning the indignity of that vile tearme (base fugitiue) as most vntrue; because (God be thanked) I was neither basely borne, nor euer any fugitiue or turne-coate: Let vs patiently examine, where this treason lieth, that he speaketh off; and what those threats be, where-with I menace my Prince. These be al the wordes I wrote: God knowes what that for­cible weapon of necessity may constraine and driue men to at length. Is there in this sentence any one sillable that soundeth of treason? or sauours of any vndutiful demeanour towardes his Majesty? doe I perswade, counsaile, or encourage any reasonable creature to take armes against my King and Country? nothing lesse: for I only in­timated to my soueraigne Lord himselfe, that it was not in mans judgement vnlike, but that vpon the seuere execution of those ri­gorous lawes enacted, some ouer-great inconuenience might hap­pen to ensue. And my humble Petition vnto his gratious H [...]ghnesse [Page 275] to preuent the same in due season, doth without further purgation, sufficiently cleare me with al vnderstanding men, from the impu­tation of any such thing, if it should chance to follow.

Neither doe my wordes in any ordinary construction, insinuate any deepe secret hidden amongst vs; (as M. Abbot vvauering like a vveather-cocke first affirmeth, and after denieth:) but doe de­monstrate a certaine feare of mine owne, grounded, not vpon any priuy plot then in hand (according to M. Abbots most malitious slander,) but vpon that common maxime knowne to al men: Durum telum necessitas; Necessity hath no law, as in plaine vvordes I then and there expressed. Which is also confirmed in holy writ: Multi propter necessitatem deliquerunt; Many men through necessity haue offended. This forewarning then giuen to my Prince, of some of­fence that might happen to be committed, if he out of his Princely clemency and wisdome, did not moderate the extremity of those lawes; vvas rather a loyal office performed to my King, then any kinde of encouragement to his subjects to fal into a mischiefe. And (which makes my wordes much more sufferable) I doe not affirme absolutely, that any euil at al would follow vpon that rigour; but say only, that God knowes whether it wil or no; leauing it (as it was vncertaine) vnto his Majesties more mature consideration.

Neither doe I talke of rebellion, or Herald-like denounce warre to my Prince; but barely insinuate, that it may procure some manner of mischiefe, one or another: And that rather vnto some headdy hot executioner of that seuerity, then vnto any other greater per­sonage; And that too, vvhen? what presently? not so neither, but at length (may driue men at length) that is after a long time, if the per­secution be stil followed. Which may perhaps not touch his Ma­jesties raigne, but be extended to a succeeding age. I then letting slippe out of my pen, but an vncertaine conjecture of some man­ner of inconuenience, which might at length, God knowes when, happen vnto some body: was there any sparke of Christian cha­rity, nay any spice of moral honesty in M. Abbot, thereupon to in­ferre that I like a false traitour did proclaime open warre against my King and Country?

Let it be duly also considered by the discret reader, that the pro­digious mistery of concealed and smothered iniquity, whereon he har­peth and vvarbleth al his booke ouer, is nothing else but his owne [Page 276] spiteful wresting of one poore line of mine. Doth not his great and often threats vpon so smal an aduantage, sufficiently witnesse; that he lacked not good wil, but conuenient matter to runne vpon, and therefore was gladde to snatch at any shadow? wel, the old Adage therefore must needes touch him to the quicke: Parturiunt montes, prodijt ridiculus mus; The mountaines were long in labour, at length they brought forth a ridiculous mouse.

And if it please you further to conferre this my sentence, with the assertions of the grand Rabbies of the new Sinagogue, you may better vnderstand, in vvhose bosomes lurketh the spirit of disloi­alty and rebellion.Luth. ad E­lect [...]. Saxon. & L [...]ntgra. Luther defineth, That subject to offend God very grieuously, that doth not for the defence of his religion, rise in armes a­gainst his Soueraigne. Lib. 4. E­pist. Zwing. & Oecolamp. Zwinglius declareth, That if the Emperor op­presse the Gospel, his people must by force of armes withstand him, or else they sinne as hainously as the Emperor himselfe. Caluin. in Daniel. ca. 6. v. 22. & 25. Caluin yet more hotly and impudently affirmeth, Those Kinges that goe about to sup­presse the Gospel, to be rebels to God, and vnworthy the name of men: And that their subjects, must rather spitte in their faces then obey them. I omit our owne countriman Goodman, vvho held his Princesse go­uernement to be monstruous: And Buchanan, and an infinite rable of such rebels, who in most cleare and plaine tearmes deliuer; that it is lawful for al subjects, to rise in armes against their Soueraigne, if he goe about to fight against God, and to supplant his holy reli­gion. These good-fellowes and their followers, may justly be sti­led Heralds at armes, that doe denounce open warres to al Kinges and Princes, that resist the errours and heresies of these new furious and madde Gospellers. As for me, I only (out of my bounden dutie towardes my King and country, and affection vnto men of mine owne religion) did humbly request his most excellent Maje­sty, to behold with the eie of pitty, and to weigh in the ballance of equity; vvhether the rigorous execution of such extreme lawes, were not like to driue some of his fraile impouerished subjects, vn­to desperation, and so consequently vnto some great inconueni­ence, if God of his infinite goodnesse and mercy did not preuent it. Why this manner of speaking should dislike Peter and Paul, or a­ny of the first Church, M. Abbot hath not shewed any shadow of a proofe, vnlesse outragious railing and reuiling, must needes stand in his plea for sound reasoning. He that wil make a true Christian [Page 277] interpretation of my wordes, shal finde them not to differ much in effect, from these vvordes of S. Paul; Ad Ephes. 6. vers. 2. Fathers prouoke not your children to anger: The reason whereof is, lest those children being put in passion, should forget their duty to their Parents, and there­vpon fal into some inconuenience. Euery good King is as it were, Pater patriae, & omnium subditorum pius parens: The Father of his coun­try, and the kinde Parent of al his people. My humble petition then vnto his Highnesse was, that he vvould out of his exceeding cle­mency towardes his people, mitigate the rigour of his lawes, and not suffer his subjects (who neuer had offended him) to be oppres­sed vnder the intollerable burden thereof, and thereby be moued to anger and indignation; lest that should breed ouer-great impa­tience, and so grow to a further euil: which is so conformable to the Apostles admonition, that he must needes be much troubled vvith passion, that cannot perceiue it.

Now to that which he saith, that this is a threat. If euery kind of signification of future danger, in how faire manner soeuer it be de­liuered, may be called a threat; then euery friend that in the kinde of disswasion mentioneth any such inconuenience like to ensue, must be taken no longer for a louing friend, but for an vnkinde menacer that vseth threats: which in al mens judgements that vn­derstand that matter, must needes be condemned for most absurd. My wordes then, vvere very absurdly noted for a threat, because they contained a certaine signification of some future incōmodity.

Now whereas M. Abbot demandes, Whether this were the stile of the first Church? and to disproue it, alleageth one sentence out of Tertullian, who albeit ancient, yet is he to short of the first Christian Church by two hundred yeares; and which is farre worse, he was no sound member neither of the same Catholike Church at al. I an­swere, that the first Church might haue vsed the like stile very au­thentically: for the Prophets inspired by the holy Ghost, vttered farre more rough speeches to their Kinges, vvhich are vvarranted for loial and dutiful subjects in the holy Scriptures, and therefore may be very lawfully imitated. I wil omit the wordes of that Pro­phet, who annointed4. Reg. 9. vers. 7. Iehu King of Israël: And of the Prophet Ahias vnto the3. Reg. 14. vers. 12. Queene Ieroboams wife, because they are excee­ding sterne and boisterous, and fit not our purpose. Let that milde Iudge and Prophet Samuël his speeches to King Saul be scanned, [Page 278] vvho being one of Saules best and most louing subjects, yet was bold to tel him to his face:1. Reg. 13. vers. 24. That his Kingdome should rise no fur­ther: Ibid. ca. 15. vers. 23. And that God had chosen another man to be gouernour of his people: And that God had cast him off, and that he should not be King no longer. If some flattering Parasite standing by, vvould therefore haue challenged the Prophet Samuēl for a false traitour, that durst so boldly menace his King, with no lesse a punishment then depri­uation from his Kingdome; had he not beene a fit patterne of M. Abbots patience? that Prophets admonition, as any man may see, vvas exceeding vehement and plaine in comparison of mine: yet I rehearse it, that my reader may see, how the best subjects may without touch of disloialty, admonish their Prince of some euil hanging ouer their heades. Nathan the Prophet his wordes come nearer to my purpose: he tooke it to be no treason, nor any point of disloialty, to tel his Prince (vvho was no meaner a personage then that most puisant and holy King Dauid,) plainly and roundly;2. Reg. c. 12. That the sword (that is, bloudy strife and contention) should not depart from his house and progeny for euer: That God would raise vp out of his owne house, euil against him. What? is this holy man of God to be stiled a false traitor for his labour? is he of a Prophet become a Herald at armes, that durst threaten his Prince with open warre and rebellion? either he must be taken for such a disloyal person, or else I that doe not approch neare vnto the sharpnesse and round­nesse of his wordes, am most wrongfully burdened therewith. But let vaine men either of malice towardes their aduersary, or of flat­tery to their Prince, spit out their venim, and barke against inno­cents neuer so currishly: yet his most excellent and milde Majesty, wil I doubt not, rather imitate that holy and noble King Dauid, vvho tooke it in very good part; then lend his Highnesse gentle cares vnto such venimous declaimours, that care not how vily and vvrongfully they gal and slander their aduersary. To conclude this point, if the very nature of disswasion (according to the ap­proued rules of al men that write thereof) doe allow me to signi­fie that inconuenience in such modest sort as I deliuered it: if the same be also fortified by the examples of men inspired vvith the holy Ghost, and warranted by the record of Gods word; was not M. Abbot in a frantike humour (trow you) when he burst out so fu­riously against it? vvas he not strangely transported with blinde [Page 279] malice al his booke ouer, when as in euery Section thereof almost, he glanseth and girdeth at this, as if it were some horrible bugge-beare and hainous crime.

Now I come to Tertullian and S. Augustines wordes, vvhich we receiue with reuerence and great approbation. For first, We wil­lingly yeeld our selues to be slaine for our religion, and thinke it not on­ly more tollerable (as Tertullian speaketh) but a thousand times more honourable, to be killed in that holy quarrel, then to kil or slay any man: Yet vvil I be bold to say, if I should haue vsed the like vvordes, I doubt not, but they should haue beene much more racked and tor­mented, then those which I vttered. For [...]f I had said as Tertullian did: If we would deale with you, not by secret reuenge, In Apolog. cap. 37. but by open en­mity, we want neither number nor strength; what warre were we not fit for? &c. vvho sees not, but such a quarreller as M. Abbot is, would haue taken that straight for a terrible threat indeede, and for an o­pen denouncing of warre? We moreouer, like very wel of S. Au­gustines discourse, and doe accordingly exhort al Catholikes, va­liantly to contemne this transitory life, for the obtaining of eternal life. See our Epistles of comfort to the afflicted Catholikes, and other like Treatises written to that purpose: you shal not finde one word in them, incouraging any man to seeke remedy thereof by taking armes, but to indure patiently vvhatsoeuer it shal please God to permit the state to lay vpon them, vntil it be his holy vvil to re­dresse it. And though this be our accustomed stile, when we write or speake to our afflicted bretheren: yet pleading vnto my Prince in their behalfe, I might very dutifully remember his clemency, of the ordinary mischiefe, which too too commonly waiteth at the heeles, vpon ouer-much seuerity. Neither was S. Augustine when he counselled al men to patience, ignorant of that vprore vvhich happened at Millaine in his owne time or not much before, euen a­mong the best affected subjects, for the defence of S. Ambrose, a­gainst the Emperour his Soueraigne. The like shortly after hap­ned at Constantinople, in the behalfe also of their most glorious Patriarke S. Iohn Chrysostome, against the Emperour Archadius. Now, albeit none of these most holy Bishops, vvould haue had their flocke taken armes in their defence, but misliked that as much as any other: yet no question, but that they might very vvel with­out suspition of disloialty, haue humbly requested the said Empe­rours [Page 280] to haue vsed more lenity in their proceedings, for feare of such an after-clap. And he that should therefore haue stiled them either false traitours, Heralds at armes, or menacers of their Prince; vvould of al sober men haue beene esteemed to raue, rather then to injoy the right vse of his vvits. Let it be then vvel waighed, vvhether M. Abbots case be not the very same.

Now to that which followeth.

ROBERT ABBOT.

VVHERE vve are to note the singular impudency and impie­ty, of the Traitour Father Iesuit; who seing the example of the first Christians, to be contrary to their practise now, colou­rably mentioneth it, and by meere falshood seeketh to auoide and shift it off.Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7. That Christians (saith he) of old deposed not Nero, Iulian the Apostata, Valens and such like: the cause was, for that they wanted power, and if they had had power they would haue done it; directly con­trary to that which they themselues testifie of themselues: That they had power sufficient, but held it vnlawful to rebel. And thus here the young Crabbe, goeth according to the gate of the old Crabbe; and telleth his Majesty, that if they can get strength, they wil per­force winne that, that his Majesty by entreaty wil not yeeld: And biddeth him in effect,Ibidem. looke for the practise of their rule; If Prin­ces goe about to turne the people from the Roman faith, by al their con­sents they may, and ought to be depriued of their Dominions.

WILLIAM BISHOP.

HERE we are rather to note the ignorance shal I say, or impu­dency of a shamelesse railing Minister, that catcheth at al oc­casions to cauil at our doctrine, how little congruity soeuer there be in the coherence of his owne speeches: for smal reason had he, to leape from my wordes of so modest signification, vnto those of the right famous Cardinal Bellarmine, vvith which they haue no affinity or resemblance. For I only insinuate an inconuenience that may proceede, out of the frailty and corruption of some impatient men: vvhereas he seemeth to teach what may be done vpon good aduise justly. And that you may vnderstand the vveakenesse of M. Abbots judgement, vvho would make the Cardinals wordes directly opposite to Tertullians doctrine, obserue; that they be not so contrary, as he (through the fault of his soare eies) doth mistake them. For Bellarmine saith not, that Neroes and Iulian the Aposta­taes [Page 281] subjects, and such like, would haue deposed their Princes if they had had power: But that they might lawfully haue so done. Now if you marke wel Tertullians vvordes, he seemeth not to dissent much there-fro: For (saith he) with vs it is more tollerable to be killed, then to kil. Out of vvhich wordes it may rather be gathered, that he held it also tollerable for those Christians, to make warre against their persecuting Emperours; though he thought it more tollera­ble to endure euen death it selfe, for their religion. Neither can I perswade my selfe, that the Cardinal meant that of Heathen Prin­ces, ouer whom the Church hath no power to judge; but of such Princes only, who had before made profession of the faith, and therein promised obedience vnto Christes Spouse the Church, as he doth there in his fourth reason declare expresly. Now I enter­meddle not at al, with any such question: vvherefore, he too too crabbedly and crookedly, doth resemble things so vnlike togither.

That which followeth in this his Section, is but a most mali­tious exaggeration of their hainous crime, that plotted about the gunne-powder-treason: of which I haue spoken so largely in my answere to his Epistle (vvhere he first enforced it) that I neede not now againe stand about the confutation of it. He after his old man­ner dilating his lies, maketh it not only a common conspiracy of al Catholikes in England, but addeth: That it was also the effect of a consultation held at Doway; but when, or by whom, he cannot wel tel, I weene. For al the Kinges Majesties most learned Councel, hauing vsed al the diligence, that vvas possible for men to doe, to bolt out al the complices and circumstances of that most odious enterprise, could tel no tidinges of any such consultation held at Doway, as al the records thereof doe testifie. Was it not then great pitty, that they had not sought vnto this holy Minister, for their better instruction in so waighty a businesse, who could haue giuen them greater light therein, (as he seemeth to insinuate) then al the world besides? Marry if one should appose him, how he came by the knowledge of that secret, he would answere (I trow) that he had it by reuelation, from the spirit that possesseth his hart, to wit, the father of al lies, that old Serpent and calumniator Sathan. Out of whose false figures, he hath taken this more then Poëtical fiction which followeth in his text: O, if the Protestants (saith he) had vsed any such practise in France, in Spaine, or any where else, what hidious [Page 282] noises and exclamations would these men haue raised there-vpon? how would they haue traduced our religion? how would they haue bent al their force, withal extremity to extirpate vtterly, not only the persons guilty, but al that carried the name of that profession? vvhat a sencelesse and most wicked fiction is this? most wicked, for that it would enforce the slaughter and vtter ruine of many thousands of innocents and guiltlesse persons, for the guilt of a dozen offenders. For he saith, They would vtterly roote vp, not only the guilty, but al that are of the same profession, how innocent soeuer: And no lesse sencelesse is the same his assertion, and repugnant to most euident truth. For in France, (vvhich is the first country that he doth giue instance in) the Protestants haue not only plotted and gone about, but haue put in practise, and actually done the vttermost of their power, to depose, and ouerthrow, and ruinate, not only their lawful King, and most of the bloud Royal; but also the Catholike Peeres, Princes, Dukes, Lordes, Gentry, and Yeomanry, Clergy, and Laity. To the effecting vvhereof, besides their owne strength, and the helpe of their neighbours, they called into the bowels of their owne country, two mighty armies of Germans, with helpe vvhereof, they haue sacked many a noble Citty, Castle, and Towne; and blowne vp most stately Churches, and other faire buildings, vvith fire, gunne-powder, and Cannon-shot. They haue rifled, spoiled, and ruinated many great Prouinces of that goodly Country: they haue cruelly butchered, slaine, and beene the cause of the vnjust death, of many hundred thousands of Men, Women, and Children; as not only their owne Hystories testifie, but many thousands of yet liuing eie-witnesses can verifie. And notwithstanding al this mischiefe really acted and done, be al that beare the name of that profession, vtterly extirpated and rooted out of that country therefore? nothing lesse: nay they haue not only tolleration of religion, but free exercise thereof, openly al­lowed, and graunted them. Was this man then wel in his wits, or did he know what he said? vvhen he preferred that horrible con­spiracy of the gunne-powder-treason, before al the enormious crimes of Protestants, both in France and al other countries? or vvas there euer such a shamelesse writer as M. Abbot, that blusheth not to set out in print, such monstrous and notorious lies; that in falshood exceede al fictions of Poets and Painters, and in malice [Page 283] doe match vvith any deuilish deuise whatsoeuer. Oh, into what lamentable calamity is our poore Country fallen, that must haue such cosening Companions, such false Hypocrites, and most im­pudent Liars, for the guides of their soules to saluation, and for the only teachers of al spiritual doctrine! Can any man that injoyeth the right vse of his senses, giue credit and trust vnto them, vvho make no conscience, but a cōmon custome to lie al manner of lies? nay such a one (if they be wise) they should not beleeue when he telleth them a truth, which they doe otherwise know. For Deme­trius Phaleius being asked what euil did follow a liar? Marry (saith he) that no man afterward beleeue him, when he telleth truth: And good reason, for how knoweth he, vvhether he doe not lie then, as he was accustomed to doe before? He therefore that wil be sure not to be deceiued, must neither giue credit vnto M. Abbot, vvho is plainely conuicted to haue told very many grosse and palpable lies. Any plaine honest man, must needes much maruaile to be­hold or heare, that he who maketh profession of Gods pure word, and the truth of the Gospel, should take such a special delight in lying; but he must remember, that al is not gold that glisters. Al be not true Pastors of Christes flocke that come in sheepe-skinnes. Al be not sincere teachers of Gods word, that take vpon them to be Preachers. And no one more assured touch of counterfaite coyne: no plainer proofe of a rauening vvolfe and false teacher, then such often and euident lying. For as God is the truth it selfe, and al his doctrine most true: so are they vvith truth alone to be vpholden and defended.Iob. 13. v. 7. What? (saith holy Iob) hath God neede of our lies, or that we should speake deceitfully in his cause? no verily: for the truth is strong enough of it selfe, to confound falshood; Fortis est veritas, & praeualet. But the Deuils cause it is, that nee­deth to be bolstered out, and vnder-propped with lies:Iohan. 8. vers. 44. For he is a liar, and the Father of lies. And without lying, no falshood can be deceitfully coloured, and made to appeare and seeme truth. He then that wil be fedde vvith lies, let him take the Deuil to his Fa­ther; and M. Abbot, or some other such like of his lying Ministers for his Master.

A certaine Minister being told, that M. Abbot was reputed much to blame, and very hardly censured by many discreet persons, for that he had vsed so much deceit and leasinges in his writinges; an­swered [Page 284] (forsooth) in his defence, that he could not bely the Papists and their cause, too much. What can be said vnto such shamelesse persons? surely nothing else, but that the new light of their Go­spel is now growne to his perfection; vvhen as the brochers of it doe not only vnder-hand colourably paint it out with lies, but are not ashamed openly to maintaine, that they cannot lie to much in that cause. O holy cause, that needeth the helpe of lies! But good master Minister, be better aduised I pray you, and rather hearken vnto the graue counsaile of the auncient Preacher:Eccles 4. vers. 26. Ne accipias faciem aduersus faciem tuam, & aduersus animam tuam mendacium; take not falshood (that is the face of the Deuil) against truth, (vvhich is the true face of euery reasonable creature made after the Image of God) and doe not admit lying against thine owne soule: Sapient. 1. vers. 11. For the tongue that lieth, killeth the soule. Yea, it doth not only kil his owne soule that lieth, but the others also that beleeueth his lies; blinding him with errors, and so leading him blindfold into hel fire:Math. 15. vers. 14. For when the blinde guideth the blinde, they both fal into the ditch. Wherefore good Sir, if you wil not yet a while, make open profession to cast away your owne soule vvilfully, and to leade al your followers af­ter you to eternal damnation; doe not for very shame, vphold and maintaine open lying. But if it be Gods good pleasure, that you your selues shal make kowne to the vvorld, that yee doe not only vse lying, but also defend it as lawful & necessary to vnder-proppe your badde cause: then my trust in Gods infinite goodnesse and mercies is, that the Moone-shine of your obscure Gospel, waneth a-pace; and the daies of your deceit, draw towardes an end. For howsoeuer you like iniquity and allow of leasinges;Psal. 5. v 6. God (as the Prophet Dauid teacheth) doth hate al them that worke iniquity, and wil destroy al them that speake lies: by bestowing vpon his faithful and prudent seruants, such heauenly light and grace, as they may easily discerne the juggling and false trickes of Protestant teachers.2. Tim 3. vers. 9. For not their folly only (as the Apostle speaketh) but their falshood also and trechery, are now sufficiently discouered and made manifest, vn­to al men of any reasonable capacity and study. Wherefore, al that haue tasted of the true gifts of Christes spirit, vvil follow them no longer, in their most dangerous and damnable courses; but fly as fast and as farre from such false Prophets, as poore sheepe doe from the jawes of rauening wolues, and with speede returne happily vn­to [Page 285] the only true fold of Christes flocke, the holy Catholike, Apo­stolike, and Roman Church: there to learne and imbrace that sincere auncient faith, and pure religion, vvhich only can saue their soules; and which being planted by Christ and his Apo­stles, hath euer since continued, and brought forth aboundance of diuine fruit al the world ouer. Which God almighty of his incomprehensible bounty, graunt through the inesti­mable merits of IESVS CHRIST our most gra­tious Lord and Sauiour: to whom vvith the Father and the holy Ghost, be al honour, prayse, and glory, for now and euer.

AMEN.

PRINTED ANNO DOMINI, M.D.C.VIII.

A BRIEFE ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.

I Haue hitherto set downe M. Abbots owne text word by word, that the juditious reader comparing it with my answere, may truly discerne vvhat substance is in his writing: And how farre forth he is to credit him in the rest, that hath in the first and best part of his booke, behaued him­selfe so insufficiently, in matter of learning; and dealt so dishonest­ly, in the manner of handling of it. There remaines behinde in this answere vnto my Epistle, some light skirmishes and vaine friuo­lous brauadoes, vpon those points of controuersie; which I in one sentence only touched in the same Epistle, excepting much foule speech, and many slanderous lies, which he plentiful powreth out by the way: in both vvhich masteries, I willingly leaue to him the bucklers. Now because those his discourses, are (as it vvere) scopae dissolutae, not arguments soundly knit togither, and set in any good aray, but a feeble, loose, idle, and disordered kinde of wrangling; besides also, the very same questions be afterwardes handled againe distinctly and particularly: I haue judged it farre better, to handle throughly euery controuersie in his due place, then first lightly to skimme them ouer in hast, as he hath done; and afterward like vnto one, that had either forgotten or ouer-shotten himselfe, to recoile and turne backe againe, to treate of the same matter more orderly and substantially: vvhich course I hope wil not be misliked of the wise. Take (courteous Reader) this that is already finished in good part: If thou finde any thing in it to thy liking, giue the glory to God: And if thou be Catho­like, helpe me vvith thy good praiers, that he who hath giuen me grace to beginne, may in­crease his blessings vpon me, to bring it to a good and per­fect end.

The end of the first Part.
FINIS.

COVRTEOVS READER, I must needes acquaint thee with a notable legerdemaine, which by perusing the Authour I found out, after the rest was printed. M. Abbot to proue that the Pope had no au­thority in Scotland 1200. yeares after Christ, auerreth:Page 117. that Alexander the second vtterly for-badde the Popes Legate to enter within his King­dome; which is not true. For his Authour Mathew Paris declareth:In Hērico 30 page 667. that the King indeede did at the first oppose himselfe against that visita­tion of his Kingdome, to be made by the said Legate: not for that he did not acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in those Ecclesiastical causes; but because it was needlesse, the matters of the Church being (as he said) in good order, and for feare of ouer-great charges. Nay further, the said King did write a large letter vnto the Pope himselfe, as the very same Authour recordeth: where he first acknowledgeth,In Hērico 30 page 873. that very person to be his Holinesse Legate, as wel in Scotland as in England and Ireland. Moreouer the King confesseth, that he himselfe, his heires and subjects, were and would be obedient vnto the Popes jurisdiction and cen­sures, with much more to the same purpose. Which alone is sufficient to conuince M. Abbot, to be so perfidious and without al conscience in al­leaging auncient Authours, that no man who wil not willingly be blindly ledde by him, can repose any trust in his allegations.

Good Reader beare with faultes in printing, which besides false poin­ting, be not many. The principal that I remember are these:

Page 169 line 21 For Constantius the fourth, reade Constantine the fourth; and so in al that matter following treating of Pope Agatho his obedience to the said Emperour. Page 170 line 32 though Emperour, reade although an Emperour. Page 186 line 21 for Concilij Praesidijs, reade Concilij Praesidibus. page 198 line 8 in the allegation of S. Leo, there wants in the mar­gent, the quotation of his 23. Epistle to Martianus Augustus, for the vvorship of Relikes. Pag. 213 lin. 27 for passed, reade possessed. pag. 261 line 25 for and ego, reade an ego. page 272 line 16 for Vndoubtly, reade Vndoubtedly.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.